The Official (Not Official At All) Drugs & Alcohol Thread

[phan52]

Are there trees in your utopian worlds ?

So................ The legalization of mind altering drugs will make this a better country ?

And I will say it again, I need no facts too back up my feeling on drugs. I only need to look back at the hell they have put my family and many other families thru.

The devastation drugs cause now is not because they aren't legal !

I don't want to sound callous, but you are making your argument from a very narrow focus.  Remember, your problems occurred while drugs were illegal, so legalization was not the cause of your particular issues. Maybe with treatment and education instead of prosecution and incarceration, a lot of the devastation you cite could have been muted or even avoided.

Sorry for your pain, I hope that things work out for you and yours. But the impact of the illegal drug culture and the resulting failure and devastating cost of the War on Drugs far outweigh your personal issues. The fact that drugs are illegal DO cause the majority of the devastation.

[jusanothajoe]

I don't want to sound callous, but you are making your argument from a very narrow focus.  Remember, your problems occurred while drugs were illegal, so legalization was not the cause of your particular issues. Maybe with treatment and education instead of prosecution and incarceration, a lot of the devastation you cite could have been muted or even avoided.

Sorry for your pain, I hope that things work out for you and yours. But the impact of the illegal drug culture and the resulting failure and devastating cost of the War on Drugs far outweigh your personal issues. The fact that drugs are illegal DO cause the majority of the devastation.

Don't want to sound callous either. But saying making drugs easier to get means it will cause less addiction, dependence, family devastation, etc. is just plain stupid. That's like saying putting a never ending supply of food in front of someone with an eating disorder will make them eat less. Just don't work that way. The cost of the war on drugs was absolutely a ZERO factor in a member of my family using drugs. Her being able to attain drugs was a HUGE factor.

I am not calling you stupid. I think some of the arguments/excuses to legalize drugs are stupid.

No one will change my mind on this and I don't expect to change yours. just giving opinion, that's all. Agree to disagree.

[zipazoid]

I recall someone once saying - You want to make something popular? Ban it.

That's not to say that if illegal drugs were legal, that people would stop doing them. Certainly, their use would continue. But there is a school of public policy thought that says, legalize them all. Would more people get hooked? Less? Hard to say. But consider the mass of resources (police, courts, jails, probation officers) which would be freed up if that did occur.

Legal or illegal, people are going to do drugs. I think that's pretty safe to say...since we know people are using them illegally they surely will if they were legal. But our current way of dealing with the problem is to criminalize it & throw people in jail. That's obviously not working.

Unless some here think it is. If so, please elaborate on why you think the status quo is sufficient.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

I don't want to sound callous, but you are making your argument from a very narrow focus.  Remember, your problems occurred while drugs were illegal, so legalization was not the cause of your particular issues. Maybe with treatment and education instead of prosecution and incarceration, a lot of the devastation you cite could have been muted or even avoided.

Sorry for your pain, I hope that things work out for you and yours. But the impact of the illegal drug culture and the resulting failure and devastating cost of the War on Drugs far outweigh your personal issues. The fact that drugs are illegal DO cause the majority of the devastation.

Originally Posted by jusanothajoe

Don't want to sound callous either. But saying making drugs easier to get means it will cause less addiction, dependence, family devastation, etc. is just plain stupid. That's like saying putting a never ending supply of food in front of someone with an eating disorder will make them eat less. Just don't work that way. The cost of the war on drugs was absolutely a ZERO factor in a member of my family using drugs. Her being able to attain drugs was a HUGE factor.

I am not calling you stupid. I think some of the arguments/excuses to legalize drugs are stupid.

No one will change my mind on this and I don't expect to change yours. just giving opinion, that's all. Agree to disagree.

Well, as I said, I am sorry for your pain. But, yes, you are calling me stupid, and I have to say that you could never be objective in your assessment of the legalization of drugs. And that is understandable.

