gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 03:52:39 AM
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/peru21_20010421.htm
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on April 21, 2001 11:37:15 AM
What a sad story gravid. It sure seems like the good ones are the first to go.
There sure are a lot of "mistakes" happening around the world..........
|
spazmodeus
|
posted on April 21, 2001 01:15:48 PM
That's a horrible story. A tragic and needless mistake due probably to negligence, stupidity, inexperience, etc.
But it doesn't make the war on drugs wrong.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 02:05:26 PM
No I agree - it takes much much more to be able to characterize the war on drugs as wrong or a failure. This is just a little blip along the way.
|
figmente
|
posted on April 21, 2001 02:26:37 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38227-2001Apr19.html
|
mEyA
|
posted on April 21, 2001 02:56:08 PM
I don't know enough about him to know if I agree with all of his views, but he makes a couple of good points. You can't tell your kids that you smoked pot and then in the same breath just tell them not to. You also can't tell them it wasn't any fun, because of course, if it hadn't been fun, we wouldn't have done it ourselves.
It's a matter of wasting time and the dangers we brought our way through the drug use and the people we found ourselves around. If I could redo my last 2 years in high school, I would in a heartbeat.
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 03:07:52 PM
The war on drugs is a joke. It's just a new version of prohibition, and we saw what good that was. All the war on drugs, is another chance for those involved (on both sides) to profit off something that could be put to better use. Instead of a percentage of profits from the legalized sale of drugs being used to fix roads, and teach kids the evils of drugs, they keep drugs illegal and let drug dealers use the profits to buy more houses, cars, judges etc.
Not only would legalizing drugs provide a larger tax base, and thus allow the govt. to lower taxes without cutting programs, but it would also dramatically reduce the crime and violence associated with the need for the acquisition of the drugs. After all, how many times have we heard on the news that there was a driveby shooting at a liquor store to put the other neighborhood liquor store out of business? Or one convenience store was selling to much tobacco in the other convenience stores 'hood?
I guess it's too much like right.
|
minnow
|
posted on April 21, 2001 06:44:54 PM
Legalizing drugs...
If this actually happens {fat chance} I wonder how long would it take for the US to go from the Leader Country of the world to just another lawless ghetto.
|
jlpiece
|
posted on April 21, 2001 06:56:43 PM
I take it the war is being won.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:01:22 PM
Brace yourself, jlpiece!
But I have to agree with you on this issue!
minnow
I don't understand how legalizing drugs can
lead to a lawless ghetto.
Helen
|
minnow
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:20:44 PM
a lawless ghetto is just a crude example.
But just picture what the country would become if everyone got all the drugs they wanted, the moment they desired it, at just a fraction of today's prices.
The people that do it regularly, would do it more often.
The people that didn't had enough money to afford it, now they could.
The people that didn't do it because fear of the law, now thy can get it, easy & cheap.
The precentage of drug addicts would easily become almost 50%-60% of the population.
I don't know about you, but this is not my idea of the promised land.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:34:22 PM
But right now, you can go to any liquor store
and get just as drunk as you want to be.
I think that if people had the right to buy
drugs legally that they would be responsible
users.
The war on drugs would be over. The
killing and profiteering would be over.
Fewer people would populate jails.
There will always be people that abuse alcohol and drugs. But I don't think that
legalizing drugs will make any difference
in the number of abusers.
Helen
|
figmente
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:36:28 PM
50-60% would be addicted - ridiculous.
You underestimate people, and grossly overestimate drugs.
Lawless ghetto?
People do become destructively addicted to tobacco and alcohol, but they do not then need to steal hundreds of dollars a day to feed their habits, nor support organized crime networks.
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:45:19 PM
It scares me, the reports that say for some a single use can create an addiction.
Is this true? Are some of these drugs that strong, or addictive or whatever?
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 07:58:40 PM
You mean like nicotine? Yeah those twins that were turned over to authorities in Alaska were having a fit because one of them could not get her cigerettes. Cut off an addict and they get ugly fast. One punched out the stewardess and the other bit the captain.
