Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.

[Zeno Swijtink]

This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking. (https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-fleming5-2008jul05,0,2831899.story)
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008

The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.

Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.

After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.

The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

[Braggi]

...
David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.

I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting.

If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.
I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting. If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.-Jeff

Hey, Jeff, didn't we have this argument before? What was the outcome?
You want Schedule 1 drugs legalized? LSD, MDA, DMT, Peyote, Weed, Ecstasy and Synthetic heroin, among others?
You are out of your mind, yes?
But before we do the flame war thingy, can you give me a reason to do so (not the flame war, but the legalization) or is your argument based on the failed drug war issue (and you hate Nixon and Republicans)?
I may assume that it would not be "free market", or would it? Advertising?
Or under "controlled conditions"? And who sets the control? Adolph & fiends, or tea drinking Mohammed & his psychotherapists? Catholics? or Libertarian-Progressives? Log Cabin Republicans? I mean who? And would you allow someone in YOUR brain at that heightened stage of consciousness? Oh, BTW, yes I am paranoid, but the question still stands for validity's sake.
If we did have this argument before, what was your retort to my argument regarding the history of China vis a vis British opium period from 1700's to 1904? It took them 200 years to "learn from history".
Not that I wish to have long diatribes, but hating the history of a failed "war on drugs" is not reason at all to throw the baby out with......

[Zeno Swijtink]

Narcotics Sold Online, No Rx Needed (https://www.webmd.com/news/20080709/narcotics-sold-online-no-rx-needed)
Study Shows Some Web Sites Lack Controls to Keep Kids From Buying Drugs
By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD


July 9, 2008 -- Scores of web sites do not require a prescription to buy narcotics, stimulants, and other controlled substances -- and none of those sites has controls to prevent children from making such purchases, a study shows.

A report released today by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reveals that 85% of web sites selling potent prescription drugs such as OxyContin, Valium, and Ritalin do not ask Internet users for a proper prescription from a doctor. Many explicitly state that no prescription is needed.

"Anyone of any age can obtain dangerous and addictive prescription drugs with the click of a mouse," Joseph A. Califano Jr., chairman and president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse and former U.S. secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, says in a news release. "This problem is not going away."

The report, titled "'You've Got Drugs!' V: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet," details the advertising and selling of controlled substances online. It is the fifth annual report on the subject. The report tracks the availability of prescription opioids such as OxyContin and Vicodin, depressants such as Valium and Xanax, and stimulants such as Ritalin and Adderall.

The analysis showed that fewer web sites are selling and promoting controlled substances than last year (361 vs. 581); in the new report, 206 sites were found to advertise drugs and 159 offered drugs for sale. However, only two are "legitimate" pharmacy sites, meaning they have received certification by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy as a Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Site (VIPPS). To receive VIPPS accreditation, a pharmacy site must comply with the licensing and inspection requirements of their state and each state that they dispense prescriptions in.

Califano credits improved state and federal efforts to crack down on Internet drug trafficking for the decline.

The "most disturbing" finding, the authors write, is that "there are no controls on any of these sites blocking access by children." Most Internet users are adolescents and young adults; 78% of kids 12 to 17 have online access. Nearly all college students do, too.

Nearly one in five teenagers has abused prescription drugs in their lifetime, according to a 2005 survey. Many think prescription drugs, particularly painkillers, are easier to get than illicit drugs like cocaine or crack.

Children easily gained access to the online pharmacies by typing in a fake age. Yet in some cases, a child may still buy and receive drugs by providing true information -- even when their answers should raise red flags. A previous report revealed how a supervised 13-year-old ordered and received Ritalin after entering her own age, height, and weight on a site's questionnaire.

[thewholetruth]

Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.


I've met Judge Gray and heard him speak. He's a brilliant and brave man. It's really sad that his message has gone largely unheard, for the most part, for the last twenty years.

I propose that the Failed War on Some Drugs has become the most expensive human endeavor of all time, although it's difficult to compile all the costs because they are so vast and pervert so many budgets. It's clear that about half of all police and prison costs in the United States are dedicated to the Failed War. That is a staggering number. The loss to the economy of removing otherwise productive citizens from gainful employment is not easily calculable. It's also an incalculable cost how many families have been destroyed by all the murders, at the hands of drug lords, street gangs, and police officers. The number of children in foster care because the State has removed them from families where both parents are in prison or on parole is completely disgusting.

If the State believed in "family values" there would be no Schedule 1 drugs.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

<!-- Wacco - display repostinfo --> <!-- /Wacco - display repostinfo --> <!-- Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <!-- /Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --> <hr style="color: rgb(166, 168, 82);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Is this that Darwinian thingy I was reading about?
Let them go and they'll wipe themselves out, hopefully prior to breeding?
What a woild!

>Narcotics Sold Online, No Rx Needed (https://www.webmd.com/news/20080709/narcotics-sold-online-no-rx-needed)
>Study Shows Some Web Sites Lack Controls to Keep Kids From Buying Drugs
>By Kelli Miller Stacy
>WebMD Health News
>Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

>July 9, 2008 -- Scores of web sites do not require a prescription to buy >narcotics, stimulants, and other controlled substances -- and none of those >sites has controls to prevent children from making such purchases, a study >shows.

[MsTerry]

Don,
What do you suggest we do about the problem, since current plcy isn't working very well?


Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.

[Braggi]

Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. ...

Well Don, I've been called a fool before and I've admitted I'm an addict. But then, there are a lot of us fairly functional coffee addicts out here. That's my only true addiction.

I don't think you can call Judge Gray a fool, however. He spent most of his life "in the system" and I dare say he knows it better than you. He's a wise and compassionate man. Kind of like Jesus was, you know? But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.

I think you ought to go back and read that article. It's post #1 in this thread.

There's still time for you to learn something.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Well Don, I've been called a fool before and I've admitted I'm an addict.

If the shoe fits, Jeff. I was speaking in general terms.


But then, there are a lot of us fairly functional coffee addicts out here. That's my only true addiction.

Frankly, I've never known anyone with only one addiction, Jeff. An addict is an addict and addiction has manifested itself in many areas of every addict's life that I've worked with. And again, the only people I've seen who suggest that making illegal drugs legal are drug addicts and fools who haven't seen what access to pharmaceuticals and narcotics can do to otherwise incredible people.


I don't think you can call Judge Gray a fool, however. He spent most of his life "in the system" and I dare say he knows it better than you. He's a wise and compassionate man.

And I would assume that he is an addict, if not a fool. Like I said, I've only heard those individuals support legalizing heroin, Vicodin, LSD, and the like.


Kind of like Jesus was, you know?

No, I don't know. No one is like Jesus but Jesus. Is Judge Gray the creator of the Universe? Do we date our calendars based on Judge Gray's life? Did the judge pick up the tab for our naughtiness? Can he heal lepers and raise the dead back to life? Walk on water or be crucified but defeat Hell and death and resurrect himself? I'm not convinced Judge Gray is anything like Jesus, Jeff.


But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.

If I take your word for it that he's not a fool, I would just be calling him an addict, I suppose.


I think you ought to go back and read that article. It's post #1 in this thread.

There's still time for you to learn something.

-Jeff

Well, gosh. If there's still time, I better get to it! I'll let you know what I think... :thumbsup:

[Dixon]

Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. Regardless how the money has been mismanaged or the effort appearing fruitless (it's not fruitless, btw). Only a complete fool or a drug addict - or someone who is both - would support legalizing drugs in the USA.

It's against my better judgment to get embroiled in another discussion--heathen knows I don't have time for such frippery--but the drug issue is one of those that always seem to bring out the most bigoted and ignorant attitudes, and I just can't help trying to interject a little reason sometimes.

"thewholetruth", are you ready to live up to your name and look at both sides of the discussion? So far you're not doing too well, as your post essentially ignores the substantive issues brought up in the initial post of this thread.

You talk as if drugs aren't legal, but quite a few of them, including the most addictive and dangerous ones, are. For simplicity's sake, I'll leave out legal medicines used legally, as well as addictive things that are only metaphorically drugs, such as TV and religion, and focus here on recreational mind-altering drugs. Which of these drugs do you use, "thewholetruth": Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, chocolate (which contains 3 stimulant drugs--caffeine, theobromine and theophylline)? Do you have a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of beers while you watch the game? Do you enjoy your cigarettes or chewing tobacco while bitching about those horrible "drug users"? How long has it been since you've gone 24 hours without caffeine?

Of the ones you use, how many of them are you addicted to? Before you say "None", go cold turkey for a few days, see how you feel, and get back to me on this.

Let's simplify even further and focus on the 2 worst ones, tobacco and alcohol. Should you go to jail for using them? If you don't use them, should your friends who smoke, or who enhance their dinner with a glass of fine wine (an addictive and poisonous drug that's an essential part of our "Wine Country" culture) be jailed? Or should we only jail the dealers (the friendly cashiers at our local grocery stores) or perhaps just the manufacturers?

If you're like most folks who consider themselves "anti-drug", you are simply in denial that the substances used by you and/or your friends are drugs just as much as anything else is, and in fact are more addictive and more deadly than most of the ones that happen to be illegal in this particular culture at this particular time. Such hypocrites project their own addictiveness onto outsiders, those people who look and act strange to them, who use different drugs then the ones they use, and scapegoat them for society's problems.

It's easy to criminalize other people's lifestyles. "Conservative" factions of society have no problem filling our jails with black folks, brown folks, people who have odd haircuts or tattoos and piercings; anyone who looks and acts very differently than the folks at their church is fair game. Now how about putting you and your friends in jail for your use of alcohol and tobacco? I can just see your face when I suggest that--you dropped your cigarette and spluttered wine all over your new shirt, LOL!

And don't try to tell me that tobacco and alcohol should be legal because they're safer than the illegal drugs. They are, in fact, more addictive and more dangerous than most or all of the illegal ones. Here are some facts excerpted from a recent list entitled "Annual Causes of Death in the United States":

Drug Annual Deaths in U.S.

Tobacco 435,000

Alcohol 85,000 (including its involvement in motor vehicle fatalities, but apparently not its
involvement in other accidents, homicides,
suicides, spouse abuse, child abuse, various
crimes against people and property, etc.)

Adverse Reactions to
Prescription Drugs 32,000

All Illicit Drug Use,
Direct and Indirect 17,000

Non-Steroidal
Anti-Inflammatory
Drugs Such as
Aspirin 7,600

Marijuana 0

Note that even if there were as many people using the illegal drugs as there are using alcohol and tobacco, they still wouldn't kill as many people as those 2 legal drugs do.

