Printable View
Know only one, GHB. If you do other drugs everyday your body just tries to keep up. GHB is nasty though, you can die of poisening as GHB is a drug you use naturally every day as it's build by your own body, body counters when it's suddenly gone. Other than that, no ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
GHB can be deadly to withdraw. I was actually thinking of another drug whose withdrawl kills for exactly the same reason. So much so that GHB is used to treat it's withdrawal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Being? If you say cocaine I'm going to cry, most harmless drugs everQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
No, not cocaine. Cocaine is certainly not harmless, but it's not potentially lethal to withdraw from.
And now for some unwelcome so-called "science", from those wacked out hippies at the Lancet:
http://download.thelancet.com/images...26.gr4.lrg.jpg
Well the thing is, for me to see a net positive, the positive effects have to be of the same magnitude not only more numerous than the negative effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
E.G. if it kills people then for a net positive it has to save (more) people from dying.
If it harms people it needs to save (more) people from being harmed or save some from dying...
etc. you get the idea...
So if some people die because of alcohol (which they do, without alcohol there would be less lethal car accidents for example, that's a fact or at least a very plausible possibility that is nearly a fact) and some get hurt (which is also as much a fact as the first statement, because some people do violent things they wouldn't do if they didn't drink alcohol) then alcohol has to save people from death in at least as numerous cases and if it did we'd have a net of zero... for a positive it had to save more people or, because I'm generous, show some other positive effect after we've reached zero... I hope you get what I mean
So, imo banishing alcohol, making it illegal would make things worse but if I had the means to make alcohol vanish from the world to never return I would probably do it...
EDIT: and just to clarify: I drink alcohol from time to time, there are some alcoholic beverages that I enjoy but I could swar an oath that I never got drunk but the problem is that some people cannot control their urge for this substance and thus they hurt/kill themselves and others and that just outweighs the benefit of me enjoying a drink. I can live without it.
I didn't say it was "noble", I said that alchohol content is somewhat coincidental in things like wine and beer, in the same way Caffine is coincidental in Tea, and coffee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Now who's using strawmen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Alchohol is the most widely used drug by a huge margin, so it is utterly unremarkable that is is the most abused as well. If you want to ban it though, go ahead.
I am not that bothered, I'll miss Otter Head but I'll live.
Anyone find it funny that crack cocaine was introduced because dealers could make more money freebasing cocaine and selling it then just selling it pure? The prohibition of cocaine introduced and made popular a drug that was twice as bad as the original.
Nonsense is it coincidental. How many people say that they 'can't function' until the first cup of the morning. Neither is it coincidental with alcohol. You need to persevere to aquire a taste for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
:laugh4: You think they haven't taken that into account? You are daft sometimes :) I don't want to ban anything. I think it's pointless. If people want to get high, then I don't see any point waging a moral campaign to stop them. Fill your boots.Quote:
Now who's using strawmen?
Alchohol is the most widely used drug by a huge margin, so it is utterly unremarkable that is is the most abused as well. If you want to ban it though, go ahead.
I am not that bothered, I'll miss Otter Head but I'll live.
SourceQuote:
Drug-related deaths in England and Wales 2000 to 2004
Cocaine 575
Amphetamine 384
Ecstasy 227
Solvents 246
Opiates (heroin, morphine & methadone) 4,976
Alcohol 25,000 - 200,000 approx.
Tobacco half a million approx
No, I don't believe they have. The simple reason being that if they had the net economic cost for heroin would be higher. Those stats obviously aren't weighted against usage per capita, if you want to prove that alchohol it more damaging, show me stats for deather per 1,000 users against heroin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I'd wager those numbers would change significantly. That being so, you have to demonstrate that legalisation would not increase use.
