Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 102

Thread: War On Drugs

  1. #1

    Default War On Drugs

    According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report, a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production. Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, Furthermore, three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States. The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets. Source: New York Times and Associated Press.

    Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc. Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments. The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable. Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly. The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another. Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production. This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet. The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living. I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today. Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.

  2. #2

    Default

    Crop burning would be good, but we'll be charatcerized as butchers and nation-burners. And personally, if I was a leader of a country and the US firebombed my country, I would not be pleased to say the least. I wouldn't be suprised if that action, especally in Afganistan, would supr civil unrest and could even provide ammo for Anti-US terrorism. So I think that's out.


    What needs to be done, needs to be done a local level. The fact is, thousands of kids think drugs are cool and have NO positive role model. Maybe if we brought back the Rockeffler laws on a national level, then people would be discuoraged.

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm not anti drugs nor pro drugs.

    I just think the double standard is hypocritical.

    If we are truly a "free" nation why does the gov't tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies so long as we do not harm others? Coffee...is a drug. But caffiene...thats legal. Why?

    Bring back the Rockefella Drug laws? That is a great way to keep the prisons full.

    What makes people criminals?....laws. Pass a law tomorrow that cigarettes are illegal and the jails would be spilling with a cheap labor force that tax dollars would finance to house.

    What if normal things we do were suddenly deemed illegal? Its simply ridiculous....unless we're really a totalitarian state disguised as a free country.

    Funny. The "war on drugs" is really just a war on the Poor people. Why are cigarettes (nicotine) and alcohol legal? More people get drunk and start trouble, crash cars and cause lots of problems for families and the community. But that is ok?

    Where's the War on Junk food? Oh no...we don't want to mess with the food industry...who so generously support our bought and paid for politicians.

    Or the Pharmaceutical industry...that make drugs for profit and have not cured ANYthing since Polio and they're still pissed about that. Think of all the money they could have made 'maintaining' polio patients? So ask your doctor is Cialis is for you. Funny thing, when you ask your doc what to give you...the Dr. becomes your dealer and not your physician.

    Hard on pills, cox 2 inhibitors, indigestion medicines (that actuall encourage us to continue indulging in BAD foods). These are the legal drugs...like Vioxx and Celebrex...which get recalled and lead to more problems instead of healing you...they slowly poison you.

    Forget about the bogus war on drugs...

    It would be better to invest our resources in education and better television programs for kids so they grow up more intelligent and become productive members of society instead of the violent, dumbed down garbage out there today. Better than investing in incarcerating a depressed, uneducated, usually poor people, who's main crime is ignorance.

    A smart society thinks long term. Locking people up for drug use will never even address the CAUSE of the problem. But..I guess we're accustomed to treating the symptoms of our problems instead of the cause. Like most of the medications (legal) on the "market" today.


    Where are we headed? Seems we (as a society) are suckers to the Pharmaceutical companies...the ones who want a monopoly on all drugs.

    Sorry for the long post.

  4. #4
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Law & Order
    Kill them, all of them. Not drop bombs or burn crops, because that releases the shit into the atmosphere. See I hate drugs. Hate them. Hate anyone who does them. Hate anyone who jokes about them. I dont mind cigerettes or alcoholas much but I dont hate them like I do drugs. Brings out the violence in me. Give me a bat and put me in a bad neighborhood and im sure I could produce results.
    So apparantly it's neither law nor order for you. Thanks for sharing your belligerence. Maybe you should remember to take your drugs - the little pills in the plastic bottle with your name on it?

  5. #5
    Forum Veteran macreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    I don't know how a war on drugs is a war on poor people.

    I don't know how poor people can afford drugs. The only people I can think of that can afford drugs are wall street hotshots and their rich children.

  6. #6

    Default

    Drugs are cheap.

    In the Big 80's, it was called coke, and it was expensive.

    Then a breakthrough occurred on a level with the Model T Ford - crack for the masses.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    Then a breakthrough occurred on a level with the Model T Ford - crack for the masses.
    HOORAY!

  8. #8
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Law & Order
    Up yours.

    ???

  9. #9

    Default

    Sarcasm is a difficult concept on the Internet.

  10. #10

    Default

    Not if you're a genius like me. [/sarcasm]

  11. #11
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Law & Order
    Bullshit, absolute Bull Shit. That pisses me off. ****ing Bullshit. Thats how people die. They do that then I appear at there door. Oops.
    If you think people die from hemp oil, I think you're a bit underinformed.