[jusanothajoe]

Well, as I said, I am sorry for your pain. But, yes, you are calling me stupid, and I have to say that you could never be objective in your assessment of the legalization of drugs. And that is understandable.

No, I did not intend to call you stupid. The way I said it may have came across that way, but not my intent. Stupid was probably a bad choice of words. (sorry)  just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not objective. Just will never see how legalizing  mind altering, addictive drugs is a good thing. Might as well sell oxycontin at the 7-11

PS. I can also have a good old fashion debate/argument without getting mad. Not directed at you. It's just when some people disagree

they get fighting mad.

[zipazoid]

Just will never see how legalizing  mind altering, addictive drugs is a good thing. Might as well sell oxycontin at the 7-11

I wouldn't call that a "good thing." It's more like degrees of bad.

It ultimately comes down to how do you deal with the realities of the situation? Drugs are here in massive amounts despite an over-40 year "war" on them. As I stated earlier, if this "war" was having any effect, you would think by now America would be a drug-free place. That it's not, and really, there's been no discernible drop in the availability of drugs, says that strategy is a complete failure.

So, let's try something else. And that something else doesn't have to be full legalization of everything . There's certainly a vast middle ground here. Start with legalizing pot. Continue with removing mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses. Also look at the 'Three Strikes' laws where, a person with two convictions would be locked up for 25 years if he had a joint on them.

We've been way over the top draconian with our drug laws. And the results are there - more people incarcerated in the U.S. than any other country in the world both in absolute numbers & percentage...and drugs are still prevalent.

It's time to stop being "tough" and start being "smart."

[phan52]

No, I did not intend to call you stupid. The way I said it may have came across that way, but not my intent. Stupid was probably a bad choice of words. (sorry)  just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not objective. Just will never see how legalizing  mind altering, addictive drugs is a good thing. Might as well sell oxycontin at the 7-11

PS. I can also have a good old fashion debate/argument without getting mad. Not directed at you. It's just when some people disagree

they get fighting mad.

Most people avoid the pitfalls that drugs and alcohol place in our way, but some can't. That is where treatment and education come into play. The money gained through legalization would more than pay for such programs. Face it, drugs are readily available, so we may as well have a system that controls them responsibly.

The bottom line is, should the government be telling you what is good and what is not good for you? If that were the case, tobacco and Big Macs should have been made illegal decades ago, but compromises are made to accommodate people who want to be free to indulge responsibly without hurting others.

[jusanothajoe]

Most people avoid the pitfalls that drugs and alcohol place in our way, but some can't. That is where treatment and education come into play. The money gained through legalization would more than pay for such programs. Face it, drugs are readily available, so we may as well have a system that controls them responsibly.

The bottom line is, should the government be telling you what is good and what is not good for you? If that were the case, tobacco and Big Macs should have been made illegal decades ago, but compromises are made to accommodate people who want to be free to indulge responsibly without hurting others.

Throwing money at it will not fix anything. If alcohol and tobacco were illegal now, I would feel the same way about them. Big Macs..........................that's a different story.

There is vey little about drugs that doesn't wind up hurting others in some fashion.

[14ledo81]

Big macs are not mind altering.. At least I don't think so..

[zipazoid]

Big macs are not mind altering..

At least I don't think so..

How do you feel before eating one then after? I would say your mind is altered.

But that's not really the point...or maybe it is. I could make the argument that Big Macs are "recreational food" like pot is a "recreational drug." I mean, you get hungry, but nothing says you have to slake that with a Big Mac...there are far healthier options. Just like there are far healthier options to dealing with stress than burning a fatty.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

Big macs are not mind altering..

At least I don't think so..

How do you feel before eating one then after? I would say your mind is altered.

But that's not really the point...or maybe it is. I could make the argument that Big Macs are "recreational food" like pot is a "recreational drug." I mean, you get hungry, but nothing says you have to slake that with a Big Mac...there are far healthier options. Just like there are far healthier options to dealing with stress than burning a fatty.

