posted on March 10, 2001 02:41:19 PM new
grannyfox:
She got treatment, repeatedly. But once hooked, as long as the supply is there you're always hooked. And as for your comment about blaming a faceless entity, I don't. Every individual pusher has a face and each one of them individually should pay for their crimes. I'm all for giving someone a 2nd chance, even a third. But there has to be a final resolution. How many people have to die before we say enough is enough?
kraftdinner:
You don't seem to believe just how serious I am about executing these scumbags. 3 strikes and you're REALLY out!
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 10, 2001 02:50 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 02:47:08 PM new
Actually it is just as sensible as the mush you have spouted.
There is no cause and effect between marijuana use and the use of "harder" drugs. There is a correlation.
There is also a correlation between those who drank milk as a baby and those who do harder drugs.
The true "gateway" drugs are legal. For most it is tobacco, but coffeee for others.
Marijuana is not addictive.
Cocaine is not addictive, though people become quite psychologically dependent on it.
Tobacco, coffee, alcoho, herion are addictive...there are physical symptoms when the substance is with held.
There are many other uninformed, incorrect assuptions in your posts. Yet even with your severe lack of knowledge...you call for a death penalty. Is it any different than calling for the death penalty for anyone that I don't like...no. It is merely someone else (in this case me) who is making assinine and stupid statements.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:52:50 PM new
No...never did I say that.
The informal ed was in the school of hard knocks and it was a lab class.
Your sister obviously had more going on...I am sorry if you are unable to admit that. But to call for a death penalty on one antedotal tale with as many holes as yours is at the best frightening.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
posted on March 10, 2001 02:57:46 PM newIt is merely someone else (in this case me) who is making assinine and stupid statements.
I won't disagree with that statement. My posts and opinions are just as valid as yours and I'm not ill-informed at all in this matter. I studied it from every angle for the better part of 4 years and came to know and understand more about drugs and the misery they cause than most others, apparently you included. Like I said, my experiences are first-hand, unlike yours. How do you support the notion that my posts are ill-informed and yours are not. The facts at hand simply don't support that notion.
posted on March 10, 2001 03:01:46 PM new
I hope the moderators don't lock this thread. While I disagree with a good many (well, maybe most) of the posts here, I do respect ALL of your opinions and I don't mean anything that I say to be a personal attack on anyone or their ideas. And I hope I can expect the same in return. This is a healthy debate as far as I'm concerned.
Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth.
I think that if drugs were legal people would know what they were ingesting instead of the bootleg crap they use now. I think that usage would stay about the same...which is far too high. There would be homegrown, home made products, but as a society we are mostly too lazy to do things like that for ourselves. So I think it would be easy to regulate and tax.
I think true education, with honest research and honest answers is the only wat to fight drug abuse (vs. drug use). It needs to be removed from the criminal status so that we can remove the criminal element from it.
And with that I have said my piece. I will see ya all another time.
By the way...can we execute stupid people then?
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on March 10, 2001 03:26:36 PM newkraftdinner
Cannabis is still illegal in Holland, but there has been a decision to decriminalise its use, and small-scale possession and sales are not prosecuted. The government does not grow it, it is still prosecutes importers. Coffeeshops are allowed to sell it, and as a consequence, they do not sell illegal, harder drugs. Those just wanting a smoke are not going to be offered crack.
The Dutch coffeeshop experiment has not resulted in a simple blueprint for the legalisation of cannabis. It does, hewever, illustrate a pragmatic intermediate solution: small scale dealing is tolerated under certain conditions, although still illegal; while import, export and large-scale dealing are actively prosecuted. This solution is very different from the supermarket scenario, where young people can buy drugs like Coca-Cola and popcorn, so favoured among prohibitionists in their warnings against legalisation. In fact, the coffeeshops illustrate that a democratic society is able to handle a drug problem in a less prohibitionistic, more cost effective and less harmful way. The Dutch coffeeshops falsify the prohibitionistic assumption that decriminalisation inevitably leads to an increase in drug use. Those who believe in a repressive policy towards cannabis need better arguments, since the Dutch coffeeshops do not support their deterrent prophecies.
On the other hand, although hard drugs cannot be bought in coffeeshops, they are still available. Apparently, it is possible to split the soft and hard drug markets, but a decriminalised monocannabis market does not automatically lead to the disappearance of other illicit drugs. This is not surprising - heroin has been around for almost a century and cocaine even longer, to a greater or lesser degree. Neither a prohibitionistic nor a more tolerant approach has been able totally to eradicate these markets.