For more info on the figures above, as well as lots of useful info on the "Drug War" (which is really a war against freedom), check out:
https://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1

Here's a radical concept: The proper function of laws is to protect people from being violated by others. Behaviors which don't violate others, including the vast majority of drug use, legal and illegal, would not be illegal in a free society.

And let me just briefly remind you that our country experimented with illegalization and re-legalization of one of our most dangerous drugs some years ago, during the early 20th Century period known as "Prohibition". Nearly everyone came to agree that, while prohibition did slightly decrease the number of users, the negative impacts (spread and entrenchment of organized crime due to selling a popular illegal product, violence resulting from the associated criminal underground, glamorization of the drug to rebellious youngsters due to its forbidden status, criminalization of numerous harmless citizens, overburdening of the criminal "justice" system, alienation of the police force and legal system from the common citizen, etc.), far outweighed the positive, so Prohibition was repealed. IT DIDN'T WORK.

Unfortunately, though prohibition of other drugs, most of them less destructive than alcohol, is causing the same problems, (AND others, i.e., accidental overdoses), our government, as well as lots of folks like you, "thewholetruth", haven't learned.

I'll resist the temptation to go into the psychological, social, economic and political reasons that some drugs are illegalized while much worse ones are subsidized by the government; this post is long enough.

In closing, "thewholetruth", I'll just ask this: Will you now call for the illegalization of alcohol and tobacco to be consistent with your "illegalize drugs" position, or, better yet, will you call for the legalization of other drugs to achieve such consistency? Or, if your answer is "Neither", will you honestly address the bigotry and irrationality that underlie the double standard in your thinking?

Dixon

[thewholetruth]

Dixon, your summary suggests that: If we make some drugs illegal we should make all drugs illegal. Is that an accurate representation of your position on this issue?


It's against my better judgment to get embroiled in another discussion--heathen knows I don't have time for such frippery--but the drug issue is one of those that always seem to bring out the most bigoted and ignorant attitudes, and I just can't help trying to interject a little reason sometimes.

"thewholetruth", are you ready to live up to your name and look at both sides of the discussion?

Of course I am, brother. I've done substantial research on this. I see up close the damage that drug abuse reaks on people's lives and bodies and minds, every day. I'd love to hear a valid argument for legalizing narcotics, for example, if you have one. I don't see one in this post of yours, so I'll hope that you reply and offer me what you consider justification for legalizing illegal substances.



So far you're not doing too well, as your post essentially ignores the substantive issues brought up in the initial post of this thread.

Not true. The initial post appears to be the thoughts of a person completely removed from the devastation of families and personal lives and freedom that results from substance use and abuse today.


You talk as if drugs aren't legal, but quite a few of them, including the most addictive and dangerous ones, are.

They are legal, and they are controlled...as they should be. Because people are involved, there will always be those who abuse the system who do not follow legal protocol, but those few individuals do not make a case for legalizing dangerous substances.


For simplicity's sake, I'll leave out legal medicines used legally, as well as addictive things that are only metaphorically drugs, such as TV and religion, and focus here on recreational mind-altering drugs. Which of these drugs do you use, "thewholetruth": Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, chocolate (which contains 3 stimulant drugs--caffeine, theobromine and theophylline)?

A little chocolate now and then, a cup of coffee in the morning - neither of which qualify as dangerous substances in anyone's eyes but yours...and the drug addict who is trying to make a case for legalizing cocaine and Ecstasy by pointing to coffee and chocolate? LOL


Do you have a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of beers while you watch the game?

I do not.


Do you enjoy your cigarettes or chewing tobacco while bitching about those horrible "drug users"?

I do not.


How long has it been since you've gone 24 hours without caffeine?

One week. Are you saying caffeine is in the same category, IYO, as heroin or meth? You appear to be making that argument, and frankly, you just look silly right now.


Of the ones you use, how many of them are you addicted to? Before you say "None", go cold turkey for a few days, see how you feel, and get back to me on this.

I don't have anything to "go cold turkey" with. I'm not addicted to substances of any kind. I used to be a smoker, years ago. I used to use drugs and alcohol, years ago. I don't use anything today, and I don't support legalizing even the drugs that I did years ago because I know that if they would have been legal I would have died years ago.


Let's simplify even further and focus on the 2 worst ones, tobacco and alcohol. Should you go to jail for using them?

They are "the 2 worst ones" because they are legal, sir. That is why they are the most abused. I think society would benefit if neither were available here. Neither are of any real value when used the way we use them. Alcohol is useful to clean a wound, that's all.


If you don't use them, should your friends who smoke, or who enhance their dinner with a glass of fine wine (an addictive and poisonous drug that's an essential part of our "Wine Country" culture) be jailed?

Extreme thinking only serves to make a poster look foolish, sir. You look pretty foolish trying to make your case on such a ridiculous premise.


Or should we only jail the dealers (the friendly cashiers at our local grocery stores) or perhaps just the manufacturers?

They are legal substances, and you haven't made your case yet. You appear to be either a fool or a drug addict/alcoholic, as the only people I've ever seen make your argument are those kinds of individuals, and they failed to make their case just as you are failing to make yours. Offer me a valid scenario, not some extreme b.s. Been there, done that with the silly b.s. routine. Not interested in responding to it again.


If you're like most folks who consider themselves "anti-drug", you are simply in denial that the substances used by you and/or your friends are drugs just as much as anything else is, and in fact are more addictive and more deadly than most of the ones that happen to be illegal in this particular culture at this particular time. Such hypocrites project their own addictiveness onto outsiders, those people who look and act strange to them, who use different drugs then the ones they use, and scapegoat them for society's problems.

And if you're like most folks who consider themselves "drug users", then you are part of the group of people who try to make your argument who are commonly drug addicts, alcoholics and/or fools, 100% of the time, in my experience.


It's easy to criminalize other people's lifestyles. "Conservative" factions of society have no problem filling our jails with black folks, brown folks, people who have odd haircuts or tattoos and piercings; anyone who looks and acts very differently than the folks at their church is fair game.

So you've now clarified that you at least fit into the "fool" category, with bigots.


Now how about putting you and your friends in jail for your use of alcohol and tobacco? I can just see your face when I suggest that--you dropped your cigarette and spluttered wine all over your new shirt, LOL!

And I can see the burn holes in the front of your shirt as you hit "Submit Reply" as the sparks from your bong land on your chest. This post is just silly, sir, and of no value whatsoever. I'm not going to waste my time on such juvenile, sophomoric arguments again, so I hope you can get real if you reply again.


And don't try to tell me that tobacco and alcohol should be legal because they're safer than the illegal drugs.

I don't support legalized tobacco or alcohol. Neither have any value to our society whatsoever. Both are albatrosses around our society's neck.


Note that even if there were as many people using the illegal drugs as there are using alcohol and tobacco, they still wouldn't kill as many people as those 2 legal drugs do.

You don't know that, sir. Your deluded mind tells you that, but you have no way of proving such a ridiculous, random opinion. Pointing to tobacco and alcohol doesn't make a case for legalizing pot, meth, heroin or crack cocaine, sir. Your arguments only serve to remind me how ignorant drug use makes us. Oh, and you've now proven that you are not just in the "fool" category, but that you are most likely a drug abuser yourself.


For more info on the figures above, as well as lots of useful info on the "Drug War" (which is really a war against freedom), check out: https://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1 (https://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1)

Here's a radical concept: The proper function of laws is to protect people from being violated by others. Behaviors which don't violate others, including the vast majority of drug use, legal and illegal, would not be illegal in a free society.

You're full of crap and you are as deluded as any drunk lying in the gutter, sir. Children are neglected and abused by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts every day in America. Spouses are abused every day by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts. Families are abandoned every day here in America by those addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. Crimes are committed every day by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts. Family's of 5 are killed every day on America's highways by pot heads, alcoholics, meth and heroin addicts and prescription drug addicts in head on collisions in America. You are blind if you think that drug use doesn't violate others. I counsel people who grew up without parental guidance or love every day, even though they lived in the same house and saw their parents every day because their parents were part of your community, the group of folks who haven't learned how to cope with life without using drugs and alcohol: drug users and abusers. The Baby Boomer generation is full of drug and alcohol addicted parents who have neglected and abused, and continue to neglect and abuse their children emotionally, physically, psychologically and sexually. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you've also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are one of those drug/alcohol users/abusers.


And let me just briefly remind you that our country experimented with illegalization and re-legalization of one of our most dangerous drugs some years ago, during the early 20th Century period known as "Prohibition". Nearly everyone came to agree that, while prohibition did slightly decrease the number of users, the negative impacts (spread and entrenchment of organized crime due to selling a popular illegal product, violence resulting from the associated criminal underground, glamorization of the drug to rebellious youngsters due to its forbidden status, criminalization of numerous harmless citizens, overburdening of the criminal "justice" system, alienation of the police force and legal system from the common citizen, etc.), far outweighed the positive, so Prohibition was repealed. IT DIDN'T WORK.

It didn't work because our country was already reliant upon alcohol as a coping tool. It's as simple as that. We were collectively already too sick and alcohol dependent to do life without being medicated with alcohol.


Unfortunately, though prohibition of other drugs, most of them less destructive than alcohol, is causing the same problems, (AND others, i.e., accidental overdoses), our government, as well as lots of folks like you, "thewholetruth", haven't learned.

I have learned that you likely suffer from dependence on drugs or alcohol, sir, as you make the same arguments that addicts and alcoholics make, 100% of the time.


I'll resist the temptation to go into the psychological, social, economic and political reasons that some drugs are illegalized while much worse ones are subsidized by the government; this post is long enough.

Besides, you've already proven you don't know what you're talking about.


In closing, "thewholetruth", I'll just ask this: Will you now call for the illegalization of alcohol and tobacco to be consistent with your "illegalize drugs" position, or, better yet, will you call for the legalization of other drugs to achieve such consistency?

Consistency isn't on my priority list. Fighting idiots, fools and drug heads who want to make more illegal drugs legal is on my priority list. Those who are so foolish they want to make a bad situation (legal tobacco/alcohol) worse. That's what this thread is about.


Or, if your answer is "Neither", will you honestly address the bigotry and irrationality that underlie the double standard in your thinking?

Dixon



Ironic, that comment. How ironic. Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir? :thumbsup:

[thewholetruth]

Dixon, your summary suggests that: If we make some drugs illegal we should make all drugs illegal. Is that an accurate representation of your position on this issue?

Upon reflection, I see that your position is actually the polar opposite, that you support ALL drugs being legal. Is that accurate, Dixon?

[Braggi]

Below I've pasted in most of the current Drug War Chronicle.

It's a weekly newsletter posted by people who actually know what's going on in the Failed War on Some Drugs.