I have actually never had one.  That is why I put the "think"...  I would think ones mind would need to be altered beforehand in order to eat one......

Seriously though, I get your point about un-healthy things.  I do believe the government actually does regulate items that children eat at school, even in a home-packed lunch.

My point is the only person that can be hurt by the over-indulgence of Big Macs is the person eating it.  If someones mind is altered and they drive, who knows what could happen.

[Golfingdad]

I have actually never had one.

Smart man.

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Most people avoid the pitfalls that drugs and alcohol place in our way, but some can't. That is where treatment and education come into play. The money gained through legalization would more than pay for such programs. Face it, drugs are readily available, so we may as well have a system that controls them responsibly.

The bottom line is, should the government be telling you what is good and what is not good for you? If that were the case, tobacco and Big Macs should have been made illegal decades ago, but compromises are made to accommodate people who want to be free to indulge responsibly without hurting others.

Originally Posted by jusanothajoe

Throwing money at it will not fix anything. If alcohol and tobacco were illegal now, I would feel the same way about them.

I don't remember saying anything about throwing money at anything. But I am not at odds with you on that statement. We've been throwing money at it for year (war on drugs) to no avail, in fact to our detriment.

Quote:

Big Macs..........................that's a different story.

I am talking about it with regard to whether you want the government telling you what is good for you or not. There is no difference.

Quote:

There is vey little about drugs that doesn't wind up hurting others in some fashion.

I understand that may be true in your case, but it is not true as a general statement. Drugs, just like alcohol, can be used responsibly and have zero effect on others.

[jusanothajoe]

I don't remember saying anything about throwing money at anything. But I am not at odds with you on that statement. We've been throwing money at it for year (war on drugs) to no avail, in fact to our detriment.

I am talking about it with regard to whether you want the government telling you what is good for you or not. There is no difference.

I understand that may be true in your case, but it is not true as a general statement. Drugs, just like alcohol, can be used responsibly and have zero effect on others.

My point was, and yes I actually had one this time ! Most addicts don't want treatment, they want another fix. And they will steal and rob to get it. As far as the war on drugs, I say we are winning because they aren't legal............ yet. Big mac statement was a joke. It doesn't matter how much money you have for treatment if the drug users don't want it. It really takes an epiphany to stop using drugs.

Luckily my family member had one and was able to return to her old self. But this is rare, most never kick the habit. Who do you think will be in charge of legalized drugs ? The government.

Drugs and responsibly don't belong in the same sentence. I'm going to make a very broad and generalizing statement, have no facts to back it up. Not counting arrests for possession of pot,

I would say over 50 -75 % of the crime in the United States involves drugs. Where I live you can go the County jails website and do a prisoner search, 90% of all incarcerated are for something to do with drugs.

[phan52]

My point was, and yes I actually had one this time ! Most addicts don't want treatment, they want another fix. And they will steal and rob to get it. As far as the war on drugs, I say we are winning because they aren't legal............ yet. Big mac statement was a joke. It doesn't matter how much money you have for treatment if the drug users don't want it. It really takes an epiphany to stop using drugs.

Luckily my family member had one and was able to return to her old self. But this is rare, most never kick the habit. Who do you think will be in charge of legalized drugs ? The government.

Drugs and responsibly don't belong in the same sentence. I'm going to make a very broad and generalizing statement, have no facts to back it up. Not counting arrests for possession of pot,

I would say over 50 -75 % of the crime in the United States involves drugs. Where I live you can go the County jails website and do a prisoner search, 90% of all incarcerated are for something to do with drugs.

You are probably not far off (but the numbers certainly include the possession and use of pot) and that is the problem. There are far too many people in jail for victimless crimes. Incarceration is big business in this country, much more so than in any industrialized country in the world.

We are not "winning" the war on drugs. Drugs are readily available to anybody who wants them and the billions we spend trying to change that, to no avail, would be well spent elsewhere. The criminalization of drug use is...well...criminal.