The experiment also shows that there is no simple blue-print for the one and only 'correct' drug policy. Within the city of Amsterdam and, moreover, throughout the Netherlands, different forms of small scale hashish dealing are tolerated, in agreement with the local situation. Less legal repression apparently does not imply anarchy and may mean more subtle social control, even in the interest of those who sell drugs.
dubya,
I am sorry for your sister. I grew up in a family with little tolerance and also used drugs for a time as a means of escaping and challenging that control. Perhaps she did too. But at the point that I found the drugs taking control of me as well, I decided to stop. That was my internal resources, coupled with tolerance and understanding and support from those around me (edited to add: NOT my family). I understand that not everyone has those resources, internal or external.
I used, I sold, I stopped. It's life, not such a black-and-white with no greys kinda place. As a result of my experience, my personal experience, I have found that there are lots of factors that play into drug use and abuse. Killing the sellers will do nothing except kill people. The hatred that feeds such thoughts is as evil as any addiction.
posted on March 10, 2001 03:38:38 PM newgrannyfox....don't leave!! I think dubya can dish it out but can also take it too.....
dubya....it sounds like you've had quite a rough time with what you went through. I can understand the pain and anger you must feel towards the people that supplied her with her drugs, and it's a real tragidy for the people left to cope with such a loss. I think the most difficult thing in life is to forgive, but it's the most self-rewarding. At some point, like grannyfox was trying to say, you have to look at the big picture. She must have been struggling with some inner turmoil to think about turning to drugs to begin with. She wanted to feel better than she did. She made the choice and was supplied with that choice. Some of this was her responsibility as well. If you can forgive her, then you should try to forgive the people that supplied her with what she needed at the time as well.
I'm sure for this alone, you'd like to see every "pusher" be eliminated....the problem is, when money's involved, you eliminate the 20 dealers from your area, then there's 20 to replace them before you could blink.
posted on March 10, 2001 03:49:01 PM new
I'm not leaving. I was just repeating my ideas repeatedly and ya all caught it the first time.
While not knowing dubyaetc. or her sister, I think what she is describing is some major clinical depression manifesting itself in self destructive behavior. This is enough to scar the soul of anyone close to the person...there is little or nothing you can do for the one that you love. Lashing out, putting the blame somewhere, anywhere is a defense mechanism used to cope with all of the feelings involved. I respect that, I understand that. And I will do nothing more to force her to see the forest for the trees. It will come when she is ready.
I like the topic, I will continue to read. But ya all know what I think already.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
You seem like a well-adjusted, level headed person, now and as a teenager. I appreciate your honesty and applaud your fortitude and ability to quit using AND selling. You went through a painful period in your life and made some mistakes. We all do. God knows I've made my share and still do. I strongly believe in giving 2nd and even 3rd chances, and I don't have a "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" mentality. If I came across that way it wasn't my intention.
But the sad fact is, not all sellers are willing to turn it around and take advantage of the 2nd chances given to them. At some point, they need to be held accountable, even if it takes the ultimate penalty.
kraftdinner:
You're absolutely right about my sister being partly to blame for her (our) problems. No one forced her to take that first hit. No one forced her to take any of the hits that followed. The fault for that lies squarely on her shoulders. And she knew that.
But all people aren't the same. Some, like Mivona (who I have tremendous respect for after reading the last post), can smoke a joint here and there a few times, maybe even regularly without becoming hooked.
Others, like my sister, can smoke one joint and be mentally hooked for life. The only way to keep people like her off of the drug is to eliminate the availability of the drug. Sure, personal responsibility comes into play. But like I said before, the sellers have personal responsibility too, and they are the ones who ALWAYS have a choice. Once hooked, the users no longer realistically have a choice. For the weak (which my sister admittedly was), even when the body no longer craves the drug (after treatment), the mind always does. If it's available, they will use it.
This is an emotional issue for me as you all know by now. And I know that emotions can cloud the judgement. But I don't think it unreasonable to have laws that benefit society and have harsh penalties for those who repeatedly break them, especially when the breaking of that law by one person can shatter the lives of literally dozens of people.
As I said, I'm a very big believer in 2nd and even 3rd chances. But repeat offenders need to be held accountable for their actions even if it means the ultimate penalty.
You're right about the 20 new pushers to take the place of the 20 forced out of the area. The reason for this is inadequate sentences IMO.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Mar 10, 2001 04:06 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2001 04:09:52 PM new
grannyfox:
I'm glad you didn't leave. You're just as entitled to your opinions as I am and I hope you'll continue to lay them on us. I know that I can learn from debates like this and who knows, maybe I'll soften my stance later after things sort themselves out for a while. But I'm not to that point yet and I may never be. And BTW, I'm a guy...