[ edited by gravid on Apr 21, 2001 08:02 PM ]
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:01:50 PM
Drug education would be a part of the
program to legalize drugs.
Some drugs are psychologically addictive and
some are physically addictive...nothing is
worse than alcohol though.
Helen
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:03:50 PM
LOL! Is that what they were fighting about? I never could tell from the article just what the cause was.
No, I was refering to the more potent stuff - crack, meth, ice, whatever they have invented next. I don't really know since I don't do or hang around those types.
Nicotine is definetly addictive but I've never heard it was first use addictable.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:05:05 PM
Before about 1910 you could buy whatever drugs you wanted in the US. It was however socially unacceptable to be a drug user. People would shun you and refuse to hire you.
And no 50% of the population were not users when it was legal.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:06:40 PM
Actually I understand it takes about a week for nicotine.
The sweet twins also had their nose in the bottle and sound like a couple real spoiled brats - 22 years old.
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:07:27 PM
What is the difference between psychologically and physically addictive? I thought they were intertwined in some way, having a state of both?
I know that they can display physical withdrawl symptoms but they do that regardless of which type of addiction it is, right?
Don't know, trying to see what others know about this.
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:08:52 PM
'nose in the bottle' -does that refer to alcohol or something else?
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:11:13 PM
There was an interewsting article in Scientific American several years ago about addiction. They felt that as you said some people are addicted at first use and some part of the population between 5 and 10% have no physical addiction at all. What is interesting is that the researchers did not know that or look into it until the street drug dealers told them they had people who would buy herion and other very addictive things and use them and not come back for a month or two.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:12:48 PM
Yes the had been drinking before they ever took off. I have sat in the airport and seen quite a few people who are afraid to fly get numb faced before they feel they can go on board.
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:13:59 PM
Ah, thanks for the answer.
Guess that explains all the bars in the airports! 
|
ddicffe
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:17:36 PM
I hate to say this, but as an addict (7 years dry now), I have to say make it legal. Then, like cig's, regulate and tax the hookie out of it, make it available through specially licensed outlets, and provide discounted counciling and rehab centers for the ones who get in too deep. People are prone to do what is preceived as good for themselves, so legalization may have to be our next step. The way the "war on drugs" is being waged now, it's lost a lot more then it's won. For every pound of illegal substance that we take off the streets, 9 pounds gets through. For every small dealer we stop, 5 start up. It's too much, now. Mayhap it's time to change tatics.
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
|
gravid
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:31:34 PM
Buy how to wean the cops off the money?
They will think the funding will be cut in half if they don't have to fight this war.
|
KatyD
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:33:11 PM
LOL! What cracks me up are some of the same people who think drugs should be "legalized" are the same ones who #*!@ and moan about cigarette smoking and how harmful it is to everybody. They'd love to see cigarettes illegal, but by golly everyone that wants to oughta be able to shoot up their daily ration of smack. Too funny.
KatyD
(edited to add that now I know that the term for a female dog won't get through the profanity checker!)
[ edited by KatyD on Apr 21, 2001 08:35 PM ]
|
Powerhouse
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:38:31 PM
Katy, you couldn't get 'she-dog' through the profanity checker? 
It is amusing to imagine a trip to the corner store in a drug tolerant society -
'Yea, this is for a gallon of milk, a pack of cocaine-light and the gas on pump 12.'
|
ddicffe
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:39:59 PM
KatyD: I never said to make cig's illegal. I used to smoke Camels as well. Re-read my post, and you will understand my point.
gravid: I do not know. Maybe give them a larger payraise so they no longer have to look the other way....
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 21, 2001 08:52:42 PM
Somebody asked about physical versus psychological dependence. I'm not an authority on addiction...just know what I learned in school. Physical addiction is indicated by withdrawal symptoms when the drug is withdrawn. Psychological addiction is a craving for the drug even
thought there may not be any visible physical symptoms. Before detoxification
physical and psychological dependence on
a drug can coexist.
Helen
|