Go to their website to sign up for a free subscription.

-Jeff

For public safety or for overtime pay?
EDITORIAL: DO DRUG LAWS AFFECT DRUG USE RATES? EVIDENTLY NOT
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/editorial_drug_laws_dont_affect_drug_use
Another major study has shown that drug policy doesn't affect drug use rates, and we already know the drug war doesn't affect sales. But we know the harm that prohibition does. So what's the point?

FEATURE: VESTED INTERESTS OF PROHIBITION I: THE POLICE
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/vested_interests_drug_prohibition_law_enforcement
Who profits from drug prohibition? With this article we begin our occasional series on Vested Interests of Prohibition, and we begin with a law enforcement establishment grown fat off drug war bounty.

FEATURE: DESPITE HARSH DRUG POLICIES, US LEADS IN CANNABIS, COCAINE USE, GLOBAL SURVEY FINDS
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/US_leads_cannabis_cocaine_use_rates_who_study
An international survey covering 54,000 people in 17 countries representing all regions of the globe has found that the US leads the world in cannabis and cocaine use rate despite decades of harsh policies aimed at users. That strongly suggests harsh drug policies don't necessarily result in lower use rates, the researchers said.

STUDENTS: INTERN AT DRCNET AND HELP STOP THE DRUG WAR!
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/drcnet_internships_to_stop_the_drug_war
Apply for an internship at DRCNet for this fall (or spring), and you could spend the semester fighting the good fight!

HELP NEEDED: DRUG WAR CHRONICLE SEEKING CASES OF INFORMANT ABUSE
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/help_us_find_botched_drug_war_informant_cases
Drug War Chronicle is seeking information on serious police misconduct or misjudgments in the treatment of informants. Confidentiality will be protected.

LAW ENFORCEMENT: THIS WEEK'S CORRUPT COPS STORIES
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/police_drug_corruption
Cops in LA and New York get caught lying about drug busts, a couple of Indiana cops get in trouble, an Alabama cop is headed for prison, and, of course, more jail guards get caught.

MARIJUANA: MASSACHUSETTS DECRIM INITIATIVE APPROVED FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/massachusetts_marijuana_decriminalization_initiative_november_ballot
The Massachusetts State Secretary has certified for the November ballot an initiative that would decriminalize marijuana possession in the Bay State.

MARIJUANA: OREGON INITIATIVE FOR REGULATED SALES STARTS GATHERING SIGNATURES
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/oregon_marijuana_tax_regulate_initiative
Oregon already has decriminalization and medical marijuana. Now, some state activists have launched an initiative campaign to allow for taxed and regulated sales to adults. If they can get the required signatures, the measure will be on the 2010 ballot.

PAIN MEDICINE: PAIN RELIEF NETWORK SUES STATE OF WASHINGTON OVER NARCOTIC PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/pain_relief_network_lawsuit_washington_opiod_prescribing_guidelines
A pain patients' and doctors' advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging opioid prescribing guidelines promulgated by the state of Washington.

MARIJUANA: GEORGIA GRAND JURY FOREMAN SAYS LEGALIZE IT
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/georgia_grand_jury_foreman_legalize_marijuana
Grand juries are usually noted for their compliance with prosecutorial desires, but at the end of their terms, they get to issue reports on what they experienced and recommendations for improvements. A Georgia grand jury foreman has used that opportunity to call for marijuana legalization.

DRUG PROHIBITION: NO CLUE IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/texas_legislature_john_whitmire_drugs
Over the years, the Texas legislature has developed a reputation for producing some less than bright ideas, among other unsavory qualities. This week, one Texas legislator seemed determined to win this year's crown.

LATIN AMERICA: ECUADOR ASSEMBLY PARDONS HUNDREDS OF DRUG MULES
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/ecuador_pardons_drug_mules
Last year, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, whose father had done time in US jails as a drug courier, vowed to release hundreds of low-level drug mules serving long sentences. Now, the country's legislative organ has turned that vow into reality.

MIDDLE EAST: IRAQ BECOMES KEY CONDUIT IN GLOBAL DRUG TRADE
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/iraq_key_conduit_global_drug_trade
Instability fostered by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 has led to the embattled country becoming a key conduit for Afghan opium to Europe and the Middle East. Drug use rates are rising, too.

WEEKLY: THIS WEEK IN HISTORY
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/drug_war_history
Events and quotes of note from this week's drug policy events of years past.

WEEKLY: BLOGGING @ THE SPEAKEASY
https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/542/blogging_at_the_speakeasy
"If Police Don't Find Anything During a Drug Raid, Should They Have To Fix the Damage?," "'Clearly there's no LSD, and how long does it take to test a chocolate-chip cookie for marijuana?'," "Do Pharmaceutical Companies Support Marijuana Prohibition?," "Police Refuse to Take Responsibility For Botched Drug Raid," "Police Discover World's Most Expensive Marijuana," "Congressional Black Caucus Members Try to Ban Menthol Cigarettes," "Almost Any Drug Offense Can Keep You from Becoming a Citizen or Getting a Green Card."

[Lenny]

He's a wise and compassionate man. Kind of like Jesus was, you know? But I suppose if He came around you'd probably call him a fool and an addict too. That's certainly who He'd be hanging around with: us fools and addicts.-Jeff

Although this is just my opinion but I feel confidant, from what I know about us, if Jesus showed up again, as he did, we'd crucify him every single time. Just for the record

[Lenny]

Below I've pasted in most of the current Drug War Chronicle. It's a weekly newsletter posted by people who actually know what's going on in the Failed War on Some Drugs.Go to their website to sign up for a free subscription.-Jeff

Jeff, you have every right to castigate me due to my not subscribing to what you offer, furthermore I did not read every, all or most all of the sites you gave to us.
What I did do, and not spend more than 5 minutes at it, was to look at a couple, three sites. Seems lobbyists, like NORML have some stake in the matter, but many of the "statistics" are based on $.
Now, as a good American, I find money to be a motivational factor, and the good old American Utilitarian approach to all problems does work for much. But here we part company. As adults we can say to all, "your problem, we don't care" and dismiss all matters without a thought. All too easily done this day and age. And stay focused only on the $. And in our new world order, human beings are only worth their "green" value to Mother Earth, but have no "intrinsic value", so I can understand the "legalize it all" and let them go down that path if they "want" to", and again, we part company. But in the end, that primary means will never justify the ends.
BTW, you know about China doing that (opium for all) for about 200 years. And you do know their outcome. So did anybody learn from it? I mean, aside from the previously stated moral arguments.

[Braggi]

... As adults we can say to all, "your problem, we don't care" and dismiss all matters without a thought. All too easily done this day and age. And stay focused only on the $. And in our new world order, human beings are only worth their "green" value to Mother Earth, but have no "intrinsic value", so I can understand the "legalize it all" and let them go down that path if they "want" to" ...

Lenny, what you lack is a mental model in which drugs can be used safely and to a good end. Have you ever used any drugs that helped you? That's one point to ponder.

Another: I have to read between your lines because you seldom come right out and say what you mean, but are you suggesting if a person takes any drugs then their life is suddenly worthless? That they will be ... destroyed somehow?

If all "drugs of abuse" were legalized tomorrow would you immediately start injecting heroin every day because it's legal? Would your family members? Would your friends? Would the people you do business with? How many people do you know personally that would become total waste cases if pot were legal that don't smoke pot now? Are you getting my point here? And what if only opium were legalized? Would everyone you know sell all their belongings and just buy opium and smoke out all day long? Who would? Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?

While you're at it, consider that the US has much higher use of most of the substances in question than other countries that have laws that are more lax. Why is that Lenny?

And one more: why is it that in this country the only substance of abuse that has seen steady decline year after year for decades is a legal one? Why is it that this, arguably, most addictive substance on the planet has fewer users every year in this country? Is it because it's legal? I'm talking tobacco, of course. What do you think about all this?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Only a foolish person would think that legalizing drug use in the USA is a good idea. ...

Only someone on the payroll of the Failed War on Some Drugs would think that legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

Oh, that's right. You are on the payroll of the Failed War.

Now I remember. You input is proportionately discounted.

It's your income stream talking, not your morals or your brains.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Hey, Jeff, didn't we have this argument before? What was the outcome?
You want Schedule 1 drugs legalized? LSD, MDA, DMT, Peyote, Weed, Ecstasy and Synthetic heroin, among others? ...

As I recall, I tried to educate you but you were pretty resistant. :wink:

I think as a big first step. let's legalize plants and mushrooms. Few people will get in trouble with these.

LSD, MDMA, DMT and Ecstasy are all easily handled by the "underground" society right now. These drugs are not addicting and indeed, offer the greatest promise for curing addictions and multiple social ills of all methods known. There is a vast literature supporting that statement. Ibogaine is also in the category. Do a google search on ibogaine and addiction and see what you find. Do a search of ayahuasca and addiction and see what you find.

Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).

The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.

It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.

-Jeff

PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.

[MsTerry]

Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir? :thumbsup:
Don C, this is an anonymous forum for you.
Dixon Wragg is his real name,
he even lists his job (individual Program Coordinator at Sonoma Developmental Center)
Can you say the same, Sir, for I can not.

[RichT]

I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation. Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime. This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.




Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).

The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.

It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.

I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation (alcohol, tobacco and gambling as well). Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime. This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.



PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.
[/QUOTE]

Even proper education about the effects of some of the more addictive substances will not help. The effects of these can be so destructive to the person that they can become an imminent threat to society. We have a large problem with meth in this area that is not entirely due to illegal usage; long term use lends itself to developing psychotic paranoia.

[Lenny]

Lenny, what you lack is a mental model in which drugs can be used safely and to a good end. Have you ever used any drugs that helped you? That's one point to ponder.

Correct. I think the current medical & psychiatric model is fine; no point in reinventing the roundy axle thingy that moves upon the ground well enough. With that model I've used drugs that helped, like antibiotics, pain killers when applicable, etc. I've let the medical establishment ponder that, as I've not the time.


Another: I have to read between your lines because you seldom come right out and say what you mean, but are you suggesting if a person takes any drugs then their life is suddenly worthless? That they will be ... destroyed somehow?

In a word, yes. But the evil parts are that it is not "suddenly" but also the delusion, the slowness of the spiral downward, the self-deceptive lie that individual tells their self, their loved ones, destroying their social contract with family, friends, and eventually the authorities: "it's not me, it's the drugs". Or, maybe Don and The Whole Truth have been lying to us? Or their clients been lying to them? And actually it's "all good"? Stupid mice will O.D. rather than stop, science guy!
Let me try a change up pitch: if it were cheap and legal, is it good to have any stuff that has the capability of having a crack whore sell her baby?


