 |
| |
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:24
|
|
In the interest of berevity.. just a few points. Most of what is being argued now just seems to be going back and for, and is rather speculative anyways.
One point where you still seem to be misreading my postition is on "moral" education as you put it. Read the initial quote you are basing that off of and notice the "or" between the two. I don't think there has to be a moral bias against drugs for there to be an educational one, and being educated about drugs doesn't mean there would even be a bias against them. I only advocated the use of education. Morality is subjective, and I only mentioned it because in some forms it bypasses any drug problems simply by keeping people from using them.
Another is your insistance that laws that restrict freedoms are unconstitutional. That is what laws are designed to do, restrict freedoms of actions which our society (through methods defined in the constitution) have deemed destructive. Any law is going to restrict freedom, be that freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to do whatever is defined by law as illegal. Some of these freedoms obviously have a direct affect on other freedoms, and that is why they are restricted. Other freedoms have less direct affects, but are still deemed necessary to restrict because of those indirect affects. The Constitution itself contains restrictions on certain freedoms.
As for any other topics, I stand by what I have said. I think you are misreading some things (or I am misreading your replies), taking them out of context, but if you really don't understand what I am saying yet (or vice versa) there isn't any point to continuing the discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Aeson - quote:
One point where you still seem to be misreading my postition is on "moral" education as you put it. |
You said people needed to have a moral or educated aversion to drug use before drugs could be legalised. It sounds like you believe drugs should only be legal if people don't use drugs - a catch-22 if you ask me.
quote:
I don't think there has to be a moral bias against drugs for there to be an educational one, and being educated about drugs doesn't mean there would even be a bias against them. |
You still haven't explained who will provide this education. The state? That isn't an education, it's propaganda.
quote:
I only advocated the use of education. Morality is subjective, and I only mentioned it because in some forms it bypasses any drug problems simply by keeping people from using them. |
You say morality is subjective but won't support the assertion, and you're still implying drug use is immoral without proof.
quote:
Another is your insistance that laws that restrict freedoms are unconstitutional. |
Where did I say that (quotes will help)? I said the drug war is unconstitutional and supported my claim in my opening post. I've also said the drug war is anti-freedom and supported that claim. Your only "rebuttal" has been that since murder is against the law, drug use can be against the law. Try telling people all religion can be outlawed because murder is against the law. They will 
quote:
That is what laws are designed to do, restrict freedoms of actions which our society (through methods defined in the constitution) have deemed destructive. |
Laws are supposed to be constitutional before other considerations. And these methods defined in the Constitution are not being followed, the Constitution was amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, but the Constitution was never amended to allow for drug prohibition. And you're still confusing freedom with actions that do not fall under the definition of freedom. Furthermore, not all laws restrict freedom, a law prohibiting murder prohibits an act that violates freedom. Would you tell us the Holocaust and slavery were acts of freedom? Sorry, but you cannot understand freedom if you insist on remaining ignorant of it's meaning...
quote:
Any law is going to restrict freedom, be that freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to do whatever is defined by law as illegal. |
Freedom - the ABSENCE of COERCION or CONSTRAINT on CHOICE or ACTION. How can you claim the act of murder is an act of freedom when it is an obvious constraint on the victim's choice or action?
quote:
These freedoms obviously have a direct affect on other freedoms |
They aren't freedoms and freedoms don't conflict, you keep saying that but won't support your assertion. I can explain how murder "conflicts" with freedom, can you explain how drug use conflicts with your freedom? And don't tell me it conflicts because a drug user might murder you, that only proves murder conflicts with freedom, not drug use. Is sobriety anti-freedom if a sober person commits murder? Of course not.
quote:
The Constitution itself contains restrictions on certain freedoms. |
Yup, so where in the Constitution does it say Congress can restrict drug use? These are questions, do you have answers?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Golly, when I see the Supreme Court rule the Federal Drug Act unconstitutional then I'll give your arguements some credence. |
What does the Supreme Court matter, on the question of freedom? They don't support freedom any more than Congress does.