[zipazoid]

My point was, and yes I actually had one this time ! Most addicts don't want treatment, they want another fix. And they will steal and rob to get it. As far as the war on drugs, I say we are winning because they aren't legal............ yet. Big mac statement was a joke. It doesn't matter how much money you have for treatment if the drug users don't want it. It really takes an epiphany to stop using drugs.

Luckily my family member had one and was able to return to her old self. But this is rare, most never kick the habit. Who do you think will be in charge of legalized drugs ? The government.

Drugs and responsibly don't belong in the same sentence. I'm going to make a very broad and generalizing statement, have no facts to back it up. Not counting arrests for possession of pot,

I would say over 50 -75 % of the crime in the United States involves drugs. Where I live you can go the County jails website and do a prisoner search, 90% of all incarcerated are for something to do with drugs.

Going to comment on the highlighted text -

I would agree that most active addicts just want to keep using. But there comes a time in each of their lives where they have, as it is called, a moment of clarity. A moment when they either seek help or they don't. And if they do & are passionate about it, they can recover. That's the heartbreak of treatment - it only works of the addict wants it. Not "need" it - most everyone would agree that they need it. It's wanting it. And every addict, at some point, looks at what their life has become & concludes that they have run it into the ground & that there has to be a better way.

A while back, someone posted about the success rates of rehab. It's actually really simple - it all depends on the willingness of the addict. If it's 100%, then recovery is 100% assured.

So the point is, they're not lost causes. Many think they are, but they're not. All it takes is for them to say, 'Help me.'

And incarceration isn't help, which gets me to the last bolded text. Now, there are instances where that's what has to happen to the addict to seek help - they gotta be locked up for them to see how out of control their lives have become. But I am willing to bet that's a very small minority of the percentage in jails/prisons.

Which is why incarceration doesn't work. It's a huge waste of money & lives which doesn't address the problem.

[jusanothajoe]

You are probably not far off (but the numbers certainly include the possession and use of pot) and that is the problem. There are far too many people in jail for victimless crimes. Incarceration is big business in this country, much more so than in any industrialized country in the world.

We are not "winning" the war on drugs. Drugs are readily available to anybody who wants them and the billions we spend trying to change that, to no avail, would be well spent elsewhere. The criminalization of drug use is...well...criminal.

Are the babies born addicted to drugs not victims ? Are the people that are robbed of their property not victims ? Are the parents of teens that die from drug overdose not victims ? (this has happened three times in 6 months in the VERY small town I live in) Sort of like you think the only people in jail are there for trying to score a dime bag of pot. Ever seen what Meth does to a person ? The fact is drugs destroy lives.

[jusanothajoe]

Going to comment on the highlighted text -

I would agree that most active addicts just want to keep using. But there comes a time in each of their lives where they have, as it is called, a moment of clarity. A moment when they either seek help or they don't. And if they do & are passionate about it, they can recover. That's the heartbreak of treatment - it only works of the addict wants it. Not "need" it - most everyone would agree that they need it. It's wanting it. And every addict, at some point, looks at what their life has become & concludes that they have run it into the ground & that there has to be a better way.

A while back, someone posted about the success rates of rehab. It's actually really simple - it all depends on the willingness of the addict. If it's 100%, then recovery is 100% assured.

So the point is, they're not lost causes. Many think they are, but they're not. All it takes is for them to say, 'Help me.'

And incarceration isn't help, which gets me to the last bolded text. Now, there are instances where that's what has to happen to the addict to seek help - they gotta be locked up for them to see how out of control their lives have become. But I am willing to bet that's a very small minority of the percentage in jails/prisons.

Which is why incarceration doesn't work. It's a huge waste of money & lives which doesn't address the problem.

Incarceration doesn't work. well lets take the murderers, pedophiles, rapists, bank robbers, etc. and do what with them ? Sorry, but no difference they are law breakers too.