If all "drugs of abuse" were legalized tomorrow would you immediately start injecting heroin every day because it's legal? Would your family members? Would your friends? Would the people you do business with? How many people do you know personally that would become total waste cases if pot were legal that don't smoke pot now? Are you getting my point here? And what if only opium were legalized? Would everyone you know sell all their belongings and just buy opium and smoke out all day long? Who would? Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?

Maybe you missed the memo? It WAS legal. And "everyone" was doing opium and their derivatives such that it became a world wide problem. And once again the USA was leading the world in addictions, at least according to The Source at the time. I think the below is from a site that supports your view.

https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1910/worstfiend.htm

And your question,"Did the fact the Chinese, many decades ago, got in trouble with opium mean everyone in the US would also, if it were suddenly legal?" threw me. Could you ask it another way, please? Because if I understand it, as written, the answer is YES. What does being Chinese have to do about anything, other than the factual and historical truth?
Or are you like that Black Congresscritter a while back that wanted heroin legalized for Black folks only? She was sanctioned in a heart beat!


While you're at it, consider that the US has much higher use of most of the substances in question than other countries that have laws that are more lax. Why is that Lenny?
And one more: why is it that in this country the only substance of abuse that has seen steady decline year after year for decades is a legal one? Why is it that this, arguably, most addictive substance on the planet has fewer users every year in this country? Is it because it's legal? I'm talking tobacco, of course. What do you think about all this? -Jeff

Your question, in my opinion, presupposes quick, easy, bumper sticker answers, of which I ain't got none.
Please refer to the cite that indicates the US had the highest legal junkie rate in the world circa 1911. May have been chauvinism at that time, and maybe the French had more? Or the Dutch? Maybe the Chinese? Oh, wait, the folks over there have (had) some kind of established ethic as well as ethnic pride, and other non-tangibles that stopped their use of trying to get lost from this harsh world.
Watching the Sopranos on DVD, the one legged Russian women puts it, "You Americans, you got everything, want more, and expect it to get better. We have nothing, want nothing, and expect it to get worse. And you keep on complaining". OK, trite, but an inkling of an outlook that others who've not had it so well in their country (every country outside US) that has had it brutalized for the last thousand years, while we here in our abundance demand heaven on earth, even via drugs.
PS: pretty sure opium/heroin/morphine etc is "more addictive" than tobacco, both physiologically and (worse yet) psychologically, as tobacco does not numb and "sweeten" reality as does opium et all. And if I am in error, does making two wrongs (legalizing tobacco AND opium) right?

[Braggi]

...
PS: pretty sure opium/heroin/morphine etc is "more addictive" than tobacco, both physiologically and (worse yet) psychologically, as tobacco does not numb and "sweeten" reality as does opium et all. And if I am in error, does making two wrongs (legalizing tobacco AND opium) right?

Uh, in a word, no.

Ask any former junkie who also kicked tobacco and they'll tell you tobacco was the much harder habit to break.

There's more to addiction than numbing and sweetening. It's worth noting that a lot of "drugs of abuse" do neither.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Don C, this is an anonymous forum for you.

Ms. Terry, Ms. Terry, Ms. Terry *shakes head, staring at the ground*

This is an anonymous forum, Ma'am. Not "for you", but for everyone. Whether you choose to abandon your anonymity is up to the individual, but the FORUM facilitates one's anonymity, does not identify one's personal information and so is an ANONYMOUS FORUM.

P.S. When I say something, Ma'am, I've probably done all of the research about it already. I was making a funny with Dixon (here goes the ordinarily unnecessary explanation), pretending it was a good thing that he could hide behind his anonymity, when, in reality, he had already chosen not to do so. The implication, Ma'am, was intended as comedy. I pray that Dixon got it, seeing how you did not. But thanks for being willing to teach me, Ma'am. That's new. :thumbsup:


Dixon Wragg is his real name,
he even lists his job (individual Program Coordinator at Sonoma Developmental Center)
Can you say the same, Sir, for I can not.

Rhetorical question, Ma'am? I know you already know the answer. :wink:

[Braggi]

...
Maybe you missed the memo? It WAS legal. And "everyone" was doing opium and their derivatives such that it became a world wide problem. And once again the USA was leading the world in addictions, at least according to The Source at the time. I think the below is from a site that supports your view. ...

Perhaps this could explain why heroin became such a huge problem for an uninformed public (hint: this could never happen again):

" ... In 1897 the Bayer chemist Felix Hoffmann, acting on Eichengruen's instructions, discovered a new process for modifying salicyclic acid (a remedy for fever and inflammation which unfortunately has excruciating digestive side effects) to produce acetylsalicyclic acid (ASA).

This compound, later to be named Aspirin, had been isolated before and the healing powers of salicylates (derived from willow bark) had been known for centuries. But Hoffmann had created a reliable process for making it.

Eichengruen enthusiastically recommended ASA to Dreser in 1898. Dreser, after cursory consideration, rejected it. Ostensibly, his objection was that ASA would have an "enfeebling" action on the heart. "The product has no value," he pronounced confidently. But the real problem was almost certainly that he had another product on his mind whose impending success he was anxious not to jeopardise. This was heroin.

Like aspirin, the drug that Bayer launched under the trademark Heroin in 1898 was not an original discovery. Diacetylmorphine, a white, odourless, bitter, crystalline powder deriving from morphine, had been invented in 1874 by an English chemist, C R Wright.

But Dreser was the first to see its commercial potential. Scientists had been looking for some time for a non-addictive substitute for morphine, then widely used as a painkiller and in the treatment of respiratory diseases. If diacetylmorphine could be shown to be such a product, Bayer - and Dreser - would hit the jackpot.

Diacetylmorphine was first synthesised in the Bayer laboratory in 1897 - by Hoffmann, two weeks after he first synthesised ASA. The work seems to have been initiated by Dreser, who was by then aware of Wright's discovery, even though he subsequently implied that heroin was an original Bayer invention.

By early 1898 was testing it on sticklebacks, frogs and rabbits. He also tested it on some of Bayer's workers, and on himself. The workers loved it, some saying it made them feel "heroic" (heroisch). This was also the term used by chemists to describe any strong drug (and diacetylmorphine is four times stronger than morphine). Creating a brand name was easy.

In November 1898, Dreser presented the drug to the Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians, claiming it was 10 times more effective as a cough medicine than codeine, but had only a tenth of its toxic effects. It was also more effective than morphine as a painkiller. It was safe. It wasn't habit-forming. In short, it was a wonder drug - the Viagra of its day.

"What we don't recognise now," says David Muso, professor of psychiatry and the history of medicine at Yale Medical School, "is that this met what was then a desperate need - not for a painkiller, but for a cough remedy". "
[end quote]

https://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Go to the website to read more. Fascinating stuff.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Uh, in a word, no.

Ask any former junkie who also kicked tobacco and they'll tell you tobacco was the much harder habit to break.

Hmmm...and why do you suppose that is, Jeff? Do you imagine nicotine to be a more addictive drug than heroin? (You can't be that stupid, sir.) Noooo, that's not why. Let me tell you why cigarettes (not cigars or pipe tobacco, btw) are such a hard habit to break. Firstly, it's legal. That's right, that's the primary reason ciggies are one of the hardest - if not the hardest - habit to break. No social stigma, implied social acceptance, no fear of arrest or legal consequences - in short, the delusion that "it's okay to smoke" when, in reality, smoking causes serious health issues which eventually result in death. Secondly, a typical smoker engages in their habit from 12-20 times a day, oftentimes MORE than that, which ingrains the addiction more deeply due to greater repitition. Not so of a heroin addict. Thirdly, there are something like 72 additives in every cigarette, designed to MAKE the tobacco more addictive (not found in cigars or pipe tobacco) as well as to keep the cigarette burning. Cigarette makers INTENTIONALLY INCLUDE DRUGS in each cigarette that makes smoking more addictive. It doesn't make nicotine more addictive. It makes smoking cigarettes more addictive.

So implying that tobacco is worse than heroin is a lie, Jeff. In and of itself, nicotine is not more addictive than heroin, not by a LONG shot. Pschosocial aspects and pharmaceutical additives, coupled with great repitition are are what make cigarettes APPEAR to be more addictive than heroin, but to say that they are more addictive than heroin is a lie from Hell.


There's more to addiction than numbing and sweetening. It's worth noting that a lot of "drugs of abuse" do neither.

-Jeff

That's right, and it's worth noting that some drugs have no addictive quality about them at all, and yet people get addicted to them. Hmmm. Ever wonder why that is?

[MsTerry]

OK, I get it.
Your statement " Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir" is meant for you! It gives you the liberty to say what you want.
You are generously chiding Dixon for being honest and telling the whole truth about himself, while showing him that you hide in anonymity! :thumbsup:
That is some crafty one-upmanship on your part :thumbsup:


I pray that Dixon got it, seeing how you did not. But thanks for being willing to teach me, Ma'am. That's new. :thumbsup:

[Lenny]

As I recall, I tried to educate you but you were pretty resistant. :wink:

The word 'educate' come from the meaning 'to lead out of the darkness into the light'. Pridefully, in this issue, I find myself standing in th full day noon sunlight, but I know sunset is coming and don't want others looking for the facts with dim bulb flashlights. :wink:


I think as a big first step. let's legalize plants and mushrooms. Few people will get in trouble with these.

Too fast for me, Kimo Sabe. When you say "legalize", I gather you mean "decriminalize", so folks won't be arrested for possession or growing. Is that a base approach?
Will you advertise? Why stop at 18 years of age as a base? Why not 5 year olds? What if parents "feel" their 7 year old is ready? Any legal problems there? No child abuse? Is the 'use of" a day at the beach? Or bar, psychiatrist office or gurus need apply only? Imagine the insurance industry! No "imparied use" matters while high? or afterwards? up to three years? The legal profession alone would expand exponentially!
I know GW is harrassed for "unintended consequences" but REALLY NOW!


LSD, MDMA, DMT and Ecstasy are all easily handled by the "underground" society right now. These drugs are not addicting and indeed, offer the greatest promise for curing addictions and multiple social ills of all methods known.

ALL of the drugs are "easily handled by the underground" right now. I don't know why you make such a distinction. I know I can go out and get any of that stuff in less than an hour, far less, with little to no hassle, and I know no single soul that uses, so I miss your message, unless "the underground" is not so hidden in Sonoma. And I doubt the "greatest promise for curing addiction". That is a lie. Truly
I got a cousin from age 14 years until almost 60 was a heroin addict. The San Francisco Mission District had it going on forever; he had all of that stuff which included public and private treatments of all sorts. Nothing worked until HE wanted to quit.


