posted on March 10, 2001 05:18:44 AM new
Borillar,
It was OPIUM, wasn't it? Not HEROIN... The drugs are related, but opium goes from grower to user, without the refinement that turns it into heroin. Opium is smoked, not injected.
Opium was not "introduced" by the British, but had been used for a long period of time, primarily medicinally. The British sought to control the trade of it, due to its profitability. The East India Company waged war on the Chinese Imperial government to maintain their right to sell opium in the face of laws prohibiting it. This conflict eventually ended with the ceding of Hong Kong to the British as reparation for the opium lost during the period of wars. It is a sordid period of British history, where profit overrode any moral consideration of the misery caused by the trade.
As for cannibis... I have been to Amsterdam, and found it lovely to be able to sit at a cafe, and have a coffee and a joint of my choice. To be able to choose from a menu of strengths - marijuana or hashish. It was much like going for a drink in a bar, convivial and civilised.
It is all about levels of indulgence. To drink too much can turn you into a over-bearing, incoherent bore or a vicious, brutal thug. Smoking too much can turn you into a vacuous bore incapable of intelligent conversation, but is unlikely to make you violent.
Me? I just liked the rosy glow on the day. I will encourage my children to abstinence from drugs, but know that is unlikely to happen. So I will also encourage an open dialogue about the pros and cons, benefits and dangers from various sorts of drugs. The dangers to e discussed will include physical as well as legal dangers.
Drugs can make you feel good, but moderation is the key. The sooner that governments see that their enforcement money will be much better spent in real education, and really assisting those who have developed dependency, the better.
posted on March 10, 2001 07:19:07 AM new
The reason we're losing the war on drugs is the same reason we didn't win in Viet Nam. Politics and a half-hearted commitment.
Token sentences for offenders instead of sentences that would instill fear into the hearts and minds of dealers.
Three strikes and you're out makes sense here. Three convictions for dealing drugs and you get the chair (or needle, or the gallows, take your pick).
This would end the war on drugs in a big hurry.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 10, 2001 07:20 AM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 08:41:26 AM new
The idea of killing someone because they sold some reefer is barbaric.
The idea of killing someone for selling heroin to feed their own habit, in the absence of any real support system to help one break addiction, is cruel. That means helping someone humanely - not just telling them cold turkey or nothing.
Putting junkies in jail does not stop them, and indeed makes their lives seem more hopeless, and therefore more likely to use the support of drugs to get through it. Putting cannabis sellers in jail is more likely to result in them coming out junkies, because being in jail high on ANYTHING is better than being in jail.
The reason there is such half-hearted support for the "war on drugs" is that people know, in their hearts, that "Just say no" is not a viable policy. Real drugs education, looking at how drugs are supplied, the economics, the politics, as well as the effects (good and bad) would give kids a much greater ability to make an informed choice and resist peer pressure.
To address drug use and abuse requires more than just a knee-jerk response.
edited for typo
[ edited by mivona on Mar 10, 2001 08:46 AM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 11:23:22 AM new
kraftdinner
Your comment about marijuana offenders being incarcerated brings to a thought to my head. Maybe marijuana is considered a gateway drug -by some not necessarily me- because the small time offenders of whatever catagory such as drugs, traffic violation etc go to prison then get into the bigger crimes? Did I communicate that properly?
If this is the case then society im my opinion needs to make sure marijuana is not a "gateway" drug by legalizing it so the small time sellers aren't thrown into the slammer with the big guys.
Can we list all the drugs we can think of? I will start...
alcohol (liquor, beer)
tobacco
food
What is the definition of "drug?" Maybe something that consumption is not controlled?
I remember the 60s where the parents were doing their "cocktails" and tranquilizers etc but when it came to the "long-hair" drugs that was bad.....it was during this time I learned the word hypocrite.
Thanks kraftdinner I think this is one terrific thread!
posted on March 10, 2001 01:14:46 PM newThe idea of killing someone because they sold some reefer is barbaric.
No, what's barbaric is the idea of one person starting God knows how many people down a (shortened) lifetime of misery and destruction simply to make fast and easy bucks. It's disgusting and we don't need these vermin infesting and ruining our society and our children's lives.
My family has seen firsthand the damage done by scumbags selling "reefer" and if it ever happens to your family you just might change your mind about what constitutes barbarism.
Two warnings is more than fair. The third time should be the end of it.
posted on March 10, 2001 01:18:48 PM newPutting junkies in jail does not stop them, and indeed makes their lives seem more hopeless, and therefore more likely to use the support of drugs to get through it.