You're trying to refute a philosophical argument with the law, and that just doesn't work - it's like justifying slavery by saying you'll oppose it once SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
I can only argue from Canada's system in saying that the drug war is fair. If you're stupid enough to criminally hurt others due to your drug use, you belong in jail. If you're arrogant enough to supply substances to clients you don't know or trust to keep their habits to themselves, you belong in jail. I'm happy now knowing that these substances (many of which they have rightly classified as dangerous to a majority of people) are prohibited, but to a point. If responsible and old enough, access to pretty much any drug in recreational quantities isn't too difficult - so why complain?
In short, drugs simply do not work with a majority of people's personalities - even if regulation brought the prices down they would still ruin most lives when used regularly by f*cking their perceptions. It is the responsibility of the users and dealers to use judgement in social association with drugs, and to bar those who shouldn't be using them from doing just that (whether from the start or continuation of use). That's why I have no problem with sending ghetto trash selling crack cocaine to people without jobs directly to prison. Big problem with the U.S. system though (as I've heard), is that said example without prior convictions can get a 25 year sentence?!
Moderation in punishment, boys
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job. The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
*groannnnn*
Is this what an aneuryism feels like?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job. The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out. |
PCP is worse. PCP induces a delerious rage in many people. When the high is over it leaves them amnestic about the whole experience.
You could argue that LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and opium are worse too. They're all potent hallucinogens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
The whole PCP rage thing is a bit of a scare tactic IMO, although I wouldn't doubt it's up there with crack as one of the hardest. The scariest thing about crack is that in addicts it lasts 5 minutes (if even) before the horrific downfall of euphoria kicks in. PCP lasts much longer, but makes most users unaware zombies more than anything else - and in some cases psychotic behavior occurs. These instances of rage happen with many drugs - most especially alcohol, but they take more of a presence in urban legends with PCP because its pain killing and tranquilizing effects leave the stoned user unaware that their body is taking way too much and stressing beyond sustainability.
ie.) "Did you hear about that guy on PCP who broke through police handcuffs, braking his hands but not feeling a thing until next day?"
I'm sure there's a history of some drunk braking his wrists out of handcuffs as well, but it took less presence as he would be immediately screaming like a banshee. It should be mentioned that heroin and morphine, while having the same pain masking properties - have a submissive euphoria that keeps the users from doing pretty much anything, such as psychotic behavior. Yet, these could be my naive assumptions.
LSD etc could indeed be described as worse, as they have the ability to scar certain people permanently by triggering mental illness - but there is no severe addiction potential, especially considering it is not effective unless given breaks of several days to a week. Rage and psychotic behavior probably happen most often on these drugs, I've been banned from an area on campus doing so myself - but the confusion one might experience on these drugs most usually consists of an internal turmoil, aggressive intentions turned on yourself. I don't know why you've listed opium in the psychedelics - do you find it visual that way?
...yeah. So there are a lot of different values upon which you can rate the potential harm certain drugs will produce. Somewhere between overall and per capita, I think crack ruins the most lives.
(P.S. Overall, alcohol and tobbacco ruin the most lives - and that is non debatable)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Zylka - quote:
I can only argue from Canada's system in saying that the drug war is fair. |
You believe it's fair to imprison people based on what others have done?
quote:
If you're stupid enough to criminally hurt others due to your drug use, you belong in jail. |
But the drug war doesn't just jail people who use drugs and criminally hurt others, it jails people who use drugs regardless of whether or not they criminally hurt others because of those who do hurt others. You wouldn't think it was "fair" if you were caged because someone else criminally hurt others.
quote:
If you're arrogant enough to supply substances to clients you don't know or trust to keep their habits to themselves, you belong in jail. |
So the seller is now responsible for what some of the buyers do? Does that mean gun, car, knife, and alcohol sellers should be in jail because their products are used by people committing crimes?