There is a vast literature supporting that statement. Ibogaine is also in the category. Do a google search on ibogaine and addiction and see what you find. Do a search of ayahuasca and addiction and see what you find.

Thanks. That ibogaine looks promising. My cousin, above, told me that he and his fiends would "kick" so they could just bring down their resistance and thus the price via quantity. It wasn't the three days of the puking shakes that was SO bad (no fun) it was the fourth day and months and years aftwards that was tough to deal with. So this ibogaine will stop the cramps for a couple o' days. Big whoop. La ti da! I also enjoy the history of the opiates, like morphine, heroin and methadone. Is there a pattern here? BTW, cuz REALLY liked the methadone, as it gave a better high due to USP purity.


Just lifting the legal sanctions on these relatively benign drugs will free up vast crime fighting resources and valuable tax dollars that can be put to better use (like balancing the budget, for instance).The Failed War on Some Drugs has given us massive organized crime syndicates, corrupt cops, corrupt government officials and corrupt countries. The vast Prison Industrial Complex threatens the financial stability of entire governments including California's.

"Benign drugs"....is there a warp here? Is that like "jumbo shrimp"? and other oxymoronic phrases?
Couple of minor points: as a good American, you want that Utilitarian approach to the drug issue, and that IS admirable. We should get the most bang for our buck. Hope that comes to pass. You also note that drugs bring corruption, when actually it is love of money on the parts of the officials, and again, I am glad you wish to wipe out corruption, but changing folks' heart for money-love is no mean task. Today drugs, tomorrow, probably some other illegal stuff, no?
Opinion:1.you don't like this drug war as it was started by a Republican.
2. I've met some kick butt cops that would love to go after the real deal and make effective changes such that drug folks would not stand well, but to make omlets eggs must be broken. And there are too many that have either been corrupted by the money and thus deem it inappropriate (own best interest) and rule against such, and/or there is lack of real leadership to get a real objective accomlished. The problems that these drugs are causing in Mexico are coming this way North and waving the white flag of legalization will do nothing to stop the behavior of the heavy hitters.


It's time to do something about these problems. Ending the Failed War on Some Drugs is the best place to start.

Jeff, I think that you do not see the two contradictory statements these two contradictory sentences pose. Work at it. Unless you mean, and I think not, that we should end the War on Drugs. We might agree on that, but let's go a step further and plan for a stratigic victory and then turn the dogs of war lose. The only thing stopping us is fear.


PS. I don't think synthetic heroin, cocaine, meth, or any of the currently scheduled prescription drugs need be made available over the counter. Not yet. We have a lot of drug education to do in this country. The "Just Say No" method has yielded such obviously negative results it will be quite a while before the damage can be undone.

One method of "drug education" would be to string everyone out. Then they would all learn. Really! Remember a while back some legislature wanted to put a little bit of heroin into birth control pills so women would remember to take them daily? That is government education!
As for the "Just Say No" issue emphasized the "Just" part a lot of folks were lost. I think the successful folks had a lot more going on than the "Just" part, like not "just saying so" and listening, and "just walking away" but running from, "just a little" to absolutely not. Lot of press on the "Just" part and not much else. Ever wonder why?

[thewholetruth]

I agree that regulation and control is better than criminalization and incarceration. People are going to pursue their vices anyway and I'd rather received benefit from that in the way of taxation.

Really? And you would prefer that the 2 million folks incarcerated for drug related charges right now would be better off for you personally if they were out driving intoxicated, holding up drug dealers, robbing your house or your neighbors', abusing their spouses and children in drugged stupors, shooting each other from their cars, and everything else that comes with drug use/abuse/addiction?

If you really imagine a scenario which doesn't include all of what I just described, I would suggest you do more research, and/or take an honest assessment of your own drug use. Pot leaves folks delusional, as does regular narcotic use. I'm not judgin' or implyin', I'm just sayin' that anyone who supports legalized getting loaded is typically ignorant or is already a drug user/abuser/addict.


Placing government oversight over growing and selling of marijuana would remove a major industry from the realm of organized crime.

LOL Are you sErIoUs?!? Government IS organized crime, bro!!! Wake up already! What are you thinking!? LOL


This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.

Legalizing pot use will simply give pot the same illusion that surrounds cigarettes and alcohol: that it's alright because it's legal. More slowheads in the fast lane, sitting through green lights, locking their breaks up because they missed a turn, driving 40 in a 55 zone, neglecting their children, abusing their gfs/wives, screwing up at work, living off the Government Tit and more people dependent upon yet ANOTHER drug just to "take the edge off" which really means "I can't cope with my life without drugs". Sounds like a plan, alright. A really, really bad plan.


This war on crime has been going on too long, with gangs and drug syndicates continuing to proliferate. What a waste of time and money.

It's not a waste of time and money for organized crime called "government", brudda. They make a LIFE LONG LIVING from this war.


Even proper education about the effects of some of the more addictive substances will not help. The effects of these can be so destructive to the person that they can become an imminent threat to society. We have a large problem with meth in this area that is not entirely due to illegal usage; long term use lends itself to developing psychotic paranoia.

And also causes the rationale of the people to break down, revealed in otherwise normal thinkers starting to believe that letting the government be our dealers and letting all the addicts out of prison will HELP our nation! LOL Wow. I've gotta take a pill.

[thewholetruth]

*Cocks head, looks at Ms. Terry, shaking head slowly in disbelief, then says quietly*

Oh-kaaaaaaay.


OK, I get it.
Your statement " Praise God that this is an anonymous forum, eh, sir" is meant for you! It gives you the liberty to say what you want.
You are generously chiding Dixon for being honest and telling the whole truth about himself, while showing him that you hide in anonymity! :thumbsup:
That is some crafty one-upmanship on your part :thumbsup:

[Zeno Swijtink]

Or, maybe Don and The Whole Truth have been lying to us? Or their clients been lying to them? And actually it's "all good"?

Someone like Don who works in the helping profession mostly meets clients, people with addiction problems. Other people who use drugs but have no addiction problems don't go to Don. So he is not lying, but speaking from his experience. But his experience is one-sided.

[thewholetruth]

Someone like Don who works in the helping profession mostly meets clients, people with addiction problems.

Granted, professionally speaking. But is my life solely professional? Have I ever had a personal life, with personal experiences? Do I have a personal life now, in which I might meet with nonaddicted individuals who share common interests with me who might have conversations with me and, over time, say a LIFEtime, might enable to see more than just the view from which I operate professionally today? That is to say, Zeno, that my life is about much more than my professional life, and always has been. I've walked on both sides of the street, for years at a time, always learning in retrospect more about human nature, human behavior, noting over the years the mass of commonalities we share compared to the very few ways in which we are different, despite how this Capitalistic society of marketing oversaturation would try to lead me/us to believe the contrary.


Other people who use drugs but have no addiction problems don't go to Don.

I see them every day, dealing with them professionally (those who also serve others), socially, spiritually, and recreationally. I've lived here all my life and know people across the USA. If your inference is that I only know drug addicts and alcoholics, sir, you couldn't be further from the truth. I know plenty of clean and sober people, people who have never used drugs, people who use drugs recreationally and people who fall in between there somewhere, as well.


So he is not lying, but speaking from his experience. But his experience is one-sided.

One-sided?!? That's an assumption, Zeno, and a foolish assumption, at that. Perhaps had you asked the question before you answered it for me, you might not have posted such ridiculous, assumptive poppycock today. :wink:

[Braggi]

Someone like Don who works in the helping profession mostly meets clients, people with addiction problems. Other people who use drugs but have no addiction problems don't go to Don. So he is not lying, but speaking from his experience. But his experience is one-sided.

Remember that he has a financial interest in keeping drugs illegal.

He makes money from the Failed War on Some Drugs.

He chooses to see the truth that helps him balance his checkbook.

-Jeff

Edit: according to Don, I am incorrect in this statement. His denial is noted and I apologize for any errors in my post.

[Zeno Swijtink]

One-sided?!? That's an assumption, Zeno, and a foolish assumption, at that. Perhaps had you asked the question before you answered it for me, you might not have posted such ridiculous, assumptive poppycock today. :wink:

One-sided, in the sense that you don't know people like braggi, who use drugs but have no problems with it.

Your life-path - starting in a life with drugs, getting into problems, reversing your path, now working with clean and sober people who work with you, are in alignment with your mission - has made it harder for you to meet people like braggi or, for that matter, me: libertarians, libertines, lidirachi.

["Mad" Miles]

lidirachi.

??? Dictionary.com'd it, Googled it (learned about Liberace) but no luck. It is Dutch? Did you mean "Literati"?

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[Braggi]

... lidirachi.

Was he that flamboyant, gay piano player?

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Was he that flamboyant, gay piano player?

-Jeff
lidirachi???
No, not Liberace, it's Pig latin for Bleeding (achi) heart (lidi) Liberals (dira)

[Zeno Swijtink]

Was he that flamboyant, gay piano player?

-Jeff

"lidirachi" ...

Well, I COINED that word. Yes, s/he is flamboyant and gay, but not (necessarily) homosexual. It's inspired by the German "Lieder,"

https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51K5Hbkb5AL._SL500_SS100_.jpg https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41q1LF6b9WL._SL500_SS100_.jpg https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-rKDbQipL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


attaching some fake Italian ending.

https://www.tonyskansascity.com/nov07/monicabelluccimaxim.jpg

[thewholetruth]

Actually, Jeff, you are mistaken. Helping men and women who have drug problems is only part of what I do for a living. If that aspect of my ministry were to go away, I would still be helping hundreds of people every day. Drugs heads don't support my job in any way. Quite the contrary, in fact. It costs me money to help them.

Again, here's Jeff, completely uninformed, then you ASSUMED, and you were incorrect.

Imagine that...


Remember that he has a financial interest in keeping drugs illegal.

He makes money from the Failed War on Some Drugs.

He chooses to see the truth that helps him balance his checkbook.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

One-sided, in the sense that you don't know people like braggi, who use drugs but have no problems with it.

Why am I having to repeat myself now, Zeno? I already told you that not only do I know people like Jeff, I WAS someone like Jeff. Why would you even repeat your false premise about me when I already explained at length that you are straight-up wrong about that?

Please, read my last reply to you again (it's post #31, sir), then post back again. I pray that your comments reflect that you actually read what I wrote this time.


Your life-path - starting in a life with drugs, getting into problems, reversing your path, now working with clean and sober people who work with you, are in alignment with your mission - has made it harder for you to meet people like braggi or, for that matter, me: libertarians, libertines, lidirachi.

