IGX

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I will give you my first hand observations based on years of experience both as a rec drug user...

Goes some way to explaining why you're such a dunce maybe.

Perhaps I can make it simpler. Obviously legalisation will stop the crime of dealing. Because it is no longer a crime. What it won't stop is the attendant crime. The junkie who broke into my car and stole the stereo did it to afford his fix. He'll still do that if his fix is legal to buy.

That may be a lie as well though, perhaps a junkie never broke into my car, after all, nothing impresses people on the internet like saying you live near (within 3 meters?) of druggies.

And I may have done Grace a few times, but I'm no crossfitter. I'm all up for a boisterous discussion but don't throw disgusting accusations like that around.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:Perhaps I can make it simpler. Obviously legalisation will stop the crime of dealing. Because it is no longer a crime. What it won't stop is the attendant crime. The junkie who broke into my car and stole the stereo did it to afford his fix. He'll still do that if his fix is legal to buy.

Wrong! How many drunkards have broken into your car to steal your stereo to afford their next whiskey shot or beer? Zero.

And why is that? Because booze is cheap and widely available.

If recreational drugs were a legal industry, prices would lower rather significantly. If a line of coke cost four bucks nobody would steal, rob, mug or kill to get his next fix.

Wrong! Booze addicts commit crime as well! Perhaps if you'd said a smoker it might have worked. Strangely, different chemicals affect people in different ways, and some drugs make people more likely to be fuck ups than others. That's why a blanket ban is stupid, as is a total free for all.

Have your booze, your weed, your hallucinogens, even your coke. Just don't pretend that allowing all people unfettered access to what ever drug they want is gonna make the world suddenly a magical nirvana.

Current drug policy is similar to whacking the head against the wall to cure the headache. If the headache doesn't get better - hit harder. Over 30 years of Nancy's darling "Just Say No!" prison population grew exponentially, drugs became more available and cheaper. Hit harder! At the same time experiences around the world prove that suppression policy does not work, and there is plenty of evidence that loosening the rules improves the situation in most aspects.

The results of decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal are well known: decreased crime, increased visits to doctors for drug related problems (you are no longer a criminal), fewer criminal records that stain peoples' reputation, and, paradoxically, decrease in drug use overall. As well as serious decrease in drug related deaths. As far as I know the experience in the US where pot has been legalised is very similar: job creation, less drug related crime etc.

I will argue that overall drugs are safer and result in superior social effects than alcohol. In terms of seeking behaviour junkies are no different from drunks, but similarity ends here. Vast majority of most commonly used recreational drugs don't produce aggressiveness. Ever seen someone to smoke a joint and start a fight? Ecstasy? Heroin? Junkies commit crime to get the drugs, drunks do it for fun.

Over a decade ago Emergency Department at St.Vincent's hospital in Sydney - located in the hub of drug use - introduced "Shooting Rooms". You want to do drugs - come and shoot. They will give you a clean syringe, couple of sandwiches, a plate of soup and will dress your wounds. Since they started doing that fatal overdoses in the area dropped to zero in the last five years. Mind you, politicians still play the card "They want our children to be drug addicts!", but less and less, as the results are very telling. Moreover, the doctors and nurses in the Department now have relationship with the local dealers and regularly check their stuff for purity. Not surprisingly, dealers are very welcoming to the idea: dealing drugs is crime bad enough, nobody wants to cause death on top of that.

Obviously, all of our children are angels. However, just like most of us in our young age they are likely (70% chance at least) to at least try drugs. When mine do, I want these drugs manufactured in a proper way according to the safest industrial standards, not cooked in the underground labs with questionable processes.

For those willing to delve into the subject more seriously, there is a good book Saying Yes by Jacob Sullum that sheds different light on the topic.

