[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

it's not legal to make or sell your own booze either.

It's legal to produce your own wine and beer for personal consumption. Only hard spirits are illegal. Mind you, I've tasted some recipes that would knock the socks off of anything you buy from a liquor store....and some shit I'd only use for removing rust and paint.

[Zipperfish]

Kind of jumping the gun. They said they're still waiting for the toxicology results. Overdose deaths from MDMA are extremely rare. Of course, facts like that don't alarm people, which is exactly what the media want to do (to sell ads) and the government wants to do (to pass more laws and make itself bigger).

[andyt]

Proculation Proculation:

I consider myself to be very liberal on social issues, specially drugs. But your POV is almost radical-liberal, voire, libertarian. "Let everybody decides what's good for them".

You really think we should liberalize synthetic drugs like MDMA, Meth, GHB, or even prescription drugs like Ritalin, steroids, etc ?

I take Ritalin for a fatigue syndrom. There's a reason i'm handed only a certain amount a month: I would always want to be on the 'high' side and be more productive.

Liberalize? What kind of term is that? I believe we should accept reality, that people are doing that shit and making it illegal doesn't stop them. Nobody rational is arguing for just allowing anybody to cook up and sell drugs, or just selling them at the corner store like candy. It's about the government regulating them. Prescription drugs would remain prescription drugs. MDMA, what what I understand, isn't all that dangerous if done right, so it could be sold in liquor stores. GHB is already legal, isn't' it? Certainly heroin should be legalized - save a lot of lives that way.

The drugs that are really on the edge are crystal meth and crack - those seem very dangerous even if reliably sourced. But then, people are already producing those and taking them.

Your whole assumption seems to rest on the idea that legalizing drugs means it becomes a free for all - nobody responsible is recommending that at all. Another faulty premise you're likely operating under is that if drugs are legalized but regulated, all of a sudden this horde of people will rush out and abuse them. Would you? Anybody you know? Do you think making something illegal deters kids, or actually acts to attract them?

This is about harm reduction - legalizing will reduce the harm that drugs cause, but not eliminate it totally. Worst drug for harm is cigarettes, then booze. You think criminalizing them would be successful?

On a personal level, I think people can do better than harm reduction - ie abstinence. (Many tho can't.) On a societal level, abstinence will never happen, so harm reduction seems like the way to go. People have been getting shitfaced for millenia. They found pot seeds in 30,000 year old sites, and one theory says that people invented agriculture to have a steady supply of grain to make beer from, not because they needed food. Trying to eradicate that urge by criminalizing it is just doing a King Kanute.

[ShepherdsDog]

Most early beers were more food than fun. It was a rich source of vitamins and other nutrients.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Most early beers were more food than fun. It was a rich source of vitamins and other nutrients.

If it was about food they wouldn't have had to ferment them.

[Proculation]

I don't say that. But I don't believe legalizing and distributing drugs would be better. I think it would be worse simply for the reason it would be more accessible and that won't stop black market since it would be at a much lower price.

I would much more believe in decriminalization than legalization. Getting a criminal records for having some drugs on you is totally stupid. But legalizing, I think, is also stupid because it's looking at the problem with pink glasses.

Just look at what opium has done is Asia or cocaine in America before they banned it. It WAS a 'free for all' as you say it.

[ShepherdsDog]

andyt andyt:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Most early beers were more food than fun. It was a rich source of vitamins and other nutrients.

If it was about food they wouldn't have had to ferment them.

Fermentation was also a way of preserving food. Once it's fermented it isn't going to go bad and give you food poisoning.

To make a point, look at all the societal problems we have with legalized alcohol and prescription drugs. Don't you think that the legalization of other drugs will just compound the problem?

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

To make a point, look at all the societal problems we have with legalized alcohol and prescription drugs. Don't you think that the legalization of other drugs will just compound the problem?

No, because making other drugs subject to the same regulation as booze will not increase the problems. It will decrease them. Less people getting criminal records. More money for the govt instead of criminals. Less overdoses etc because purity and dosage are assured. Les criminal violence around them. etc

And probably some people even stopping using them. Were legal heroin has been tried, some people actually quite because it becomes boring. The whole culture around illegal drugs is as addictive as using the drugs themselves.

As I keep saying, Legalization isn't a panacea - problems associated with drugs won't disappear, no more than they have disappeared with booze. But I believe that the problems will be substantially ameliorated if we focus our efforts and money on treating drug use rather than prosecuting them. Better yet would be to build a caring, communal society, so people will be less inclined to do drugs, but then we'd have to figure out what to do about capitalism - so lets tackle the little problems like legalizing drugs first.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Were legal heroin has been tried, some people actually quite because it becomes boring.

isn't the point of heroin to iduce euphoria, cause you to sleep and dream vividly?

[Brenda]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Were legal heroin has been tried, some people actually quite because it becomes boring.

isn't the point of heroin to make you sleep and dream vividly?

You could actually decypher that sentence?

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Were legal heroin has been tried, some people actually quite because it becomes boring.

isn't the point of heroin to iduce euphoria, cause you to sleep and dream vividly?

I think the sleeping and dreaming part is more opium. I'm not an expert about heroin, but yep, the rush is the biggest attraction. It bonds with so many endorphin ("internal morphine" ie built in) receptors that you just feel wonderful. And the nods seem to be a part of it to. But, junkies also get addicted to the whole process: scoring, getting together to shoot up etc, hiding from the man. It's part of what makes quitting so hard for them, they miss the purpose in life of finding the money and then the drugs etc. I'm not just talking thru my hat here, this is documented.

Saw a 60 minutes about legal heroin dispensary in Switzerland. Addicts were required to shoot up on site, in a white, sterile environment. One guy interviewed said that it was so boring, he might actually be able to quite this time. These people were teachers, musicians, etc - they had straight jobs and lived a straight, more or less life. Because heroin was affordable and pure, they didn't have to do crime to get it, and they were assured they wouldn't OD or anything. You can live a long and happy life on heroin, the problem is that the effective dose is very close to the lethal one, so if you don't know the strength of what you're shooting up, it's easy to blow it. Otherwise, as long as you're not a pilot or something, it's really no problem to live on it. You'll just be constipated and have a low sex drive is all.

The biggest problem with most illegal drugs is that you're always chasing that first high. It's never as good after that, and pretty soon getting high just becomes getting normal, while being straight is hell. This all isn't true for things like LSD of course, 'cause that's not about feeling good per se. But the drugs that give the quick, strong rush, those are very dangerous because of the behavioral component - immediate reward. That's what makes crack so evil - they say with that you can be addicted after one hit. But none of this means that you can prevent it with the criminal process - a healing approach (not just medical) is what's needed.

BTW we don't just have endorphin receptors, ie we're all junkies to the shit our body produces, but we have cannabanoid receptors as well - I wonder why?

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

You could actually decypher that sentence?

meh...

A letter missing here and an extra one there....you should see some papers I edit here....... for supposed professionals. I figure that I've been published in a few journals seeing most of the work was mine.

[andyt]

I added an e, you left out an n. Big deal. For a forum we're doing pretty good. I can see why the spell checker missed my quite that should have read quit, but what's your excuse?

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

You could actually decypher that sentence?

Trying to decipher your sentence here.

[Brenda]

You use spell check?

Oh, and "were" and "where" are 2 different words, just like "quite" and "quit". Lucky for me, I have an excuse. What's yours?