Again, you're pretending I've never used drugs recreationally and that I have no friends who do. Read my post again. That's why I wrote it, Zeno. I would have been interested in your thoughts back had you actually read what I wrote. This post strongly suggests, if not proves, that you didn't even read my post, like the man who really isn't listening who simply restates his case because the object for him isn't to get to the truth, but to simply hear himself voice his own opinions.

I'll wait. I'm excited at what you might say (who knows!) after you actually read my last reply to you...Again, it's post #31. :thumbsup:

[Braggi]

Actually, Jeff, you are mistaken. Helping men and women who have drug problems is only part of what I do for a living. If that aspect of my ministry were to go away, I would still be helping hundreds of people every day. Drugs heads don't support my job in any way. Quite the contrary, in fact. It costs me money to help them.
...

I have edited my post to note your comments and my error. However, I find your rigidity in thinking curiously out of line with this statement. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

I have edited my post to note your comments and my error. However, I find your rigidity in thinking curiously out of line with this statement.

Having the courage of one's convictions can appear to be "rigidity" to people who just make up life as they go along. Seekers of truth vary greatly in many ways from people who call their opinions "my truth" and who call my opinions "your truth", when in fact, they are opinions. I've lived a long time, Jeff, always curious and interested in the Human Condition. I've spent years in intensive study at the legendary Hard Knock University, where truth runs rampant and opinions - while plentiful - carry no real weight and very little value. Money talks, and bullcrap walks, Jeff, and the Truth is the truth, regardless of anyone's opinions.

I've lived in the maze of opinionated b.s. where some folks still like to live, Jeff, and I've seen the Light of Truth. I can't not know, now. I know that I know. It's no longer just my opinion guiding my life and filling my head with thoughts.


I'll try to be more careful in the future.

-Jeff

Thank you, sir. :thumbsup:

[thewholetruth]

Edit: according to Don, I am incorrect in this statement. His denial is noted and I apologize for any errors in my post.

By your comments, you prove that you lack integrity, Jeff, and you are insincere. To tell me in your last post that you "edited my post to note your comments and my error" you have lied. Instead, you accused me of being in Denial and implied that you really aren't sure if there are any errors on your part. Wow. What's it like to live that far removed from Reality, sir?

[Braggi]

... Too fast for me, Kimo Sabe. When you say "legalize", I gather you mean "decriminalize", so folks won't be arrested for possession or growing. Is that a base approach? ...


Yup. That would be good enough.


... Will you advertise? Why stop at 18 years of age as a base? Why not 5 year olds? What if parents "feel" their 7 year old is ready? Any legal problems there? No child abuse? Is the 'use of" a day at the beach? ...


I think the current model for cigarettes should work for other drugs, but there is no advertisement of pot now, except by the Government. No reason to change that model, except the Govt. could start telling the truth. Child abuse? Please Lenny. Stay on topic.


... psychiatrist office or gurus need apply only? Imagine the insurance industry! No "imparied use" matters while high? or afterwards? up to three years? The legal profession alone would expand exponentially! ...

There are laws on the books that cover impaired behavior. No need to change them. People need to be responsible for their behavior.

The legal profession fights legalization tooth and nail because of all the business they would lose. Remember that approximately half of all prosecutions are for minor drug offenses. That's a lot of lawyer time.

Imagine if all those lawyers, cops, snoops and investigators, police officers and prison guards, all the support people and all that vast amount of money went to some positive use instead of persecuting a minority that doesn't agree with the current political stance. Imagine that!


... ALL of the drugs are "easily handled by the underground" right now. I don't know why you make such a distinction. ...

That's not what I said. I mention a few non-addictive, "mind expanding" drugs not "all of the drugs." Big difference. You don't find people who have been harmed by DMT. You find very few people admitted to emergency rooms after taking LSD and most of those had a panic attack not any kind of medical problem. People have panic attacks without taking any drugs. MDMA (ecstasy) is an exceedingly safe drug when taken by someone who has even minimal knowledge of using it safely. Although I have a little trouble understanding why people would take these substances at a "rave" or a concert, I know a lot of people do and few have any problems. This is a far cry from alcohol where so many get in trouble. Look at all the people who get arrested at football games for getting drunk in public.

You find vanishingly few people getting in trouble with plants, except in legal trouble. Changing the law will solve that one.


... I know I can go out and get any of that stuff in less than an hour, far less, with little to no hassle, and I know no single soul that uses, so I miss your message, unless "the underground" is not so hidden in Sonoma. ...

Yeah, you miss my message, but then you usually do. :wink:

Lenny, there is an underground community of people who CONSCIOUSLY and safely use these sacred medicines and get in no trouble of any kind with them. If fact, there are a great many people whose lives have been greatly enriched and in many cases, healed through the conscious use of these emotional, mental and spiritual tools. Just because you are unaware of these people and this community doesn't mean they don't exist.

Go to Erowid.org and look in the "spiritual" section. There is a wealth of information there. That is a fine source of real drug education.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Please, read my last reply to you again (it's post #31, sir), then post back again. I pray that your comments reflect that you actually read what I wrote this time.

You're right, I did not read your post carefully enough: you say you know all four kinds: people who use drugs and because of that got into problems, people who use drugs and have no problems with that, and people who are clean of drugs (and I assume some of them got into problems nevertheless).

[Braggi]

... To tell me in your last post that you "edited my post to note your comments and my error" you have lied. Instead, you accused me of being in Denial and implied that you really aren't sure if there are any errors on your part. ...

Don, here is the definition of denial I used: "4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation."

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/denial

Words have meaning, Don. That's the meaning I meant. That's what you did. I made a broad apology. If you don't accept it ... I'll live with it, I guess.

No lie on my part.

-Jeff

edit: just to be clear, I meant this definition of repudiate: 2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust: repudiated the accusation

[MsTerry]

LMFAO

Braggi wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64158#post64158)
Edit: according to Don, I am incorrect in this statement. His denial is noted and I apologize for any errors in my post.

Jeff, actually knows how to have fun AND tell the truth :thumbsup:


By your comments, you prove that you lack integrity, Jeff, and you are insincere. To tell me in your last post that you "edited my post to note your comments and my error" you have lied. Instead, you accused me of being in Denial and implied that you really aren't sure if there are any errors on your part. Wow. What's it like to live that far removed from Reality, sir?
Don, when we are blind with rage, it is easy to shoot yourself in the foot,
*Cocks head, looks at poor Don, shaking head slowly in sympathy, then says quietly*

it is going to be Oh-kaaaaaaay.

[Braggi]

... If your inference is that I only know drug addicts and alcoholics, sir, you couldn't be further from the truth. I know plenty of clean and sober people, people who have never used drugs, people who use drugs recreationally and people who fall in between there somewhere, as well. ...

To clear things up, here's the quote Zeno and Don a fussing over.

What's missing from this list is the people who use sacred medicines in a sacramental, conscious, spiritual manner, for visioning a better life, for healing emotional, physical and spiritual harms, and for seeing a "bigger picture" of their place in the cosmos. These are people that don't get into trouble, who don't use habitually, and sometimes are in the process of deep healing from post traumatic stress. What's also missing is the people who use sacred medicines as a means of deepening personal relationships to each other, to humanity in general and to the Earth and Nature: to God and Goddess.

These people are also worth acknowledging. Thankfully, they are a growing and increasingly influential force.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Jeff, the people you're referring to are simply drug users and abusers who use "healing, sacramental, conscious, etc." as their way of rationalizing ongoing drug abuse. Thankfully, they all live in Sebastopol and are a shrinking group, collectively speaking.


To clear things up, here's the quote Zeno and Don a fussing over.

What's missing from this list is the people who use sacred medicines in a sacramental, conscious, spiritual manner, for visioning a better life, for healing emotional, physical and spiritual harms, and for seeing a "bigger picture" of their place in the cosmos. These are people that don't get into trouble, who don't use habitually, and sometimes are in the process of deep healing from post traumatic stress. What's also missing is the people who use sacred medicines as a means of deepening personal relationships to each other, to humanity in general and to the Earth and Nature: to God and Goddess.

These people are also worth acknowledging. Thankfully, they are a growing and increasingly influential force.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

You're right, I did not read your post carefully enough: you say you know all four kinds: people who use drugs and because of that got into problems, people who use drugs and have no problems with that, and people who are clean of drugs (and I assume some of them got into problems nevertheless).

Thanks, Zeno. Needless to say, you're a breath of rational and reasonable fresh air in here, particularly after being engaged with folks like Jeff and Ms. Terry. :thumbsup:

[MsTerry]

:rofl2:Sir Don,
Zeno is merely pointing out your fallacious math:rofl:

Zeno Swijtink wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64215#post64215)
You're right, I did not read your post carefully enough: you say you know all four kinds: .
love
MsTerry:biglaugh:


Thanks, Zeno. Needless to say, you're a breath of rational and reasonable fresh air in here, particularly after being engaged with folks like Jeff and Ms. Terry. :thumbsup:

[Zeno Swijtink]

Jeff, the people you're referring to are simply drug users and abusers who use "healing, sacramental, conscious, etc." as their way of rationalizing ongoing drug abuse. Thankfully, they all live in Sebastopol and are a shrinking group, collectively speaking.

Could you elaborate? You said you know people who use drugs and have no problems with that. Why are all sacramental users abusing drugs??

[Braggi]

... Thankfully, they all live in Sebastopol and are a shrinking group, collectively speaking.

Heh heh heh. Don, you could be a comedian if you weren't so serious. :):

Go here and read up on all the millions of people who have used, and do use these sacraments:

https://www.erowid.org/entheogens/spiritual.shtml

It's worth noting that the "Western" Judeo-Christian culture is the only one on Earth, except for eskimos, that have no history of spiritual use of these substances. Eskimos have no psychotropic plants that would serve the purpose. It's also worth noting that our Western culture is the only one with significant drug problems. The other cultures that now have drug problems are largely due to the interference of Western governments, as Lenny mentioned in his comments on the "opium wars" which were fought over England demanding the right to import opium into China.

We have a lot to learn from other cultures and how to safely and effectively use sacred medicines is one of them. Thankfully, there are thousands of people working on investigating and recording sacred medicine use in cultures around the world, and not all of them are from Sebastopol :wink:

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Could you elaborate? You said you know people who use drugs and have no problems with that. Why are all sacramental users abusing drugs??

Zeno, a healthy individual doesn't need drugs. Anyone using drugs without medicinal need is abusing them. Escaping into LaLa Land isn't "medicinal" or therapeutic, sir. It's recreational, which translates into "drug abuse". The people I know who use drugs are abusing them, too, Zeno. They aren't sick but they take drugs anyway? Abuse, not use. We use drugs for a reason, boredom not being a valid reason.