quote:
I'm happy now knowing that these substances (many of which they have rightly classified as dangerous to a majority of people) are prohibited, but to a point. |
Why? Has prohibiting drugs prevented people from using them? Happiness derived from persecuting others is immoral.
quote:
If responsible and old enough, access to pretty much any drug in recreational quantities isn't too difficult - so why complain? |
Because millions of people are being put in cages, not for what they have done, but because of what others have done. And the drug war pushers are forcing the rest of us to pay for this evil.
quote:
In short, drugs simply do not work with a majority of people's personalities - even if regulation brought the prices down they would still ruin most lives when used regularly by f*cking their perceptions. |
Where do you get these numbers? Roughly 80 million Americans have used illegal drugs, and roughly 3-5% may have a problem. Btw, we were not put here to have perceptions meeting with your approval, communists are into mind control.
quote:
It is the responsibility of the users and dealers to use judgement in social association with drugs, and to bar those who shouldn't be using them from doing just that (whether from the start or continuation of use). |
Even if we accept the absurd notion that a dealer must evaluate each and every buyer to determine their ability to use responsibility, how can the users be responsible for other users? That's like telling alcohol users they are responsible if someone becomes an alcoholic.
quote:
That's why I have no problem with sending ghetto trash selling crack cocaine to people without jobs directly to prison. |
Oh, it's a "black" thing?  I've tried crack a few times, no problem at all. It's just cocaine in a free-base form.
quote:
Big problem with the U.S. system though (as I've heard), is that said example without prior convictions can get a 25 year sentence?!
Moderation in punishment, boys |
People are getting life here for exercising freedom and practicing capitalism.
quote:
...and for clarification, the example of crack cocaine is an extreme absolute. I don't believe a drug like this can be handled by anyone regularly, whether or not they have a job. |
Have you ever tried it? If not, maybe you're not very qualified to speak of it's effects.
quote:
The unenmployment factor just shows increased irresponsibility of the dealer in provoking obvious criminal activity such would need to attain the drug once it's run out. |
You blame the dealer now for property crimes committed by users? Then blame yourself too, the drug war inflates the costs of drugs. I guess farmers are now responsible for people who steal to buy food.
quote:
(P.S. Overall, alcohol and tobbacco ruin the most lives - and that is non debatable) |
But to be overlooked by the hypocrites pushing the drug war.
Strangelove - quote:
Golly, when I see the Supreme Court rule the Federal Drug Act unconstitutional then I'll give your arguements some credence. |
You can't read the Constitution and reach your own conclusion? You need the politicians who are ignoring the Constitution to tell you if they're ignoring the Constitution?
quote:
They have and I do! |
Nope, the SCOTUS has never said slavery was unconstitutional. But David Floyd exposed the flaw with your argument, and you, by your own admission, would have supported slavery if the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.
quote:
PCP is worse. PCP induces a delerious rage in many people. |
The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.
quote:
When the high is over it leaves them amnestic about the whole experience. |
So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.
quote:
You could argue that LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and opium are worse too. They're all potent hallucinogens |
LOL! These aren't even addictive, much less a cause for violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Sorry.. I just lost a looooong ass response and am a 5 minute drive away from strangling someone to death. I'll try to respond tommorrow
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stevechafin
|
|
William S. Burroughs sez...
"It seems to me that drugs are one of the ideal power devices. The so-called drug problem is a pretext—thin, and getting thinner—to extend police power over areas of actual or potential opposition. In Western countries, opposition is concentrated in the 18-to-25 age group. So, make more drug laws, publicize all drug news, and good percentage of the opposition is criminal by definition.
According to an article in Life magazine (July 24, 1967) as many as ten million Americans have tried marijuana at least once, and the number of users is increasing rapidly. Of course, they can’t put ten million people in jail—that would be coming too far out into the open. If there’s one thing Western authorities don’t want to do, it’s come out into the open with what they’re doing. But they can keep young people under continual threat of police search or action, at the same time divert rebellion into the dead-end channels of addiction and criminality.