  12. #12
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Law & Order
    No, I mean I kill them.
    You kill them for eating lollipops?

  13. #13

    Default

    Setting the Record Straight on Marijuana and Addiction

    March 31, 2008
    by Paul Armentano



    The U.S. government believes that America is going to pot – literally.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse announced plans to spend $4 million to establish the nation's first-ever "Center on Cannabis Addiction," which will be based in La Jolla, Calif. The goal of the center, according to NIDA's press release, is to "develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction."

    Not familiar with the notion of "marijuana addiction"? You're not alone. In fact, aside from the handful of researchers who have discovered that there are gobs of federal grant money to be had hunting for the government's latest pot boogeyman, there's little consensus that such a syndrome is clinically relevant – if it even exists at all.

    But don't try telling that to the mainstream press – which recently published headlines worldwide alleging, "Marijuana withdrawal rivals that of nicotine." The alleged "study" behind the headlines involved all of 12 participants, each of whom were longtime users of pot and tobacco, and assessed the self-reported moods of folks after they were randomly chosen to abstain from both substances. Big surprise: they weren't happy.

    And don't try telling Big Pharma – which hopes to cash in on the much-hyped "pot and addiction" craze by touting psychoactive prescription drugs like Lithium to help hardcore smokers kick the marijuana habit.

    And certainly don't try telling the drug "treatment" industry, whose spokespeople are quick to warn that marijuana "treatment" admissions have risen dramatically in recent years, but neglect to explain that this increase is due entirely to the advent of drug courts sentencing minor pot offenders to rehab in lieu of jail. According to state and national statistics, up to 70 percent of all individuals in drug treatment for marijuana are placed there by the criminal justice system. Of those in treatment, some 36 percent had not even used marijuana in the 30 days prior to their admission. These are the "addicts"?

    Indeed, the concept of pot addiction is big business – even if the evidence in support of the pseudosyndrome is flimsy at best.

    And what does the science say? Well, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine – which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 – "millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it." The investigator added, "[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

    Just how less likely? According to the Institute of Medicine's 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."

    In short, it's the legal drugs that have Americans hooked – not pot.

    But what about the claims that ceasing marijuana smoking can trigger withdrawal symptoms similar to those associated with quitting tobacco? Once again, it's a matter of degree. According to the Institute of Medicine, pot's withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are "mild and subtle" compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol use – which can be fatal – or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior.

    The IOM report further explained, "[U]nder normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent[s] substantial abstinence symptoms" from occurring. As a result, cannabis' withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.

    Most importantly, unlike the withdrawal symptoms associated with the cessation of most other intoxicants, pot's mild after-effects do not appear to be either severe or long-lasting enough to perpetuate marijuana use in individuals who have decided to quit. This is why most marijuana smokers report voluntarily ceasing their cannabis use by age 30 with little physical or psychological difficulty. By comparison, many cigarette smokers who pick up the habit early in life continue to smoke for the rest of their lives, despite making numerous efforts to quit.

    So let's review.

    Marijuana is widely accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and others to lack the severe physical and psychological dependence liability associated with most other intoxicants, including alcohol and tobacco. Further, pot lacks the profound abstinence symptoms associated with most legal intoxicants, including caffeine.

    That's not to say that some marijuana smokers don't find quitting difficult. Naturally, a handful of folks do, though this subpopulation is hardly large enough to warrant pot's legal classification (along with heroin) as an illicit substance with a "high potential for abuse." Nor does this fact justify the continued arrest of more than 800,000 Americans annually for pot violations any more than such concerns would warrant the criminalization of booze or nicotine.

    Now if I can only get NIDA to fork me over that $4 million check.


    Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. He is the author of "Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature" (2007, NORML Foundation).

    Copyright © 2008 Paul Armentano

  14. #14
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Too much money is being spent to keep this on one side of the fence.

    One wonders how much money is really being made, and who the fence builders really are. It would hurt the drug trade if this stuff went legal, and as hinted in the article, the pharms would not like any kind of grow-it-yourself mild sedative on the market when they have SO MANY to choose from (as well as several to help you "kick" the former).

    As for addiction, I can't see it. I have never taken it myself, but I do not see any people suffering PHYSICAL symptoms of withdrawal from casual use. Most addictions and abuses of this substance I see stemming from, and primarily controlled by, psychological factors with little bearing on the actual substance itself. These are people that would get addicted to just about anything that gave them the same feeling, not because of the dependence on the substance itself either....