[thewholetruth]

Jeff, you couldn't be more wrong if tried. Drug problems are worldwide, sir, not just here in the West.

So you found an excuse not to learn how to cope with life. We all have that option. Most of us grow out of using drugs to escape. Others escape from reality their entire lives using drugs and/or alcohol.

It's your perogative. It's doesn't make it healthy or normal. It's still drug abuse, Jeff.


Heh heh heh. Don, you could be a comedian if you weren't so serious. :):

Go here and read up on all the millions of people who have used, and do use these sacraments:

https://www.erowid.org/entheogens/spiritual.shtml

It's worth noting that the "Western" Judeo-Christian culture is the only one on Earth, except for eskimos, that have no history of spiritual use of these substances. Eskimos have no psychotropic plants that would serve the purpose. It's also worth noting that our Western culture is the only one with significant drug problems. The other cultures that now have drug problems are largely due to the interference of Western governments, as Lenny mentioned in his comments on the "opium wars" which were fought over England demanding the right to import opium into China.

We have a lot to learn from other cultures and how to safely and effectively use sacred medicines is one of them. Thankfully, there are thousands of people working on investigating and recording sacred medicine use in cultures around the world, and not all of them are from Sebastopol :wink:

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Jeff? Do you imagine nicotine to be a more addictive drug than heroin? ...

Go do some reading Don. Nicotine has the curious ability to "create" new receptor sites for itself in the brain which rapidly creates dependency. Heroin works on our natural opioid receptor sites and therefore true addiction happens more slowly.

I'm not suggesting the world would be a better place if all tobacco addicts were hooked on heroin.

However, the world would certainly be a better place if tobacco addicts smoked moderate amounts of cannabis instead. (Assuming no interference from law enforcement, of course.)

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Jeff, you couldn't be more wrong if tried. Drug problems are worldwide, sir, not just here in the West. ...

Don, comment on what I wrote if you wish, but don't put words in my mouth.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... So you found an excuse not to learn how to cope with life. We all have that option. Most of us grow out of using drugs to escape. Others escape from reality their entire lives using drugs and/or alcohol. ...

Drugs can also be used to enter into life more fully. That is not a model you are familiar with. For some it is the only model they will use drugs in. For some it is about stopping the escapism and fully facing their reality.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Uh, in a word, no.
Ask any former junkie who also kicked tobacco and they'll tell you tobacco was the much harder habit to break.
There's more to addiction than numbing and sweetening. It's worth noting that a lot of "drugs of abuse" do neither.-Jeff

Arg, hoisted on my own petard!
Well, the junkie's I've known do often claim smoking is "tougher". Right there.
And you are right, heroin and friends do not numb or sweeten reality as time goes by on the individual. Just to feel NORMAL (as we do at the moment)they need some stuff, but then, for the most part, they don't want to feel normal, and they don't want to feel sick (without smack) they want to "get high", and you are friendly to that! I am outraged by that, from you!
I am dang near positive, if asked, and legal, and only one of the two were offered, the junkie will take his stuff over smoking, every time. Smoking is a social, legal drug, whereas....well you know.
After having not smoked for over 20 years, I would go back in a New York second if I could. So I suppose that is how a junkie feels about his loving spoonful.

[Lenny]

Those fun-loving whacky Germans! I was familiar with the history. I knew heroin was a "remedy" for morphine addiction, just as methadone was a "cure" for heroin addiction.....And "Bayer" was behind it all! It is fun reading but there's so much more to do at the moment. Thanks, though.


Perhaps this could explain why heroin became such a huge problem for an uninformed public (hint: this could never happen again):
" ... In 1897 the Bayer chemist Felix Hoffmann, acting on Eichengruen's instructions, discovered a new process for modifying salicyclic acid (a remedy for fever and inflammation which unfortunately has excruciating digestive side effects) to produce acetylsalicyclic acid (ASA).
This compound, later to be named Aspirin, had been isolated before and the healing powers of salicylates (derived from willow bark) had been known for centuries. But Hoffmann had created a reliable process for making it.
Eichengruen enthusiastically recommended ASA to Dreser in 1898. Dreser, after cursory consideration, rejected it. Ostensibly, his objection was that ASA would have an "enfeebling" action on the heart. "The product has no value," he pronounced confidently. But the real problem was almost certainly that he had another product on his mind whose impending success he was anxious not to jeopardise. This was heroin.
Like aspirin, the drug that Bayer launched under the trademark Heroin in 1898 was not an original discovery. Diacetylmorphine, a white, odourless, bitter, crystalline powder deriving from morphine, had been invented in 1874 by an English chemist, C R Wright.
But Dreser was the first to see its commercial potential. Scientists had been looking for some time for a non-addictive substitute for morphine, then widely used as a painkiller and in the treatment of respiratory diseases. If diacetylmorphine could be shown to be such a product, Bayer - and Dreser - would hit the jackpot.
Diacetylmorphine was first synthesised in the Bayer laboratory in 1897 - by Hoffmann, two weeks after he first synthesised ASA. The work seems to have been initiated by Dreser, who was by then aware of Wright's discovery, even though he subsequently implied that heroin was an original Bayer invention.
By early 1898 was testing it on sticklebacks, frogs and rabbits. He also tested it on some of Bayer's workers, and on himself. The workers loved it, some saying it made them feel "heroic" (heroisch). This was also the term used by chemists to describe any strong drug (and diacetylmorphine is four times stronger than morphine). Creating a brand name was easy.
In November 1898, Dreser presented the drug to the Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians, claiming it was 10 times more effective as a cough medicine than codeine, but had only a tenth of its toxic effects. It was also more effective than morphine as a painkiller. It was safe. It wasn't habit-forming. In short, it was a wonder drug - the Viagra of its day.
"What we don't recognise now," says David Muso, professor of psychiatry and the history of medicine at Yale Medical School, "is that this met what was then a desperate need - not for a painkiller, but for a cough remedy". "
[end quote]
https://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html
Go to the website to read more. Fascinating stuff.
-Jeff

[Braggi]

... but then, for the most part, they don't want to feel normal, and they don't want to feel sick (without smack) they want to "get high", and you are friendly to that! I am outraged by that, from you!
I am dang near positive, if asked, and legal, and only one of the two were offered, the junkie will take his stuff over smoking, every time. ...

A lot of agreement here Lenny, but I really don't like the idea of heroin addicts getting addicted or even getting high. I think there are much better, safer drugs to dabble in if a person really does want to get high.

Heroin is really a special case in a nihilistic sort of way. Nobody in the US who gets into heroin these days is ignorant of the dangers. Perhaps it's a cry for help or a half-assed attempt at suicide. I think it's a tragedy. Don't get me wrong, Lenny. I think heroin use is a bad idea and I don't think this country is ready to legalize it. However, I also don't think the country benefits from putting heroin users in prison, especially for exceedingly long terms.

There are drugs that are powerful anti-addiction tools when used with proper supervision and controls. Heroin addiction is one of the problems the ibogaine researchers have had a lot of luck with. Decades ago LSD therapy was used to help some heroin addicts. There are a number of hopeful pilot studies underway using these substances so perhaps we'll have some successful protocols in the near future. I think MDMA (Ecstasy) could be used in this effort. We'll see.

Maps.org lists a great many studies underway right now as well as some gearing up for government permissions. Thankfully, management at NIDA and the FDA are more creative and have minds a whole lot more open than some on this forum.

Here's a list of studies looking for volunteers. Maybe you, Lenny? :):

https://www.maps.org/volunteer.html

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Drugs can also be used to enter into life more fully. That is not a model you are familiar with. For some it is the only model they will use drugs in. For some it is about stopping the escapism and fully facing their reality. -Jeff

Jeff, my friend, that IS the lie.
Few take hard, long, difficult hours in examining their life, as it is not easy.
It is not the case that drugs assist. It is simply an illusion that drugs can.
Again, that IS the lie.

[Lenny]

Go do some reading Don. Nicotine has the curious ability to "create" new receptor sites for itself in the brain which rapidly creates dependency. Heroin works on our natural opioid receptor sites and therefore true addiction happens more slowly.
I'm not suggesting the world would be a better place if all tobacco addicts were hooked on heroin.
However, the world would certainly be a better place if tobacco addicts smoked moderate amounts of cannabis instead. (Assuming no interference from law enforcement, of course.)-Jeff

Jeff, would you still tout that (above) if researchers found out pot was bad for the body?

[Lenny]

Someone like Don who works in the helping profession mostly meets clients, people with addiction problems. Other people who use drugs but have no addiction problems don't go to Don. So he is not lying, but speaking from his experience. But his experience is one-sided.

And the call for those pros is growing greatly, with specializations in "meth" as well as "pot" and other drugs. Growth industry. Wish I had the money to buy stocks as one would never go broke, legal or not, is the point. There are alcoholics and the subset of those in recovery is so much smaller, other wise it would even be a larger industry!! As you put it "Don works with people...with addiction PROBLEMS". So many don't find it a "problem" yet! I've heard of dope fiends whose "problem" is not getting enough dope!
Of course those Schedule 1 drugs Jeff wants to legalize would make it a boom industry. I kind of like the idea of a whole army of Dons walking and talking health to those that have bottomed out and have no way to go but up!

[Braggi]

Jeff, my friend, that IS the lie.
Few take hard, long, difficult hours in examining their life, as it is not easy.
It is not the case that drugs assist. It is simply an illusion that drugs can. ...

It's not a model you're familiar with. That I will agree with.

You are clearly in fear of what you do not understand.

That's human nature. It's also human nature to be curious and to be bold. Keep reading Lenny. Go to the erowid site I posted earlier and read some of the stories from the ayahuasca church members or from some of the peyote church members. You might be impressed.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Of course those Schedule 1 drugs Jeff wants to legalize would make it a boom industry ...

So, Lenny, would you start habitually taking LSD if it were legalized tomorrow?

How many people that you know well would?

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Re: drug decriminalization
Quote: Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64147#post64147)
... Will you advertise? Why stop at 18 years of age as a base? Why not 5 year olds? What if parents "feel" their 7 year old is ready? Any legal problems there? No child abuse? Is the 'use of" a day at the beach? ...


I think the current model for cigarettes should work for other drugs, but there is no advertisement of pot now, except by the Government. No reason to change that model, except the Govt. could start telling the truth. Child abuse? Please Lenny. Stay on topic.

Ah, "the model". That's part of the problem it is a model!
And see how well it is put into practice. And like SO many, "not my problem if they want to smoke" as 12 year olds pass us on the street. Try and get that model into practice, eh? You find that acceptable for drugs too? I have a personal question, need not answer: have kids?
The gov't does tell the truth in this instance: drugs=bad.

