what about the war on drugs?

LOL Deb. Ohhhh, those good old days :-D

so what, you have never tried any other regulated substance than cannabis?

Cause what they mean is that a cannabis smoker is more likely to try the next thing on the chain. And therefore will become a heroin addict.


Do you think that mushrooms are hard drugs, mainly psilocybes?
They treat that like a murder weapon.

Well, they weren't really - I was being sarcastical - those guys were bastids!

But - at least they tended not to do what the Sydney guys used to - which was sell it to folk - then get a mate to bust them for it - sort of an endless cornucopia of pleasure, arrests, and profit!

I have tried other things, but never continued to do them. I've tried mushrooms, but they didn't do anything for me.

The operative word was anecdotal. I said: "there is non-anecdotal evidence to support this" and you countered with anecdotal evidence. ;-)

If anecdotal evidence is valid I'll use some:

Pot led me to hard drugs. When I wanted to get high and my dealer was out of pot he offered coke. I said sure and took it.

But anecdotal evidence is of little value, there is a significant amount of statistical evidenc that shows that those who take the first step toward deug use (usually pot) are far more liekly to take other steps.

It does not suggest that everyone who smokes pot will use hard drugs. But that is a no-brainer.

Thing is, the criminalization of pot does indeed make the step from nodrugs to pot make the step from pot to hard drugs easier.

The criminalization is a deterrent (despite what some say it does work for many). If pot is criminalized the harder drugs lose their greatest deterrent. The pot head is already a criminal and if such a mild drug makes him so the dire warnings about other drugs are less of a deterrent.

It's not the very nature of pot that makes it a stepping stone to other drugs. It's the grouping with other drugs through criminalization that does.

If pot were legal and coke weren't you would not need a dealer for pot but would need one for coke.

So the pot head could use pot without contact with thr criminal underworld but for coke the contact with the criminal underworld would ahve to be made.

As it stands to buy pot there needs to be a connection with the criminal underworld and the criminal underworld is where other drugs can and will be found if desired.

Yeah its bunk how pot dealers(ive had dealers who didnot deal with anything else about 1/3 of them) deal the other **** with it. alot of kids were sucked into that crap because it was the next best thing. But I knew other who started hard and stayed that way. They looked at pot like it had no effect and was a useless substance. Ive always considered them to be insane.

Got ya Craven ;-) I see your point.

One of the very reasons it has been, sensibly, pretty much decriminalized here - well, in half the country...

Here - ever since the advent of AIDS and the prevalence of the various hepatitis strains, the drug rehab folk have followed a harm minimization policy - and hence there are free needle exchange places - and, slowly, (one only so far) places where people can shoot up under supervision - to try and stop the deaths from OD's.

Once, if you overdosed, and an ambulance was called, the police came too - not for many years, though - because bodies were turning up dumped outside hospital A&E departments.

What is the story in the US?

Education is the key. Kids need to understand what hard drugs do to the body. Because it is forbidden, it becomes more "glamorous". If elementary school kids were educated, early on, about the dangers of drugs, I don't think that the vast majority would rush out and buy it. There will always be a small group of people with emotional problems, who will use drugs to self-medicate, legal or not.

Just because something is available, does not mean that people are going to use it. I pass liquor stores every day, but I can't remember the last time that I had a drink. I have smoked pot, and like the effect that it has on me, but will not go out of my way to look for some. If it were available legally, I would probably use it from time to time, the way a social drinker will have an occasional cocktail.

In the 1960s, I was hooked on amphetamines, WHICH WERE PRESCRIBED BY MY DOCTOR for weight loss. In those years, dexadrine was routinely handed out by MDs. When I told him that the pills were making me nuts, he prescribed Librium (which has a similar effect as Valium).

I finally stopped taking them cold, when my then five year old son took my bottle of pills, told me he did not want me to take them anymore, and promptly flushed them down the toilet.

Well, millions of kids are on similar ampheatmines - because they have been labelled as having ADHD or ADD. Such is progress...

dlowan- ADHD & ADD is another subject unto itself. I would bet that a significant percentage of kids who are prescribed these drugs really do not need them. I really wonder what neurological effects will befall these people in middle and older age from taking those meds.

I am really not for chemical strait jackets to be used on people, unless there is no other alternative!

