|
Post by aubrey on Aug 9, 2010 18:40:26 GMT
Pumpkinette - go and google crack baby myth.
The myth was that crack had an effect of babies' development. It didn't.
What is much more likely to effect babies' development is malnitrition, which happens whether the mother is an addict or not. That was from Reagan's Social Security cuts: the crack baby myth was meant as a distraction from that. No one believes it now.
No one's saying that cannabis is entirely safe. There is a risk with anything you smoke. But you do not smoke anything like as much as you would with cigarettes. A lot of people do not even smoke cannabis with tobacco (I do).
Why is decriminalisation and regulation necessary for alcohol but a really bad idea for drugs? What is the difference?
Drugs are not evil. They are neutral. Using them - whatever you use them for - is neutral. If you believe in God, who do you think put them here?
I won't stop drinking or smoking. I don't see why I should. I smoke hardly anything, and drink one biggish whisky a night. Yes, I've got a chronic condition as well - kidney failure - which wasn't caused by anything I did. I am not allowed much fluid, and only spirits (no wine or beer, or cocoa, little tea, very weak coffee). A glass of whisky will last for getting on for an hour; the same amount of orange squash (not allowed juice) would be gone in under a minute. No, I'm not going to stop drinking whisky.
(I've got Aubrey the cat sitting on the window sill looking at me. Don't know what he wants.)
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 9, 2010 19:17:09 GMT
Aubrey, I have no idea whether the 'crack baby' thing is a myth or not, but given that you seem the type of poster who posts factual sources to support your opinions (as opposed to just spouting off and declaring everyone who challenges you "wrong" or whatever), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
HOWEVER, smack babies . . . that's certainly a real thing. We don't have many crack addicts up here, but we do have plenty of smackheads, and their babies are born addicted to opium and have to withdraw in their early days. Horrible. They squeal like little animals.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 9, 2010 19:53:02 GMT
Druggies come up with these arguments because they want to deflect blame from themselves. They are simply in denial that they are a big part of a very big problem. While I don't believe that Mariljuana is particularly addictive, we do know that Heroin, Cocaine, and Meth are highly addictive. We also know that virtually every one of those druggies addicted to heavy drugs did Marijuana first. You can argue that Marijuana isn't addictive but it does seem to start one down the wrong path. Bottom line is that I wouldn't want my kids associating with people who do any kind of drugs including Marijuana. That's the wrong crowd. I agree that marijuana isn't particularly addictive, but nicotine is! Almost everyone i knew with a drug problem started with a cigarette addiction!Drug consumption patterns are very culturally varied, even from city to city. So what the 'passport' drug is in one culture will vary (if there is always a 'passport' drug. There are no worldwide rules. In Glasgow alcohol is the 'passport' drug . . . nobody ended up a smackhead without first being a pisshead. (Well, almost nobody.) You can't tackle addiction by identifying specific drugs. Addiction is the same kind of a problem, whether you're addicted to smack or alcohol. None of that, of course, changes the fact that marijuana is far less harmful than many legal drugs and its continued illegality is not based on evidence or common sense. Pleased to see it has been all but legalised in California. Sometimes our American cousins are ahead of the curve when it comes to sensible, progressive laws.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 9, 2010 20:48:42 GMT
Rriot, I googled Crack Baby Myth. I'd found stuff earlier following links from Ben Goldacre's Bad Science page (IE - I wasn't looking for stuff about crack babies).
Yes, I know about heroin babies, and it sounds horrible. (The crack baby thing was something specific, about damage in later life from crack.) I don't think that heroin being illegal helps them, though; more likely, it stops the mothers from going to get help.
It isn't a good idea to take heroin. If I'd believed what the Govt used to say about cannabis (and still do, with Skunk), there would have been nothing much to stop me, in my youth, from thinking that heroin was ok, since I'd already had one dangerous drug (cannabis), and heroin wasn't supposed to be much worse. But I had read my Burroughs, and my Cocteau (opium), and didn't much fancy it.