Authority in the West has never been more threatened than it is right now, and after the manner of its parasitic species reacts with hysterical rage…The official opposition to drugs is, as I have indicated in the last question, ambiguous: they condemn drugs as a danger to authority, but are drugs a real danger to the state?
How dangerous is the tripper? Idle, perhaps, but the state is not in need of workers; on the contrary. Are trippers riot material?
I suggest that that official opposition to drugs is a sham, that all the policies of the American Narcotics Department—and other countries who follow these policies, as England now is slavishly following the bad example of America, like a latter-day banana republic—are deliberately designed to spread the use of drugs, and the consequent unwise laws against the use of drugs. Thus youth is deliberately led into these dead-end channels.
This elementary chess move puts potential opposition in a concentration camp of criminality, weakened by the effects of such murderous drugs as methedrine—(there is absolutely no excuse for the manufacture of any variation of the benzedrine formula)—lulled into unwholesome states of love and oneness with the all and acceptance of everything by LSD, hooked on heroin, which, when illegal, takes up all the addict’s time and makes him quite harmless. In short, drugs are an excellent method of state control; but this can never be uncovered by legalization, which they will fight all the way."
(The Job, "Academy 23," p. 127-8; 134-5)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stevechafin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.
So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.
|
Then you're lucky this didn't happen to you:
Rapper Charged with Murder After Human Flesh Found In Stomach
http://www.bet.com/articles/0,,c3gb2980-3641,00.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), PCP is a white powdery drug that generally causes abusers to become disturbed, delusional, violent, paranoid and fearful when it is sniffed, smoked, or eaten. |
Notice the word "abusers"? Even if we accepted Nida's claims (LOL), why would I be "lucky"? PCP is basicly nothing more than horse tranquilizer, and I can attest to that effect. The PCP caused me to lie down and wait for it to wear off, not jump up and run around killing people. No, there was no "luck" involved, just a person under a heavy sedative. Was Dahmer a PCP addict? No, he seems to have been a sober person, yet he ate people. Would NIDA tell us sobriety causes cannibalism?
quote:
Of course, they can’t put ten million people in jail—that would be coming too far out into the open. |
Yup, I would want every murderer, rapist, and robber to be in jail, but that isn't possible with drug users. Not only are law enforcement resources diverted away from catching the murderers, rapists, and robbers to catch the drug users (I feel so much safer), what other jailable offense cannot even be enforced with the goal of jailing all violaters? You can't imprison 30 million people, and support for the drug war would wane if we could and did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I once worked at a third world hospital where we had to use Ketamine (PCP) as our general anesthetic whenever our anesthesiologist was unavailable. At those times we posted extra security in the recovery room because most patients coming out of Ketamine anestheisia would be delerious and agitated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Zylka -
Strangelove -
You can't read the Constitution and reach your own conclusion? You need the politicians who are ignoring the Constitution to tell you if they're ignoring the Constitution?
|
I rather have them tell me what to think than you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
[
The only times I heard of PCP "rage" was when cops werre trying to put someone in a cage.
So you're a mindreader? I was given PCP without my knowledge and all it did was make me lie down until it wore off.
|
I've seen PCP rage numerous times myself.
I once had a pregnant woman who was addicted to PCP. She'd be brought into the ER by relatives whom she had been beating on and threatening to kill. When she came out of it in the morning she wouldn't remember a thing.
The amnestic property is one of the reasons that Ketamine makes a good anesthetic. Surgeons, vet and human, like for their patients to forget about the procedure. It's the recovery room staff that objects to its use in humans.
The gas anesthetics like halothane don't have the amnestic effect. That's why we give Valium as a pre-op medication.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Nope, the SCOTUS has never said slavery was unconstitutional. But David Floyd exposed the flaw with your argument, and you, by your own admission, would have supported slavery if the SCOTUS said it was constitutional.
|
Sure it has, now that it has the 14th Amendment to back it up!