Sigh - we may consider it one of the biggest unsupervised drug experiments ever. I am unsure how long the USA has been prescribing at these huge rates - but it is very recent in Oz (and not yet as high) and almost non-existent in the UK - so there are going to be ready comparisons.

I am hearing of medical problems - other than the stunted growth and stuff like little kids selling their drugs to other little kids (or being preyed on by adults) - but some paediatricians are putting the little ones (some as young as three!!!!!) on a cocktail of speed, tranquilisers (so they can sleep) and other stuff like antidepressants (!!!!!) and anti-convulsants. Unbelievable.

But this is off topic, so I will shut up.

Most of you know where I stand with the ADHD/ADD stuff so I won't get started on that again.

Phoenix
I agree with you when you said that drugs being illegal make them more glamorous to kids. It's the thrill of getting away with something that pulls them in.

I agree. This is a huge issue with me as you know ;-)

ohhhh drugs......

deb

Your model of harm minimization has now been adopted here in Vancouver, as the first city in North America to do so. The facility was opened this last Monday and it provides clean needles, a place to shoot up, and of course also connection with the whole host of social agencies should one of them be requested or needed. I'm very proud of my city for this program, which was actually the central issue in our last Mayoralty election and the public gave the plan a huge victory in that election.

That availability increases use is close to self-evident, as physically stunted craven has argued above. But folks like George Shultz and William Buckley have argued that criminalization has produced societal costs which outweight those of use.

The discussions on this issue in the US particularly, though it's true here too, are often incoherent, with the term 'drug' being applied inconsistently and with little reflection at all. It's a rather deep and long term nuttiness.

I try to burn the idea of education into the heads of all who I speak to. The fact of the matter is that I had to find information from the promoters of pot. This is where there is real information, why lie the truth will set us right. Anyways that education, applied with the observance of the users around me, is the only thing that kept me away. Except for the fact that staying awake all night doesnt appeal to me. Also the thing about MD's and their perscriptions, well I probally do have some form of ADD, and I dont want that crap either. I know this because I tried their pills and it did to me what it does to the them. I found out that that crap is like crank from the pot sources. I am now in controll of my attention span and I am on the road to success. However, that road may suffer a detour because of my pot smoking. Im good at staying away from trouble so Im not really scared.

The US will not be able to denie the success of the programs in countrys like yours for very long. In fact I read on the DEA site that heroin use has increaced 3 fold since the advocation of the new policies in the UK and Netherlands among others. I dont know this to be true or not, but I cant see why it is so bad if theyre not out there commiting crimes that will hurt others. I think that Vancover has got a good thing going for them, and I hope it is successful. Then we will have a real answer to the horrible drug problem we have.

Now on the issue of pot. Why does any pot smoker, no matter how much they smoke, need to be criminalized? Why does the government lie to us about these things? Why are the pot heads becoming a more trust worthy source of informtion than our own government. Do you think the pot heads are trust worthy, or they lieing just as much if not more than the government? It doesnt seem that way to me.

What about hemp? Why do we need that to be suppressed along with the drug producing varities? I mean we could do alot better with it among the agriculture crops. Is it because someone might grow some pot with it? Why have they got to be so oppressive in what is supposed to be free lands, other countrys included? Im in the USA. How does Bush get off busting domestic pot enthusiasts in the war on terorism? I dont want terrorism any more than the next man. I sure dont want to support it.

Pot is now effectively decrimilinalized here. Police confiscate it in the same manner as they do with alcohol held by underage drinkers.

There's no reason to assume our program won't be successful and follow in the pattern of other such programs that have existed elsewhere (australia, switzerland).

The history of why drugs (that is, why certain agents but not others) have been criminalized (and demonized) is an interesting story. The Ottawa Citizen ran a truly extraordinary piece three years ago (sept 2000) by Dan Gardner on the many issues related to drug legislation. If you can't locate it online, let me know and I'll get you to it. It's a big read, but I've not found anything better.

Got it, sounds like you can see things for what they are.

What have you to say about the DEA and other related agencies?

Blatham
Are you an RCMP, or is the avatar a joke? I'm just curious and want you to know that I have nothing against cops. Sometimes I'm just too damn curious ;-)