Last thing: legalising drugs is not about solving all problems in the world. It is switching one set of problems for another. I believe, however, that problems related to legalisation are way more manageable than those related to "Fighting the WAR on drugs". There is only one way to check if this is true, to stop scaremongering and start loosening the rope.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:That study takes more shortcuts than a Trump speech. They talk about racial disparities in drug arrests, but not changes in crime. The implicit conclusions about Iran are another issue I have-- there's not enough data to make the conclusions they imply (plus the refugee issue complicates everything). Lazy science should never be acceptable.
For those who want to read the actual study: http://press.thelancet.com/DrugsPolicy1.pdf

So, enough with the red herrings...lazy science...climate science et al...That's all distracting rubbish as we know you're cleverer than that. No one is saying this is the bestest most completest study on the subject. It passes a certain amount of muster because elements of it are irrefutably true.

Stop it, you're better than this.

They use things that are 'irrefutably' true to cover for things they don't know, can't make solid correlations to, and can't prove-- massive red flags that should never be ignored.

No red herrings, but if they're going to do science, they should do it right. Given the Lancet's track record (the article that started the whole anti-vaxxer movement was in the Lancet), they should have better editorial control.

Jesus tits. You're right, I am better than this...significantly better than you at it anyway.

If it's refutable...refute it. Use something other than cherry picking and pot shots. You can't because at the end of the day you know you're arguing against reality..and despite being papist filth even you can't bring yourself the wriggle that hard.

This is why it's typically a waste of time to discuss anything with you beyond taking potshots at religions and crossfitters like that soft weak cunt Rudy....Your standards spiel is...

It's complex.

Oh I agree....now simplify it in a meaningful way...what's a single salient point we can take away from this data?

ATTACK MESSENGER

Boredom ensues

You've not shown much courage of any convictions, analysis or deep thought on this subject. It makes it difficult to peel interesting out of your rhetoric. I suggest that you may be conservative in posture out of sheer laziness, not out of intellect because I have yet to hear you on this subject (or many others in recent memory) manage to break down a decent take away point. It's continuously disappointing.

Unlike Rudy the crossfitter, I suspect you do have important life experience or analytical prowess to bring to bear...it saddens me when you choose not to. You sir.... are better than that.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I will give you my first hand observations based on years of experience both as a rec drug user...

Goes some way to explaining why you're such a dunce maybe.

Perhaps I can make it simpler. Obviously legalisation will stop the crime of dealing. Because it is no longer a crime. What it won't stop is the attendant crime. The junkie who broke into my car and stole the stereo did it to afford his fix. He'll still do that if his fix is legal to buy.

That may be a lie as well though, perhaps a junkie never broke into my car, after all, nothing impresses people on the internet like saying you live near (within 3 meters?) of druggies.

And I may have done Grace a few times, but I'm no crossfitter. I'm all up for a boisterous discussion but don't throw disgusting accusations like that around.

You know how we can all tell you've got nothing? Open with a lie, lead into mis-characterizations, run off the edge of the topic, cite not source, rely on no experience. You secondarily dismissed life experiences you have not had and conflated your arguments doubling down on the worst of them , leaving the decent points to the side.

We can all tell you are an idiot, not because your a fucking crossfitting faggot, but because you don't know your own shit from shinola....

Now I'll do you a solid because you're both a newb and failing so epically . You can call me a junky (fair enough) you can sling all kinds of weak shit you like..The fact of the matter is, unless you've actually taken the drug, studied the drug or lived intimately with addiction and or crime and or some close approximation, you had better have something we haven't heard before...or you make yourself totally irrelevant (most of you posts are case in point) ...hell...I bet Turd is digging up studies right now...he's probably elbow deep in some reactionary think tank shit...and it'll be weak as piss but it'll be at least interesting.

Also...please read the shit before you run your jib...I make mid 6 figures and own a couple small businesses, I have kids and dogs and all that jazz...I certainly don't fucking live near any drug dealers...and neither do you, you weak crossfitting bitch.

As disappointing as his Junior League GOP rhetoric is, you make me legitimately grateful that Turd has stuck around.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Rudy Van Horne wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I will give you my first hand observations based on years of experience both as a rec drug user...

