heavycola wrote:
The point:
Would it be better therefore for addicts to get their heroin from state-regulated sources? Yes. Obviously. The same goes for every recreational drug.
yes and no.
the swiss experiment is a great success in some areas, but it is not unqualified. in the uk, however, doctors have been able to prescribe medical heroin and methadone for a long time without replicating the successes of switzerland et al, probably based on cultural indemnities and the vilification of drug users in anglo-american style society. the same doesnt go for every recreational drug either. crystal meth, for example, should probably be wiped from the nation by force however you look at it.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
it is misguided to say that it is now non-existent too.
It's a problem. However, that problem is only there because we make the drugs illegal. It is not there because we didn't enforce the policy enough.
population of 16.5 million with an estimated 50000 confirmed heroin addicts.
32.000 according to the latest statistics, but whatever.
further to this, a brief saunter round de Wallen will reveal to you quite how easy it is to procure, lest you are in the backwater part : P
Exactly. The war on drugs has failed.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
ah so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
khazalid wrote:population of 16.5 million with an estimated 50000 confirmed heroin addicts.
32.000 according to the latest statistics, but whatever.
That's a whopping 0.2 - 0.3% of the population, I see heroin use is rampant among the Dutch.
And how so, unriggable? I doubt everyone would start taking it it were legal, even without the negative effects caused by whatever the dealer is mixing it with to maximize his profits I know I most probably wouldn't start using Heroin, it's far too addictive and besides, most things that cost money tend to put me off. I might try it out once, as I did with cigarettes and Marijuana, and concluded that they weren't for me, I cherish my lungs too much (maybe space cookies, though). In the case of Heroin it would be the withdrawal symptoms which I hear can be quite severe. I must admit I'm not sure exactly after how many uses, how regular these uses have to be, and how quickly they appear. But even if I had to take a dose no more than once a week or go cold turkey I'd choose neither.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
ah so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
the egg
It's true...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
unriggable wrote:Well that's not the reasoning. Heroine's side effects far outdo how high you get, not to mention how addictive it is.
You didn't read the link the OP provided, did you? Heroin itself carries few side effects, constipation and nausea being the only ones the author of the book excerpt had been able to verify by researching the medical studies made on the topic.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
heavycola wrote:
The point:
Would it be better therefore for addicts to get their heroin from state-regulated sources? Yes. Obviously. The same goes for every recreational drug.
yes and no.
the swiss experiment is a great success in some areas, but it is not unqualified. in the uk, however, doctors have been able to prescribe medical heroin and methadone for a long time without replicating the successes of switzerland et al, probably based on cultural indemnities and the vilification of drug users in anglo-american style society. the same doesnt go for every recreational drug either. crystal meth, for example, should probably be wiped from the nation by force however you look at it.
In an ideal world, cyrstal meth wouldn't exist. Agreed. But it is also very easy to make and highly addictive. All the force that states can muster isn't going to wipe it from anywhere. It is here to stay. As is every other narcotic. That's why we need to approach the issue from an entirely different angle. Outlawing drugs doesn't work and will never work.
heavycola wrote:
The point:
Would it be better therefore for addicts to get their heroin from state-regulated sources? Yes. Obviously. The same goes for every recreational drug.
yes and no.
the swiss experiment is a great success in some areas, but it is not unqualified. in the uk, however, doctors have been able to prescribe medical heroin and methadone for a long time without replicating the successes of switzerland et al, probably based on cultural indemnities and the vilification of drug users in anglo-american style society. the same doesnt go for every recreational drug either. crystal meth, for example, should probably be wiped from the nation by force however you look at it.
In an ideal world, cyrstal meth wouldn't exist. Agreed. But it is also very easy to make and highly addictive. All the force that states can muster isn't going to wipe it from anywhere. It is here to stay. As is every other narcotic. That's why we need to approach the issue from an entirely different angle. Outlawing drugs doesn't work and will never work.
Good on yer Cola. The problem is, I think perhaps you think people are rational and intelligent.
While the Daily Mail sells in its millions, I reckon it could be an up hill battle
You would have thought the Yanks, with Prohibiton, would understand but hey ho.
Hopefully, when you become PM, you will kick off with:
"Its a great day for an ounce".
Norse wrote:
But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
ah so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither! The rooster came first.
fool, eggs were around for millions of years before the rooster.
how do you think dinosaurs are born ?
khazalid wrote:snorri, my point was that the hard drug problem in the netherlands has only eased in recent times due to policy reform.
Probably. However, that policy has more to do with people considering it a drug for losers and the whole coolness of it is gone. It has nothing to do with it being available or not.
ah so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither! The rooster came first.
fool, eggs were around for millions of years before the rooster.
how do you think dinosaurs are born ?
I believe that was a joke about rooster sex. No need to get all worked up. Anyone ever heard of "cloacal kissing?"
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
unriggable wrote:Well that's not the reasoning. Heroine's side effects far outdo how high you get, not to mention how addictive it is.
You didn't read the link the OP provided, did you? Heroin itself carries few side effects, constipation and nausea being the only ones the author of the book excerpt had been able to verify by researching the medical studies made on the topic.
1. No I didn't
2. It's addictiveness will no doubt be exploited by major corporations.
The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.
"Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world." -Kaiser Wilhelm II
Iz Man wrote:The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.
I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).
Iz Man wrote:The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.
I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).
Exactly. If these substances were regulated and (dare I say) taxed as alcohol & cigarettes are, then it would drive out a lot of dealers (who don't pay taxes), and provide additional revenue.
Put an age requirement on purchases (I propose 18, which is what the alcohol purchase age should be). R.J. Reynolds already has a patent on several "marijuana growing systems" just for this type of situation.
The ridiculous war on drugs has been a dismal failure, its time to get some common sense thrown into the mix.
"Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world." -Kaiser Wilhelm II
Iz Man wrote:The libertarian in me says yes, drugs should be legalized. I think though, that only "natural drugs" should be. Marijuana, mushrooms, opium, etc. Those that grow naturally.
Synthetic drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.) I believe pose a real threat to health & welfare and should be outlawed.
I agree with this logic, if they are legalized then they should have similar laws to alcohol (illegal to drive, age limit, etc.).
Exactly. If these substances were regulated and (dare I say) taxed as alcohol & cigarettes are, then it would drive out a lot of dealers (who don't pay taxes), and provide additional revenue.
Put an age requirement on purchases (I propose 18, which is what the alcohol purchase age should be). R.J. Reynolds already has a patent on several "marijuana growing systems" just for this type of situation.
The ridiculous war on drugs has been a dismal failure, its time to get some common sense thrown into the mix.
Wooo! But synthetic drugs have been a part of our lives for a loooong time. It sounds like you feel there is a difference between using synthetics recreationally and medicinally. That's an interesting debate. And one to which I, of course, have the right answer.