    BTW, sis anyone find it odd that they found only a 23% rate of addiction among heroin users? It would be interesting to see how they came by THAT number!

    Well, whatever. Someone is paying the government to keep us paranoid about pot. I think it would open a lot of eyes, bloodshot or not, if we really knew who they were!

  15. #15

    Default

    One of the best I've read.

    Blowing Smoke: A Commentary by William C. Shelton

    January 09, 2006

    In this week’s Somerville News, there is a report on a local marijuana seizure. Few topics are more fraught with ignorance, hypocrisy, and hysteria. Yet, I hesitate to write about marijuana for fear that young people might imagine that I’m encouraging them to use it. I’m not. Don’t.

    It seems almost impossible to have a rational, fact-based discussion on the subject. One blogger, posting in response to our story, commented about victimless crimes. This sparked a name-calling fury by others, but few ideas and no evidence. Responding to this assault, another blogger insisted that we didn’t know anything about marijuana, but instead of enlightening us, went on to call the name-callers more names.

    Those who get deeply into the evidence usually arrive at a conclusion similar to that of conservative icon William F. Buckley: “The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well meaning conservatives and countless frightened parents.”

    After reviewing exhaustive evidence and two years’ testimony, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young ruled that “marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” He characterized its prohibition as “unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.” His order to make it available for prescription use was ignored.

    His was not the first assessment of all available evidence; nor was his conclusion. In 1883, the Indian Hemp Drug Commission found that “moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effect on the mind” inflicting “no moral injury whatsoever.” In 1925, a government study commissioned in response to concerns about its use by U.S. troops in Panama found “no evidence that marihuana…has any appreciably deleterious influence on the individual using it.”

    Richard Nixon wanted someone with a zealous anti-drug history to chair a commission on marijuana. He picked former Pennsylvania governor Ray Shafer. Nixon was astonished, when, in 1972, the commission recommended decriminalizing pot.

    Over 400,000 people die in the U.S. each year from tobacco use; 120,000 from alcohol. There is virtually no lethal dose of cannabis, so the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network scans medical examiners’ reports in which the lethal behavior of the deceased may well have been influenced by drugs. In 1999, there were 664 cases involving marijuana, in 187 of which it was the only drug.

    Many may feel that we can’t put the alcohol and tobacco genies back in the bottle, but the marijuana genie is still locked up. Even though cannabis is less harmful, it does some harm. Indeed, I have been sobered by the drug’s capacity to diminish motivation in certain user acquaintances of mine.

    So why should we consider legalizing it? Well, because when young people experience marijuana, they imagine that the falsehoods they were told about it apply to crack, methamphetamine, oxycontin, and heroin as well. That’s the real way that marijuana is a “gateway drug.”

    Because we’re spending $35 billion per year on a drug war, yet supply and potency continue to increase, while price drops. Because having to choose between pursuing justice and enforcing unjust laws stresses law enforcement officers who experience quite enough stress already. Because billions that are going to criminals and terrorists could become tax revenues used to fight them.

    Because the plant can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from automotive plastics to cellophane, displacing imports of raw material and manufactured products and providing thousands of jobs to Americans. Cannabis seed oil is an almost perfect ratio of polyunsaturated fats. Paper made from the plant’s fiber would require one-fifth the energy costs of wood pulp, while saving forests.

    Because hundreds of thousands of nonviolent Americans are locked up for having the bad judgment to possess it. Because we are spending billions on incarceration, while ruining the lives of otherwise decent people.

    On the other hand, crystal meth is cheap, easy to make, instantly addictive, and permanently cauterizing young people’s brains across the heartland. Half of state and local law enforcement agencies identify it as their greatest threat, as opposed to one-eighth for marijuana. In 2003, agents raided 10,180 meth labs, mostly in rural areas. But the Bush administration is cutting aid to rural narcotics teams in half, while increasing marijuana enforcement. Annual pot arrests are now half of all drug busts. They were one-quarter a decade ago.

    I sincerely don’t get it. I don’t think it’s a matter of political orientation. I know progressives who repudiate pot, conservatives who want to legalize it, and liberals who act like they’re on it. Nor am I persuaded by those who believe that the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical interests are preventing legalization. They would jump at the chance to market pot.

    Perhaps it’s just that so few political leaders are willing to risk the consequences of speaking truth. As Dresden James once wrote, "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous, and its speaker, a raving lunatic."

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. herbal drugs
    By Boredatwork in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 29th, 2009, 03:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software