Goes some way to explaining why you're such a dunce maybe.

Perhaps I can make it simpler. Obviously legalisation will stop the crime of dealing. Because it is no longer a crime. What it won't stop is the attendant crime. The junkie who broke into my car and stole the stereo did it to afford his fix. He'll still do that if his fix is legal to buy.

That may be a lie as well though, perhaps a junkie never broke into my car, after all, nothing impresses people on the internet like saying you live near (within 3 meters?) of druggies.

And I may have done Grace a few times, but I'm no crossfitter. I'm all up for a boisterous discussion but don't throw disgusting accusations like that around.

You know how we can all tell you've got nothing? Open with a lie, lead into mis-characterizations, run off the edge of the topic, cite not source, rely on no experience. You secondarily dismissed life experiences you have not had and conflated your arguments doubling down on the worst of them , leaving the decent points to the side.

We can all tell you are an idiot, not because your a fucking crossfitting faggot, but because you don't know your own shit from shinola....

Now I'll do you a solid because you're both a newb and failing so epically . You can call me a junky (fair enough) you can sling all kinds of weak shit you like..The fact of the matter is, unless you've actually taken the drug, studied the drug or lived intimately with addiction and or crime and or some close approximation, you had better have something we haven't heard before...or you make yourself totally irrelevant (most of you posts are case in point) ...hell...I bet Turd is digging up studies right now...he's probably elbow deep in some reactionary think tank shit...and it'll be weak as piss but it'll be at least interesting.

Also...please read the shit before you run your jib...I make mid 6 figures and own a couple small businesses, I have kids and dogs and all that jazz...I certainly don't fucking live near any drug dealers...and neither do you, you weak crossfitting bitch.

As disappointing as his Junior League GOP rhetoric is, you make me legitimately grateful that Turd has stuck around.

Ok mate, you like your drugs and I wouldn't try and change your mind, it must be horrible to know most of polite society thinks you're a piece of shit. I'm a newb and maybe once my post count is higher my opinions will mean more to you.

I still don't know why you think I'm a crossfitter!

Also...please read the shit before you run your jib...I make mid 6 figures and own a couple small businesses, I have kids and dogs and all that jazz...I certainly don't fucking live near any drug dealers...

This stigma is part of the drug problem in general. Go to your GP and get Oxycontin prescription for back pain or Ritalin for difficulty concentrating - and that's ok. Boast about getting fucked on booze - and you're a hero. Tell someone about doing couple of lines of Cocaine or smoking a joint last week - and you're a hopeless junkie.

Fucking bullshit. Most people cannot look further than the tip of the nose and are too lazy to think. There are literally millions of recreational users of all kinds of drugs. Vast majority of these people have normal social status and their "vice" is unknown to their acquaintances.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:Ok mate, you like your drugs and I wouldn't try and change your mind, it must be horrible to know most of polite society thinks you're a piece of shit. I'm a newb and maybe once my post count is higher my opinions will mean more to you.

I still don't know why you think I'm a crossfitter!

You keep wagging that raggedy ass Crossfit hole at me. Go flirt with someone your own size you sad cunt.

BUT...

Because you and Sag touch similar points... I'll gladly engage. (PLEZ THO..I beg you, call out Sag for not understanding the medical danger or the chemistry..I BEG YOU)

First, let's begin with IDIOTFART#1......

Since when has "polite" society (GENPOP) known their ass from a hole in the ground? More importantly, are you so fucking naive is as to believe that the shit people say publicly is the same they think privately? Really? You think the core of the power base of the Bible Belt GOP elected Bush Jr the Cocaine Cowboy whilst thinking he was a POS because of drug use? Grab your knickers grandma....I've gotten drunk with homeless people and ingested all flavors of chemicals with Tech execs, engineers, docs, lawyers, one State Supreme Court judge, drywallers, concrete finishers, business owners, politicians. How is this different from going to a cocktail party? None percent. It's the same thing, except that drunks are usually assholes and most other drugs are quite safe when compared to alcohol.