I couldn't agree more. The key to stopping the drug problem has never been punishing the user. The key is treating the user and wiping out the the suppliers.
posted on March 10, 2001 01:23:06 PM new
Mivona - Nice post. Refreshing. Hit the spot.
W's da man - Singapore considers the sale and/or possession of drugs to be a capital offense. Drugs are readily available there. During the darkest days of the Soviet regime drugs could be purchased in Russia. I don't believe, however, that either nation ever acknowledged a drug problem.
So long as this country remains free and guided by the Constitution we can never hope to effectively win the war on drugs. We can either make a choice as to which alternative is preferable or we can continue to fight a losing battle.
The war on drugs would be more accurately described as the civil war on drugs, IMO.
In some repects I think that the legalization of marijuana would help this country in the effort to stem the selling and using of harder drugs. Law enforcement is impossible without the support of the citizenry. If people clearly see the hypocrisy of the marijuana laws and the propaganda regarding its use, why should they believe the government is telling the truth about the more dangerous drugs?
posted on March 10, 2001 01:25:36 PM newReal drugs education, looking at how drugs are supplied, the economics, the politics, as well as the effects (good and bad) would give kids a much greater ability to make an informed choice and resist peer pressure.
All of this sounds nice but it's completely unrealistic. The only permanent solution is to eliminate the supply of drugs by executing the suppliers. Pushers are willing to risk a slap on the wrist or a few years in prison in order to make big money fast.
But if his life is on the line and the death sentences carry real meaning (meaning it will be carried out swiftly after all appeals are exhausted), the ones willing to risk it would be few and far between. And when they're caught the third time, they're outta here.
posted on March 10, 2001 01:26:17 PM new
Well, as dubya has effectively wiped out the surplus, where's the money going to come from for all these new treatment programs?
I respect your ideas and opinions as I do everyone else's who are posting here. But I would disagree with them. It is my contention that few Americans would take the risk of selling drugs if they knew for a fact that a real death sentence awaited them. And the few who would be foolish enough to risk it would make excellent examples for the ones on the fence.
posted on March 10, 2001 01:42:15 PM newWell, as dubya has effectively wiped out the surplus, where's the money going to come from for all these new treatment programs?
No new funds will be needed. Just a redirection of what we're already spending. As a matter of fact we would see a huge decrease in the funding required.
After the current junkies are treated we will need very little funding for treatment because the supply will be virtually eliminated. You can't go back on the drugs if you can't get them.
The costs to jail the scumbag pushers will go way down because they'll be executed after the third offense. It all works out rather well as far as funding is concerned.
Well, as dubya has effectively wiped out the surplus
This phrase is based on faulty logic, so there is really no need to even address it here.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 10, 2001 01:48 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 01:59:55 PM new
Drugs are not always supplied by evil looking men in macs on street corners.
They are sold by 16-year-olds to their friends, to help pay for their stash. They are sold by 18-year-old hookers, hoping to make a bit extra to give their bodies a break. They are sold by ordinary family men, to supplement a low income. They are transported across borders by poor and uneducated people, forced into it by threats against themselves or their families. They are sold by single mothers, addicted to crack to relieve the unrelenting poverty and drabness of their lives, and now desperate to keep their habit fed. These are the people down the chain, both users AND sellers. And they should be killed for it?
Yes, there is "organised crime" involve in drug-trafficking. But there are also ordinary people, who use drugs as a part of their lives - not possessed by demon addiction but who simply like to get high once in awhile. To paint all drug dealers as inherently evil does not really inform the debate.
Not all sellers are part of a syndicate, and nor are they waiting to bait you with cannabis and get you hooked on crack. Anyone with any intelligence KNOWS that these two drugs are different, have different effects and different consequences to their regular use.
When governments come up with policies that properly address the nuances of drug use, and give credit to voters for having the ability to differentiate between the dangers and consequences of drug use, then we might have some solidarity in tacking social issues arising from drug abuse (and maybe even those that contribute to it!).
And I see it as an issue of drug ABUSE, not drug use. Even heroin addicts can function perfectly well in society when they are not driven to have to seek a huge amount of money to pay for the drugs they need. Instead of death-penalty and jail enforcement, I would rather pay tax to have addicts provided with pharmaceutical heroin or a fixed strength. The "cuts" in street heroin are what cause many ill-effects, and variations in strength cause many deaths. This would "normalise" addicts' lives, knowing that their addiction would be met without the angst and worry, and give them time and opportunity to take control of their lives again.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:16:18 PM new
And dammit! why stop there?