I know I said I was done, but obviously I lied. The burden of proof is on YOU. That being so, you have to demonstrate that prohibition is actually decreasing use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
They won't have a budget if their customers have a cheaper, legal way to purchase better quality drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The cost to manufacture and distribute through proper channels, when legalized, will undercut the costs of the smugglers. Rory probably knows better than I, but most illicit drugs can be manufactured quite cheaply. The UK ran a program for legalized heroin distribution to addicts years back, you can probably get the numbers from there. I'm not googling for smack info from work though. :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Deaths from drugs legalized would drop, for several reasons. Proper dosage information, no harmful additives to cut the product, and an overall safer environment to partake will make a difference, even if more people start using.
Distilled spirits is to beer what cocaine is to coca leaves. A more refined, concentrated version, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No it isn't, current law and the status quo are on my side. If you want to change the law you have to make a case, otherwise the law stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
If anything, the stats Idaho posted argue against legalisation, as alchohol is the most destructive currently, because it is most widely used, being both legal and readily available.
The question is not whether prohibition is "decreasing" use because prohibition is the status quo, so we would expect use to remain constant, and actually rise in line with population growth. The question is whether use will increase with legalisation and what effect this would have on society. Given that legal drugs are far more widely used than illegal ones it's safe to assume there would be some increase, and given that a lot of these drugs have much stronger effects on the body in smaller physical doses it's fair to say increase in use of, say, Crack or Heroin would be a bad thing with absolutely no discernable upside.
I could care less about current law and status quo as I'm not trying to lobby Congress to change the law through this message board. We are having a therotical debate about drug legalization. Just because there is a law saying drugs are illegal, doesn't make it correct nor the best idea about how to deal with our current situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long. For centuries, the vast majority of drugs were completely legal. Why all of a sudden are they illegal? Has this new chapter in history reduced use and benefited society? Well?
Constant per capitaQuote:
The question is not whether prohibition is "decreasing" use because prohibition is the status quo, so we would expect use to remain constant, and actually rise in line with population growth.
No it isn't. Like I said, prohibition is not the natural state of things.Quote:
The question is whether use will increase with legalisation and what effect this would have on society.
I wholeheardly disagree;society is smart enough to know the dangers of many current illegal drugs. People often will be too afraid to touch these substances. People who won't be won't care if they are illegal.Quote:
Given that legal drugs are far more widely used than illegal ones it's safe to assume there would be some increase
Like I said, I don't see an increase in use. You seem to ignored my earlier post about Portgual legalizing small amounts of heroin and the heroin use rates dropping by nearly 50% over 10 years. Can you actually provide statistics to support your argument? From the report I listed earlier, it seems you are wrong.Quote:
, and given that a lot of these drugs have much stronger effects on the body in smaller physical doses it's fair to say increase in use of, say, Crack or Heroin would be a bad thing with absolutely no discernable upside.
As for upsides, there are plenty. Addicts can now be open about their addiction and seek treatment without fear of landing in jail, families would not be broken up do a parent's/sibling's drug problem, we would save BILLIONS of dollars on a now futile attempt to stop the supply of drugs, etc to name a few.
It doesn't argue against legaliztion. The portion of the graph that is made by crime, would increase drastically if illegal. You want proof? See the 1930s in the United States.Quote:
If anything, the stats Idaho posted argue against legalisation, as alchohol is the most destructive currently, because it is most widely used, being both legal and readily available.
Take another look at Idaho's graph, alchohol scroes big on "injury" and "economic cost", look at some of the other factors - the eighting has been set in quite a specific way, mortality is obviously weighted quite low, and secondary social factors are weighted relatively high. If you gave a higher priority to dependence and drug-related physical and mental damage of the user you would get a different ranking.
I remember this study, it was undertaked to support decriminalisation, the graph is a result of the researcher's interpretations of the stats. A different but equally valid interpretation of those stats could produce different results.
As far as "prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long", I strongly suggest you read your history. Most societies have restricted substances and practices, always with a social objective in mind.
I don't follow. What does this have to do with the issue about crime I just spoke about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Most societies? Really? Are you willing to show me over 50% of societies that have existed supported drug prohibition?Quote:
As far as "prohibition isn't natural and hasn't been around that long", I strongly suggest you read your history. Most societies have restricted substances and practices, always with a social objective in mind.