In short...I don;t worry too much about polite society, because.....I am Polite Society...and only stupid motherfuckers draw arbitrary lines. Not that informed lines can't be reasonably drawn based on an intimate awareness of pharmacology, but your "lines" are drawn based on class hatred and "legality." Thankfully, Lines arbitrarily drawn can be undrawn.

IDIOTFART#2

You have no fucking clue generally about drugs in society in part because you've probably never done anything but get shitfaced on natty ice and maybe woozy on vicodin after going to the dentist. So..you're operating from not just ignorance but purposeful ignorance.

Here's a glimpse behind the curtain....every single motherfucker who's gotten drunk, smoked a joint, done mushrooms, a spot of Molly, knows in their soul after, one of two basic truths, that either A) hmmmm...that was no big deal or B) holy fuck... that's scary.

NOW....I'll allow it's a horses for courses thing, some people should NEVER drink, others should NEVER do opiates, people with a history of mental illness should avoid psychedelics. I have indeed been convinced through friends, through experience through study, there are drugs I shouldn't ever do...that's my choice...and so yes, I might play with chemistry as often as I try ethnic food...not often but I damn sure enjoy it when I do. But to address your statement, .no, you're unlikely to convince me of anything. (Turd is the sleeper on this thread to pull up some good data on Portugal...it's there if he works for it) but you're only failing to convince anyone because you're a fuckin dolt regardless of post count.

So many words and so many assumptions but so little point! I am beginning to think you haven't even read anything I posted and just got the gist that I didn't agree with you and just went mental. Regardless, it's pretty funny and I can take the abuse so let's carry on!

Like most youngsters I dabbled with various naughties and, like I said, used to be all for a complete allowance on all drugs for whoever wanted them. Then I grew up and realised my actions had consequences so stopped trying said naughties. But I still believed whole heartedly in the freedom to use all substances. Horses for courses, like you say.

However, when I was confronted with the realities of a really nasty drug, heroin, I changed my mind. Whether you think I am making it up is by the by, my nice area was ruined for a good few years by the cunt who dealt and the cunts who purchased. I then changed to thinking that perhaps some things are better outlawed. Not all stuff. But some stuff.

Anyway, what's your fran time?

Rudy Van Horne wrote: it's pretty funny and I can take the abuse so let's carry on!?

Shut Up Pussy.

You're simply pathetic at lying...where did you cut your teeth in english? 4chan?

Fresh original lies, data or GTFO.

EDIT:

Seriously, your "dabbling" story sounds like a Lighthouse pamphlet...what's more disgusting than a Jehovah's Witness corssfitter?

Nothing.

What's a corssfitter? Is it a drug reference that I wouldn't get?

Remember, don't share needles with your boyfriend, and please, PLEASE, always use a condom. I mean, you must be taking a shit tonne of loads up the arse to be making six figures at it.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:That study takes more shortcuts than a Trump speech. They talk about racial disparities in drug arrests, but not changes in crime. The implicit conclusions about Iran are another issue I have-- there's not enough data to make the conclusions they imply (plus the refugee issue complicates everything). Lazy science should never be acceptable.
For those who want to read the actual study: http://press.thelancet.com/DrugsPolicy1.pdf

So, enough with the red herrings...lazy science...climate science et al...That's all distracting rubbish as we know you're cleverer than that. No one is saying this is the bestest most completest study on the subject. It passes a certain amount of muster because elements of it are irrefutably true.

Stop it, you're better than this.

They use things that are 'irrefutably' true to cover for things they don't know, can't make solid correlations to, and can't prove-- massive red flags that should never be ignored.

No red herrings, but if they're going to do science, they should do it right. Given the Lancet's track record (the article that started the whole anti-vaxxer movement was in the Lancet), they should have better editorial control.