They should maybe study The Naked Lunch in schools. That's what put me off junk.
(There's a pub near us that reckons to sell 50 different types of German beer. When it is possible, I am going to go there and get absolutely, positively, completely, slaughtered. I will be sick, and I will regret it, and I will have difficulty walking home; but I don't care.)
(Typing awful. Whisky.)
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 9, 2010 20:49:44 GMT
(Oh - The Velvet Underground - Heroin and Waiting for the Man - they put me off, too.)
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Aug 10, 2010 11:39:26 GMT
Pumpkinette - go and google crack baby myth. The myth was that crack had an effect of babies' development. It didn't. What is much more likely to effect babies' development is malnitrition, which happens whether the mother is an addict or not. That was from Reagan's Social Security cuts: the crack baby myth was meant as a distraction from that. No one believes it now. No one's saying that cannabis is entirely safe. There is a risk with anything you smoke. But you do not smoke anything like as much as you would with cigarettes. A lot of people do not even smoke cannabis with tobacco (I do). Why is decriminalisation and regulation necessary for alcohol but a really bad idea for drugs? What is the difference? Drugs are not evil. They are neutral. Using them - whatever you use them for - is neutral. If you believe in God, who do you think put them here? I won't stop drinking or smoking. I don't see why I should. I smoke hardly anything, and drink one biggish whisky a night. Yes, I've got a chronic condition as well - kidney failure - which wasn't caused by anything I did. I am not allowed much fluid, and only spirits (no wine or beer, or cocoa, little tea, very weak coffee). A glass of whisky will last for getting on for an hour; the same amount of orange squash (not allowed juice) would be gone in under a minute. No, I'm not going to stop drinking whisky. (I've got Aubrey the cat sitting on the window sill looking at me. Don't know what he wants.) I'll answer this when I have time.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 10, 2010 19:33:01 GMT
Aubrey the cat's gone now.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 13, 2010 17:17:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 14, 2010 1:22:42 GMT
Calderon is the best thing that's ever happened to Mexico. Previous administrations were on the take or frightened of the drug gangs. Calderon is a true hero of the Mexican people. Did you know that the drug gangs in Mexico are so bad that they've intimidated the Mexican press in addition to many government officials and police. Even the newspapers are afraid to publish news articles about gang killings for fear of retaliation. Reporters have been murdered. A very interesting development is the emergence of the Mexican Narco Blog which you can view here elblogdelnarco.blogspot.com/This blog has become a national sensation in Mexico. It's the one place where people can go to get the news on the drug wars. It was started by a Mexican college student majoring in computer security.. His identity is highly confidential. The blog has become so popular that he receives many unsolicited news reports with photos every day.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 14, 2010 8:48:08 GMT
I imagine that the thousands of innocent people and human rights leaders who were murdered by the govt forces might disagree with that.
The thing is - these govt people don't want to drugs war to end. It is an ideal way of suspending individual rights and keeping whole areas under military control. And they have the perfect comeback - "it's about drugs, and drugs are evil, and if you say anything about what we are doing you're evil as well."
A bit like the Witch Trials, really.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 14, 2010 17:36:54 GMT
and those murdered by the drug gangs ? and yes drugs are evil..[the types of which we are speaking..as are those who deal in them
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 14, 2010 18:42:09 GMT
Of course people are murdered by drug gangs. The Govt are not responsible for them, or at least not directly (but see below). They are responsible for they people they kill. And they don't seem to give a flying toss. Because it's a war against drugs, and in a war you can do anything you like; and if anyone criticises you: well then, they're the enemy as well.
Drugs are not evil, no kinds are. They are neutral.