When and where did DF expose the flaw in my arguement?
Nope, I just said that I don't accept you as an authority in interpreting the Constitution! You get an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government's right to regulate the drug trade and then I'll listen to you. Until that time I must recognize that legal minds much more astute than yours have argued this issue before the highest courts in the land and found that the Federal government has this right.
This last election was a major blow to the druggie lobby. Tough luck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Graag
|
 |
London
Nov 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Rather than wade into the whole drug prohibitionism debate (which would mean spending the next hour typing), I'll take up a couple of points on PCP. Besides, I largely agree with Berzerker from past experience on the drugs debate.
First off, Dr Strangleove
quote:
I once worked at a third world hospital where we had to use Ketamine (PCP) as our general anesthetic whenever our anesthesiologist was unavailable. At those times we posted extra security in the recovery room because most patients coming out of Ketamine anestheisia would be delerious and agitated. |
Ketamine is certainly not PCP (it was first synthesied to replace PCP), though it is of course similar. Moreover it was, for a while, widely used as an anesthetic in the west, with no need for extra security. It's abandonment in clinical use was in fact due to a small percentage of patients remembering having hullucinatory and out-of-body experiances (which were noticably described almost uniformly as enjoyable or neutral - not unpleasant).
I'm not denying your experiances with it's use in patients, I think maybe diazepam was used to sedate patients coming off Ket in the west. But security was not needed or used.
quote:
I've seen PCP rage numerous times myself.
I once had a pregnant woman who was addicted to PCP. She'd be brought into the ER by relatives whom she had been beating on and threatening to kill. When she came out of it in the morning she wouldn't remember a thing. |
Yup, people can be nasty on drugs. People can be nasty on booze. People can be nasty sober.
Conclusion: people can be nasty.
It is not the drug that makes people nasty, it just provides an excuse. A drug does not change the user's mind or personality, just their perceptions.
I know a number of people who have used Ket, some regularly, and have used it myself. In a small dose it produces a state oddly similar to extreme drunkeness. A larger dose produces unconciousness and the trip of a lifetime. I know no-one who has gone into a rage on Ket, though I know many many people who have gone into a rage on booze.
To sum up: drug-related violence is caused by the user's desire for violence. Anyone who does not desire violence will not become violent, whichever drug they use.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Graag
First off, Dr Strangleove
Ketamine is certainly not PCP (it was first synthesied to replace PCP), though it is of course similar. Moreover it was, for a while, widely used as an anesthetic in the west, with no need for extra security. It's abandonment in clinical use was in fact due to a small percentage of patients remembering having hullucinatory and out-of-body experiances (which were noticably described almost uniformly as enjoyable or neutral - not unpleasant).
I'm not denying your experiances with it's use in patients, I think maybe diazepam was used to sedate patients coming off Ket in the west. But security was not needed or used.
|
The biochemistry of Ketamine and PCP are virtually identical. Ketamine was designed as a replacement for PCP that did not depress respiratory drive.
I don't have figures for the percentage of Ketamine users demonstrating agitation. Studies have shown about 35% of PCP users become violent.
Diazepam is commonly used as pre-op medication for general anesthesia because even with gas anesthetics some people actually remember their operation. Yes it has an added benefit when used with Ketamine of reducing the post-op agitation and increasing the amnestic effect. Though Ketamine and Diazepem individually have relatively little effect on respiratory drive together they can suppress breathing. Since you need daizepem as an adjunct to Ketamine it's rather self-defeating to use Ketamine anyway if you're just going to have to give something that causes respiratory depression so that you can use a drug that was designed precisely to prevent that side effect.
You "think maybe"? I'll go you one better. I know from experience that additional nursing support is needed to deal with agitated post-op patients when Ketamine is used. At the hosp[ital where I worked they said that in their experience about 25% required restraint in post-op. This hospital could not use diazepam as an adjunct because they were using Ketamine when they had no anesthesiologist to intubate the patient and monitor respiratory activity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2002 16:16
|