Jesus tits. You're right, I am better than this...significantly better than you at it anyway.

If it's refutable...refute it. Use something other than cherry picking and pot shots. You can't because at the end of the day you know you're arguing against reality..and despite being papist filth even you can't bring yourself the wriggle that hard.

This is why it's typically a waste of time to discuss anything with you beyond taking potshots at religions and crossfitters like that soft weak cunt Rudy....Your standards spiel is...

It's complex.

Oh I agree....now simplify it in a meaningful way...what's a single salient point we can take away from this data?

ATTACK MESSENGER

Or defend the scientific method and it's limits. The generalizations they're making are way too broad and have the effect of undermining a serious point. I brought up several points already (Iran and racial disparities in drug arrests).

Lame.

You did no such thing, you did the standard turd out, similar to Spells in its lack of conviction.

dont be so fuckin boring. Please.

Heroin ODs are increasing in the Seattle area. I know because I get to ventilate them until the Medics arrive with Narcan to counteract the heroin.

I blame:
1 - Criminalization, which generates a black market that has unreliable quality control, leading to ODs.
2 - The medical community that pendulums back & forth, with loose opiod prescriptions, then restrictive policies that drive pain-sufferers to black market prescription pain-killers, and from those to Heroin.
3 - Human nature. People seek the high, and take risks to do so.

*****

If I were King: Addicts who commit multiple crimes to feed their habits would be exiled to Lotus Land, a reservation in the Southwest, and be given free drugs, and basic shelter & food. Their return to normal society would be paved with sobriety & work.

johno wrote:Heroin ODs are increasing in the Seattle area. I know because I get to ventilate them until the Medics arrive with Narcan to counteract the heroin.

I blame:
1 - Criminalization, which generates a black market that has unreliable quality control, leading to ODs.
2 - The medical community that pendulums back & forth, with loose opiod prescriptions, then restrictive policies that drive pain-sufferers to black market prescription pain-killers, and from those to Heroin.
3 - Human nature. People seek the high, and take risks to do so.

*****

If I were King: Addicts who commit multiple crimes to feed their habits would be exiled to Lotus Land, a reservation in the Southwest, and be given free drugs, and basic shelter & food. Their return to normal society would be paved with sobriety & work.

I think you can expand number 3 pretty easily. Drug Addiction is depression*. (not that we fully understand either). Whether the drugs precipitate the depression or vice versa is perhaps a source of endless study. Whether depression is something that can be treated or needs to be and whether "addiction" is a medical condition that can or needs to be treated is also a source of endless study...but if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that your prescription "sobriety and work" is absolutely dead nuts correct.

Sadly, addiction/depression is the tangential issue we get caught up in that derails the whole narrative. Compared to the amount of overall usage, "addiction" is relatively rare. The amount of people who use both legal and illegal rec.chemistry is absolutely staggering...but it's easier to marginalize the homeless veteran than it is to go after the banker getting a bump of coke on a Friday. Further, setting national policy for rec.chemistry based on "addiction" is as absolutely foolhardy as setting national gun policy based on mental illness. A harm reduction model seeks to limit the damage of the outliers, (addicts and crazy fools with guns), without undermining the liberties of the vast preponderance of safe/sane gun/users in the middle. This is yet another area where reflexive conservatives get caught in their own web of bullshit whereas classically liberal people (you mind your business, I'll mind mine) see the forest for the trees.

Now if you want to talk about crime associated with drug users, again, if you need a model that conservatives understand, look again to gun safety...This country doesn't have a "gun" problem anymore than it has a "drug" problem...we have a poor black people with guns problem (and the occasional mentally deficient guy with grudge) and we have a poor white people with drugs problem. Again...using outliers to over-police the rest of the middle is both illogical and in many cases, downright evil.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:(you mind your business, I'll mind mine)

And this is exactly where your argument falls apart. The 'and I'll leave you alone' part doesn't work because drug users cost society billions (a quick Google says that here in the UK drug use annually costs nearly 15.5 billion quid, we of course have the NHS so you yanks may pay less).