It has to do with the issue of "social harm", I already covered the crime issue when I pointed to the black market in cigarrettes - if currently illegal drugs were made legal the black market would still undercut them and nothing would change, except dealers would be able to claim personal use on any amount and it would be harder to prosecute them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Most societies with legal codes, certainly. The Christian West pretty much always had Hash and Opiates on the no-no list (next time someone tells you medieval doctors had no form of anasthetic, give them a slap), and Islam proscribed alchohol. That's 100% of the Old World for most of the last thousand years or so. I'm sure if I looked I'd find the Greeks or Romans banning mushrooms or something similar, hell Homer put the evils of substance abuse into the Odyssey.Quote:
Most societies? Really? Are you willing to show me over 50% of societies that have existed supported drug prohibition?
No you didn't. I assume you are referring to this quote(?):Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
These kind of "enterprises" thrive usually due to theft and/or selling the product in a location that has extremely high taxes compared to cheaper jurisdictions. The former is not a matter of prohibition and the latter can solved by lowering taxes or colluding with the low tax jurisdiction to make sure the product is available at the same price everywhere. When prices hover around equilibrium, one can conclude that the buyer will prefer the safer and less shady method. Even with the current problems with the black market dealing with tobacco, how much money would these people be making if tobacco was totally illegal and they had a 100% share of the market?Quote:
Ah, Frags has you there. Look at the millions upon millions of illegal cigarettes that support organised crime in the West.
Please show me.Quote:
Most societies with legal codes, certainly. The Christian West pretty much always had Hash and Opiates on the no-no list (next time someone tells you medieval doctors had no form of anasthetic, give them a slap)
Depending on the ruler/kingdom, this varied.Quote:
and Islam proscribed alchohol.
Wow really? What about the Americas, Africa, and most of Asia? Furthermore, generalizing many groups of people over vast amounts of time isn't very convincing at all. Individual societies varied to a great extent. If you look to the more recent past, opium, cocaine, tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis were widely accepted and use all over the world.Quote:
That's 100% of the Old World for most of the last thousand years or so.
Knowing the downsides to drugs and outright banning them/enforcing the ban are two different things.Quote:
I'm sure if I looked I'd find the Greeks or Romans banning mushrooms or something similar, hell Homer put the evils of substance abuse into the Odyssey.
Well that's a challenge that's fairly easy to meet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Situation #1
UK - maximum sentence for possession of cannabis = 5 years
Netherlands - Cannabis available from 'licenced' cafe round the corner
Spain - small amounts legal to possess, next to the worlds largest producer of cannabis resin
Q. Which has the highest use per capita of cannabis?
Situation #2
America 1900 - 1920 (Legal Alcohol)
America 1920 - 1935 (Illegal Alcohol)
America 1935 - 1945 (Legal Alcohol)
Q. Which of these periods saw the highest levels of alcohol consumption?
Situation #3 was going to be about the relative levels of heroin use, and increases in usage in Britain under a heroin prescription regime in the 1960s, and now. And also about the same approach in reverse in Switzerland (they now prescribe, when previously they didn't). I know the data well enough to quote off the top of my head. From memory the evidence all pointed to prohibition increasing use.
It is not fair to befuddle spotless minds with information!Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
@Drone these facilities will have to be build first. You need permits first and probably a politician or two. construction workers etc. All of these affeliated can be terrorised and that will happen if you grow on these scales. And again why would you want to anyway there is just no good reason to do it.
@Idaho, answer is the country with the highest amount of binge drinking and teenage pregnancy. There just happens to be something deeply pessimistic there
Actual statistics would be more impressive than rhetorical questions. Though, in nswer to #1 I would note that the Netherlands has, I believe, quite a lot of Hash tourism which causes it's own problems. Hasn't there been a recent re-evalution of a lot of Duth Liberalism in view of increasing problems their relaxed stance has caused?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
In any case, the UK has endemic social problems, including large rural and urban underclasses living in poverty, falling job prospects, an economy which offers few opertunities to the unacademic and an unravelling social structure.... that makes it a poor comparison to countries like Switzerland in particular where the polity is relatively healthy.