It is not true that users no longer have a choice, and it is not true that sellers always have a choice. Their personal circumstances sometimes to not allow them to see the other alternatives, and for that I plead tolerance and understanding.
People behave in ways that make sense to them. I am sure that I never thought "I am going to go and sell this, and then someone else will develop dependency." I just thought "Gotta get some money, gotta buy some dope.. hmmm.... if I buy some extra and sell it, I can use that to cover what I use."
As a small-scale seller, would jail-time have helped me? Nope... in jail I would have actively pursued any escape with drugs. When I came out, I would have been seen as a criminal and my job opportunities would have been even more limited. So, dealing then becomes an even more attractive option - providing drugs for recreational escape as well as a source of necessary income.
I am quite down on hard drugs, despite my stance on decriminalisation of cannabis. But I truly believe that the most rational response to the issue of drug dependency and abuse is to remove the criminal element that destroys lives forever, and to address what is creating the desire for drugs at a social level as well as a personal level.
If poverty is making lives so miserable people will do anything to escape, address that. If a new drug has become "cool" to use among teenagers, educate them as to its effects and help them make an informed decision about whether the risks of use are worth it. When my children come up against peer pressure about drug use, I intend to try to make sure they have the facts and not just some knee-jerk policy to fall back on.
If my child was unfortunate to become trapped in the spiral of drug abuse, I would hate to think of them being killed for that weakness. I would also condemn any society that would do so while failing to address the underlying economics that allows drugs to be so profitable to organised crime.
I think I understand where you are coming from though - I have a particular aversion to persistent drunk drivers. But I still wouldn't advocate killing them. Maybe make them work with those brain-damaged by accidents? Or as an orderly in a A&E/ER, cleaning up after accident victims?
posted on March 10, 2001 04:36:02 PM new
I think your suggestion concerning drunk drivers is a good one. And if it helps rehabilitate, great. If not, we go from there.
posted on March 10, 2001 04:36:12 PM new
The movie "The Trip" 1967 with Peter Fonda, Bruce Dern & Susan Strasburg (written by Jack Nicholson) is playing on the Sundance Channel.
posted on March 10, 2001 05:22:43 PM new
You're all going to laugh, but I grew up in the 60's and 70's, and I wanted to try it, but I never knew where to get the darned stuff. To this day, no one has ever come up to me and said "Psst, hey lady, want to buy some weed?".
If it's legalized, I hope they advertise in the local newspaper where to but it. You know, like Walmart or whatever. And a 20% off coupon would be nice.
(P.S. My sweet Baboo probably has some in the Property Room, but he won't tell me where it's at.)
posted on March 10, 2001 05:47:07 PM new
Thanks so much for all your info mivona......like dubya, I've learned quite a bit from your posts as well.
EXCELLENT POV mivona!!
What do any of you think would happen if ALL drugs were legal, and you just had to call up the "Drug" Store to get anything you wanted? YOU were in control of every decision you made.....do you think people would go out of control?
posted on March 11, 2001 03:18:50 AM new
Kraftdinner,
Interesting question.
I believe that some drugs are too dangerous to be legalised, with the balance of a nice high outweighed by the social impact of people who cannot function. Other drugs, while not clinically addictive, can cause dependency and a system of support for those who become psychologically dependent would be needed. I wonder what the financial cost balance would be of a supportive medical service vs the enforcement/prison service? And the social cost?
I feel that if this was a right extended to all people - the legal choice to use whatever drugs they wished - then people using the drugs would have to take the responsibility for their use.
This means...
not driving after drinking or using other drugs
making sure that your life does not become so consumed by drugs of any kind that you do not fulfil your day-to-day responsibilities, e.g. go to work, safely perform your job, take the kids to school, not be an annoyance to others around you.
Civil rights (for the right to take drugs) vs social rights (for the right to not be affected by those taking drugs) then becomes the issue rather than legality/illegality of ANY drug.
I think that this open legality of drugs would only work within the context of everyone adopting a "citizen" point of view, and seeing their actions within the light of responsibility towards themselves, their friends and family and society as a whole.
posted on March 11, 2001 11:32:49 AM new
I agree with you totally movina! Exactly why I don't classify pot in the same category as other drugs.
"RM" LOL! That reminds me of some friends I have.....
.....both of them smoke pot but I'm not sure if they're baked because of the pot or if they were like this before. The guy is an authoritarian on everything there is to know in the most recently updated Book of Knowledge....which is a symptom I've seen before in other pot smokers. (What I can never understand is, why are these Einsteins wasting their time in this burg??)
Do you know anybody like this? Do any of your friends have unusually funny (but dramatic) pot personalities?