You are basically saying you want your right to your indulgences and society can shut up and pay to fix the collateral damage.

99% of these costs were incurred by heroin and crack users so I'll say it again for you to ignore, some narcotics are worse than others and a total free for all is equally as stupid as a total ban.

How much acquisitive crime do you think is committed by depressed people? Addiction may very well be a complex issue, but it doesn't absolve the addicts responsibility for his actions. And you don't need to have been an addict, or work with addicts, or be a forum tough guy drug expert to have experienced the problems drug addicts cause. So you can stop your game of 'my anecdote is bigger than yours'.

You guys need to take some drugs

nafod wrote:You guys need to take some drugs

But it's against the law....

We must never break the law.

Rudy Van Horne wrote:99% of these costs were incurred by heroin and crack users so I'll say it again for you to ignore, some narcotics are worse than others and a total free for all is equally as stupid as a total ban

Assumes facts not in evidence. That was the only piece of corn in your shit soup where you said anything of your own conception and it too is a lie. Once again, you lean into, as turd would put it, sloppy science and weak thinking.

You also failed to address the central question of the thread. Is it not possible that there is a better way that yields less expensive consistently better outcomes than the current waste of national treasure the west is engaged in? Your false dilemma that we must choose between the war on drugs and some unknown outcome of full legal status for drugs which yields either total utopia or something much worse than status quou.

Like the proverbial "child who wanders in in the middle of a movie", You can only find the tiniest thread of a thought experiment to assail, with no reasoned response to the the actual field of play.

You have failed us for the last time.

Goodbye.

What is the cost comparison between a year in a prison or a year (or less) in a good rehab program? I do not think turning things completely loose is a good answer any more than a zero tolerance policy has been - some basic controls still make sense - like no dealing at schools and some other common sense ones etc.

I'm sure we could tech up some ankle bracelets that would simultaneously work as shame devices, GPS trackers, and non-invasive drug testers. Offer the law-breakers the choice between living at home wearing the bracelet or spending time with Bubba in the hoosegow. Require rehab.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Rudy Van Horne wrote:99% of these costs were incurred by heroin and crack users so I'll say it again for you to ignore, some narcotics are worse than others and a total free for all is equally as stupid as a total ban

Assumes facts not in evidence. That was the only piece of corn in your shit soup where you said anything of your own conception and it too is a lie. Once again, you lean into, as turd would put it, sloppy science and weak thinking.

You also failed to address the central question of the thread. Is it not possible that there is a better way that yields less expensive consistently better outcomes than the current waste of national treasure the west is engaged in? Your false dilemma that we must choose between the war on drugs and some unknown outcome of full legal status for drugs which yields either total utopia or something much worse than status quou.

Like the proverbial "child who wanders in in the middle of a movie", You can only find the tiniest thread of a thought experiment to assail, with no reasoned response to the the actual field of play.

You have failed us for the last time.

Goodbye.

I got the 99% figure from here you buffoon;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -in-the-uk

So keep dismissing everything you read that might challenge your preconceived notions as made up if you want, you thundering back side.

I don't think you are actually capable of thought or you would realise that I have never said you must choose between a war on drugs and total acceptance, I am in fact cautioning against that very thinking by countering a thread entitled 'decriminalise ALL drugs' with an opinion that perhaps some substances are better left outlawed.

Your insults and 'drugs and breaking the law are cool' act are insipid beyond belief. It was you who said that if someone wants some krokodil let em have it, which is so naive it's laughable. You strike me as an idealist on this issue, and like all idealists of whatever ilk, fundamentally stupid. I cannot respect anybody who puts their ideas behind an issue ahead of the realities in front of it.

I don't think you've actually countered anything I said beyond saying I made it up or saying I was a seventh day Adventist who does P90X or something equally as lame.