Let's execute anyone that uses birth control, anyone that has more than two kids, anyone that is mentally ill, anyone with brown eyes, anyone that does anything that I don't think is RIGHT!
Line the suckers up against the wall and shoot 'em all.
Solve some of these damn problems that this land of freedom has...they all think they got rights.
If your family has drug problems...how about they are accountable and responsible for them. Get out...oh, but no...must be them damn reefer men. Forced them to do reefer and it created madness and addiction.
About as much crap as dubya has.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:17:20 PM new
What if there are biochemical and/or genetic factors involved in addiction to illegal drugs? There is no 100% effective therapy for alcohol or tobacco addiction. Are you suggesting recombinant gene therapy or death for resistant addiction?
posted on March 10, 2001 02:27:02 PM newAnd they should be killed for it?
After ample warnings, yes. Who it is perpetrating this crime or their motives for doing it has no bearing on the suffering caused by it which is usually tremendous. I would guess that you have never had to watch a member of your family destroy herself and cause untold pain for her husband, her children, her parents, her brothers, and her sister (all over the course of 4 long years before she finally committed suicide). Well I have. It isn't pretty. As a matter of fact it's rather barbaric to quote what I read earlier in this thread.
Once hooked, the user has no real choice until treatment helps get her (or him) unhooked. The seller ALWAYS has a choice.
Maybe the choice is between selling her body and selling drugs. Let her sell her body. At least she isn't hurting innocent people in the process of destroying herself.
Maybe the choice is between digging food out of a dumpster behind a restaurant or selling drugs. Let her dive into the dumpster.
I certainly don't want to sound cold-hearted here, but choices are choices. And whatever the choices at hand may be, selling drugs and ruining the lives of others en mass is the worst and most disgusting choice that can be made.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:32:19 PM newNot all sellers are part of a syndicate, and nor are they waiting to bait you with cannabis and get you hooked on crack. Anyone with any intelligence KNOWS that these two drugs are different, have different effects and different consequences to their regular use.
While these two drugs are indeed different, there is a mountain of evidence that pot users tend to step-up to the "big-boy" drugs in time.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:37:05 PM newmivona...what a great analogy about Amsterdam. How does it work, BTW? Does the government grow it and supply it? Also, has there been an increase of "hard" drugs since it's been legalized compared to before it became legal? Can people (like Shosh) that have gone/going through chemo, and can get it readily, been studied? (Sorry for all the questions mivona...but you're the first person I've talked to that's actually been there!)
bobbysoxer...I feel exactly the same!...the 60's/70's taught me so much about REAL life!! I think it taught us all the true meaning of hypocracy, didn't it? Maybe it all started back then when everyone was "experimenting" with every type of drug available. Nobody that I ever knew thought it would end up ruining their life etc. It was just fun & different. This started to change when people realized (by being the guinea pigs) what hard drugs can do to you, and most stopped, (or died young). I think it educated most of us immensely.....so doesn't it all just boil down to being properly educated? Anything that's deemed "taboo" will be exactly what's most sought after by kids......it's always been that way, but if we make any subject OK to talk about, then nothing will be taboo. If children are taught everything possible about drugs, then I doubt there would be a big urge to get hooked. Children aren't stupid, they just need to know all the facts like us.
dubya....while I can understand where you're at, surely you can't really mean that about marijuana criminals being executed? Why, I bet you there's pot smokers that live on your street....people who hold down jobs and have a good life....people you wouldn't "suspect".....would you send one of them away because of a personal choice they've made that doesn't affect anyone? I think we all agree that anyone who abuses anything will suffer for it and will eventually need to be helped, and I think as humans, we're better at helping people than killing them, don't you think?
posted on March 10, 2001 02:37:10 PM new
dubyasdaman,
That is one of the most ill informed posts I have ever seen here at AW.
I do not smoke marijuana (except a cyber toke now and again). My drug of choice is coffee and I like good food. However, I do have a fair amount of formal and imformal education in "street" drugs as well as pharmacological drugs. Your statements are not factual. If your sister was as seriously mentally ill as you have just described, she needed treatment. Drugs were not the cause, but rather a symptom of her problems. She had choices...to seek needed therapy or not. If she was beyond making the choice it needed to be made for her. The blame is not with a faceless entity...if there is any blame. Yours appears to be a tragic tale, and you have chosen to place the blame, quite inapprpriately it appears to me.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:37:45 PM new
By the way, our family doesn't have drug problems. My sister did, but she's dead now. But thanks for your concern.