Was opium evil in Victorian England? So how are opiates evil now? What's "evil" is the attitude to them. Which is caused by prohibition.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 16, 2010 19:25:07 GMT
Yea right Aubrey, drugs are not evil and cancer is good for you. Keep dreaming.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 16, 2010 20:13:05 GMT
How can drugs be evil? Drugs can't think. You have to be able to think to be evil. You have to know what you're doing. Drugs aren't anything. They're inert.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 16, 2010 20:56:46 GMT
DAS
Funny you should bring up prohibition. You recognise its failure, well you can't really deny it, can you.
So its obvious that the only rational way forward is to legalise, regulate AND tax drugs and prostitution, just as we do with alcohol, nicotine and gambling.
Yet you seem unable to grasp this plain and simple fact.
Your attitude to the issue enables a whole web of crime to flourish.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 16, 2010 20:58:35 GMT
Yea right Aubrey, drugs are not evil and cancer is good for you. Keep dreaming. Magic mushrooms do not give you cancer, trip on das
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 17, 2010 0:03:07 GMT
They give something almost as bad Fret. If you're a druggie, you might not die tomorrow (unless you OD which is very common) but it's a certainty that you will be a completely worthless human being. You won't be able to hold a job. You won't be paying taxes. You'll just be leaching on the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 17, 2010 8:29:21 GMT
OK. The vast majority of drug users can and do hold down jobs. I did (it was not drug use that made me too ill to work).
So, they pay taxes, they are not leeching. You probably know quite a few of them, without even realising it.
Most drug deaths come from either the lifestyle, or from contaminated drugs (ODs happen because it is impossible to tell what dose you're actually getting). This would be vastly reduced if drugs were decriminalised and regulated.
Govts need to stop lying about drugs. At the moment there is a rough and innacurate classification system, which gives some sort of guide (which is still wrong); but you will never get any Govt representative to say that any one drug (say cannabis) is safer than any other (say, heroin); they just will not do it.
Now, the millions of people who have smoked cannabis or taken ecstacy know that what the govt says about those drugs is untrue; so why should anyone believe them when they say that heroin is dangerous? Because according to the Govt, heroin is not that much worse than cannabis and ecstacy. At the moment, the worst thing you'll get off either of those drugs - the only way you'll have your life ruined - is to get caught, and be given a criminal record.
Yes - people have died from ecstacy. But very few (millions upon millions have taken it; it is really very safe. More people die from Paracetamol). No one's died from cannabis.
At present, if the British Govt is given scientific advice (from a specially appointed committee of scientists) about drugs that does not recommend further restrictions, they ignore it.
This committee was specifically set up to give the impression of a rational and scientific approach towards drugs. When the head of the committee carried on saying the things that the Govt had ignored (in his own time, as well), he was sacked. Scientific advice is OK if it agrees your own prejudices; otherwise it must be silenced - which is a bit medieval, really.
If the Govt had known anything about drugs, they would not have set up the committee, as they would have known that the committee would say that the present system of drug classification is wrong, and misleading.
Where the committee went wrong is that they thought the govt was serious when it said it wanted to treat drugs on a scientific basis; in fact, the govt just wanted some scientific legitimacy to back up its prejudices.
Really, Govts of the world should come out and just say that there is no rational or scientific basis for the way drugs are treated, but just admit that, through prejudice and ignorance, they now find themselves in an impossible situation: and then just apologise, and start doing something about it. Educating themselves would be a good first step.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Aug 17, 2010 10:52:24 GMT
They give something almost as bad Fret. If you're a druggie, you might not die tomorrow (unless you OD which is very common) but it's a certainty that you will be a completely worthless human being. You won't be able to hold a job. You won't be paying taxes. You'll just be leaching on the taxpayers. Das, you could not be more wrong. I work, pay my taxes and aside from indulging in a little Bob Hope I am generally law-abiding. There are a great many like me. I'd rather the money did not go to the black market......
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Aug 17, 2010 11:07:43 GMT
Is there a mod around here anywhere? WTH does this have to do with why Prohibition failed?
Shouldn't this thread be in the member's vegie patch?
|
|