We have the lowest cannabis use in Europe in factQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Tourist problems? It's one of Amsterdam's tourism drivers. The right ocassionally mutter about it, but there is no appetite whatsoever in the Netherlands to go to a full scale UK style prohibition. Having been in the city on a work trip last month, have smiling stoned tourists pottering around chatting and friendly is a hell of a lot more pleasant to experience than going through groups of drunk tourists. The Costa Del Sol and the Greek islands have the problem drug tourists - and it's British people on alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Oh dear PVC. Now you are saying that we aren't socialist enough like Switzerland and the Netherlands! You need to stop thinking so much. You might accidentally come to these wrong conclusions ;)Quote:
In any case, the UK has endemic social problems, including large rural and urban underclasses living in poverty, falling job prospects, an economy which offers few opertunities to the unacademic and an unravelling social structure.... that makes it a poor comparison to countries like Switzerland in particular where the polity is relatively healthy.
We still haven't had the answer to the two popular drugs that can kill you from withdrawal...
At least credit me for getting one. Let me guess the other is alcoholQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Switzerland isn't "Socialist" in the way UK Socialists think though, is it? You know full well that the Swiss (and Scandanavian) systems rely on a largely homogenous polity to function, Sweden is now suffering because immigration has upset the country's equalibrium to the extent that the Socialists are well and truly out. Once you have a reasonable functional polity you can start giving your citizens a greater level of support, but the UK idea of "Socialism" where central government throws money at the periphary is waste. End.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Well, the other one's alchohol, isn't it. Sheesh, did someone actually have to say that? You have to drink heroic quantities to get to that point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Replaced = different person. Who you're making friends with seems irrelevant at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Then we'll say that we disagree.Quote:
From your perspective yes. But in the mind of someone who has been a hermit all his life, never going outside to parties or hanging out with large groups of people, the only way they might mentally break themselves out of their shell is by reasoning that the alcohol might make them a different, perhaps cooler person. Otherwise they might just psych themselves out mentally to do anything sober.
This has a good chance of being true. But it probably depends on the individual and I guess in retrospect neither mine nor your conjecture should be applied sweepingly across all people. Some people might need it, some might not. I know a few in both categories.
What I am having in mind here, is a world where alcohol does not exist (never has, never will). Being the social creatures that humans are, they would still very much like to gather, like in the form of parties. The key here is that you cannot simply credit alcohol for things that happen when people are intoxicated. It would all happen - and does happen - without any form of intoxication. Some of the downsides, however, would not happen without alcohol; such as alcoholics, of course, but perhaps also DWI (that would of course depend on whether one would allow different sorts of drugs to exist in the thought experiment, and other things).Quote:
I guess I should clarify that it is not completely necessary for alcohol to enter the social equation here. But I do think that may, may people find it necessary themselves. I do think that it still has a net positive effect for various reasons that I can't put out as facts (for every drunken angry husband, how many socializing college parties are happening at the same time?).
Rather than focusing solely on the negative effects of alchol, I don't think that alcohol actually contributes to much good. It is more of an icing on the cake where it works positively.
Lets take out economic cost, community, and family adversities (if that means what i imagine it to mean which is how opposed they are to the users habit). These are all non factors to me. Economic cost alone is a huge chunk of alcohol. Looking at the graph as it is anyway you can see that heroin and crack are far more deadly drugs than any others except for tobacco which is a unique case really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Also look at the dependence numbers............... something is definitely far off on this graph. Your telling me it is easier to withdraw from things like meth and heroin than it is from tobacco? I'm sorry I know all the extensive propaganda regarding tobacco but come on thats ridiculous they dont have people going to rehab for cigarettes people go cold turkey all the time.