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64147#post64147)
... psychiatrist office or gurus need apply only? Imagine the insurance industry! No "imparied use" matters while high? or afterwards? up to three years? The legal profession alone would expand exponentially! ...


There are laws on the books that cover impaired behavior. No need to change them. People need to be responsible for their behavior.

And they are not. That is why we have laws. And your proposal stands by that notion that drugs will help folks be responsible for their behavior? Just like booze does?
And you are in a fantasy if you think lawyers, insurance, and the whole system will not turn over again if your wish came true.
Word: unintended consequences



The legal profession fights legalization tooth and nail because of all the business they would lose. Remember that approximately half of all prosecutions are for minor drug offenses. That's a lot of lawyer time. Imagine if all those lawyers, cops, snoops and investigators, police officers and prison guards, all the support people and all that vast amount of money went to some positive use instead of persecuting a minority that doesn't agree with the current political stance. Imagine that!

You really want me to believe that? Most of those in prison have plead down from more serious charges that the DA knows will pass, and the "victim-drug fiend" will agree with. Few, in California go to prison for what your ilk define as drug offenses, and you know it.
Or course, there's a persecuted minority (language that I love) that thinks mayhem & killing should be tolerated in many instances. Much more than what the political climate allows. Great logic, great rhetoric, lousy policy on all accounts.

Quote:
Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64147#post64147)
... ALL of the drugs are "easily handled by the underground" right now. I don't know why you make such a distinction. ...


That's not what I said. I mention a few non-addictive, "mind expanding" drugs not "all of the drugs." Big difference. You don't find people who have been harmed by DMT. You find very few people admitted to emergency rooms after taking LSD and most of those had a panic attack not any kind of medical problem. People have panic attacks without taking any drugs. MDMA (ecstasy) is an exceedingly safe drug when taken by someone who has even minimal knowledge of using it safely. Although I have a little trouble understanding why people would take these substances at a "rave" or a concert, I know a lot of people do and few have any problems. This is a far cry from alcohol where so many get in trouble. Look at all the people who get arrested at football games for getting drunk in public.

I didn't know cops were invited or had to be at rave parties!
And those that take LSD probably won't find themselves at ER. Their friends know it's illegal and will "take care" of the issue themselves.
And since DMT lasts about 14 minutes, doesn't the the person place himself in a position where they can "hang" for a few?
Big whoop!


You find vanishingly few people getting in trouble with plants, except in legal trouble. Changing the law will solve that one.

Well at least we agree.Change the law and a LOT of people will be getting into "trouble" just not with the law directly per se.
And their troubles will be of a deeper or more "troublesome" in nature, not a fine, or an easy month in the pokey.


Lenny, there is an underground community of people who CONSCIOUSLY and safely use these sacred medicines and get in no trouble of any kind with them. If fact, there are a great many people whose lives have been greatly enriched and in many cases, healed through the conscious use of these emotional, mental and spiritual tools. Just because you are unaware of these people and this community doesn't mean they don't exist.

Jeff, you really don't know my experiences and history. I understand what you are saying, and it matters. But look at the logic of your statement. If you think I don't really know, do you? And how? Experientially? Anecdotally? Personally? While you are a fine person, no doubt, is that enough to open Pandora's Box? Because of good intentions? When we meet someday, I will tell you a story about how things changed in San Francisco from a sweet expereince and idea that "all the world needs is love" to the hell that became that Summer of Love.
Also, look at your statement. Can ANYONE prove what you wrote?

[quote=Braggi;64214Go to Erowid.org and look in the "spiritual" section. There is a wealth of information there. That is a fine source of real drug education.-Jeff

Go down to the bus depot in town, walk the streets, talk to those folks about drugs. Evaluate that experience. Those too are in books, but the books are statistical, factual, and sad; they are not models, ideas, or theories, but they are consciousness raising all the same.

[Zeno Swijtink]

May be interesting to consider in this discussion the drug policy of the Netherlands. It's distinguishing trait is the approach from public health, rather than criminalization of drug use.

I quote from Wikipedia


The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:

Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists

It is a pragmatic policy. Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results. By comparison, most other countries take the point of view that drugs are detrimental to society and must therefore be outlawed, even when such policies fail to eliminate drug use. This has caused friction between the Netherlands and other countries, most notably with France and Germany. As of 2004, Belgium seems to be moving toward the Dutch model and a few local German legislators are calling for experiments based on the Dutch model. Switzerland has had long and heated parliamentary debates about whether to follow the Dutch model, but finally decided against it in 2004; currently a ballot initiative is in the works on the question. In the last few years certain strains of marijuana with higher concentrations of THC and drug tourism have challenged the current policy and led to a re-examination of the current approach.[1]

Netherlands has a high anti-drug related public expenditure, the second highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (after Sweden). 75% is law enforcement expenditures including police, army, law courts, prisons, customs and finance guards. 25% is health and social care expenditures including treatment, harm reduction, health research and educational including prevention and social affairs interventions.[2][3]

cont. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

[thewholetruth]

Drugs can also be used to enter into life more fully. That is not a model you are familiar with. For some it is the only model they will use drugs in. For some it is about stopping the escapism and fully facing their reality.

-Jeff

LOL And how does altering your NATURAL STATE help you "enter into life more fully", Jeff, in your humble opinion?

Fully facing their reality by getting stoned? BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha.

I apologize. It just came out.

That's ludicrous, Jeff. It defies logic and reason. It's the drugs talking, bra...

[Zeno Swijtink]

LOL And how does altering your NATURAL STATE help you "enter into life more fully", Jeff, in your humble opinion?

Fully facing their reality by getting stoned? BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha.

I apologize. It just came out.

That's ludicrous, Jeff. It defies logic and reason. It's the drugs talking, bra...

You come clearly over as a person, Don. But there is nothing else in your response. No detail, no information. Just a facial expression as it were. Makes me think that your life experience is indeed rather limited. You can only laugh at experiences you are not familiar with or categorize them in terms you are familiar with, "getting stoned."


Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Braggi is talking about his own experiences, and that of the healthy community he is part of.

I myself don't think it's enough to base a public policy on, too many people will be like you and the people your mission is about. They would not be able to handle the challenges of that use of drugs.

Question is how can public policy accommodate the Braggis while protecting you and your clients against their own weaknesses?

[Dixon]

Zeno, a healthy individual doesn't need drugs. Anyone using drugs without medicinal need is abusing them.

You've already mentioned your caffeine habit, Don. By your own criteria, this apparently means you are not "a healthy individual" and that you are abusing the drug.

Judging from your absolutistic generalizations throughout this thread, your caffeine abuse presumably also means that you're using drugs to "alter your natural state" (that's certainly true) and "escape from reality" because you "can't cope with (your) life without drugs".

I know, I know--you're gonna claim that caffeine doesn't count because it's totally safe, but you're dead wrong if you say that. Googling "caffeine abuse" yielded 9,910 hits, with link after link detailing problems of varying severity, some requiring ICU hospitalization. I myself, working in mental health, have on quite a few occasions seen severe exacerbation of psychotic and mood symptoms, occasionally leading to physical assault, due to caffeine (sometimes just a cup or two of coffee). But even those without mental illness can have serious problems if they overdo it.

Now most of us, me included, would say "Well, if you don't have a major mental illness and don't overdo it, you can use caffeine without abusing it" and we'd be right. But you, Don, equate drug use with abuse, so the obvious questions are:

1. Will you campaign for illegalizing caffeine, and call those who are in favor of legal caffeine "fools and addicts"?

2. If you insist that caffeine is exempt from your absolutistic generalizations because it's relatively safe (which indeed it is) and therefore should remain legal, will you join me in calling for the legalization of drugs which are even safer, such as psilocybin and ibogaine?

3. If you won't call for legalization of those drugs because you assume they're dangerous, will you make a case for them being dangerous with reference to some real research rather than exaggerated generalizations?

4. Have you started beating your kids and wife (or husband) yet?

5. How soon can we expect to see you lying in the gutter in a pool of espresso?

6. Will you stop claiming to be "clean and sober" until you get the caffeine monkey off your back?

7. And, keeping in mind that you've said you've "never known anyone with only one addiction", can we talk about this Jesus habit that makes you babble like "a fool and an addict"? As a former born-again Christian myself, I may be willing to serve as your sponsor if you recognize the depths of self-righteousness, closedmindedness and hypocrisy you've fallen to and are serious about recovery.

Dixon

[Lenny]

So, Lenny, would you start habitually taking LSD if it were legalized tomorrow? How many people that you know well would?
-Jeff

History, Jeff.
Chinese to be specific, circa 1700 to 1904.
Or more recently, a quick snapshot of USA, circa 1964, prior to LSD becoming illegal.
Maybe that's why it became illegal? Do ya think?
Fire good. No, Fire bad.......

[thewholetruth]

You've already mentioned your caffeine habit, Don.

I mentioned no "caffeine habit", Dixon, because one doesn't exist here. A cup of coffee a day, and not every day, is not typically defined as "habit".


By your own criteria, this apparently means you are not "a healthy individual" and that you are abusing the drug.

Not abusing the drug, sir.


Judging from your absolutistic generalizations throughout this thread, your caffeine abuse presumably also means that you're using drugs to "alter your natural state" (that's certainly true) and "escape from reality" because you "can't cope with (your) life without drugs".

No caffeine abuse here, sir.


I know, I know--

Apparently you don't know, Dixon. You're just throwing rocks in this thread.


you're gonna claim that caffeine doesn't count because it's totally safe, but you're dead wrong if you say that. Googling "caffeine abuse" yielded 9,910 hits, with link after link detailing problems of varying severity, some requiring ICU hospitalization. I myself, working in mental health, have on quite a few occasions seen severe exacerbation of psychotic and mood symptoms, occasionally leading to physical assault, due to caffeine (sometimes just a cup or two of coffee). But even those without mental illness can have serious problems if they overdo it.

Granted.


Now most of us, me included, would say "Well, if you don't have a major mental illness and don't overdo it, you can use caffeine without abusing it" and we'd be right. But you, Don, equate drug use with abuse

Only if the drug is not necessary, Dixon.


so the obvious questions are:

1. Will you campaign for illegalizing caffeine, and call those who are in favor of legal caffeine "fools and addicts"?

No.


2. If you insist that caffeine is exempt from your absolutistic generalizations because it's relatively safe (which indeed it is) and therefore should remain legal, will you join me in calling for the legalization of drugs which are even safer, such as psilocybin and yohimbe?

LOL I get it now. You're one of Jeff's friends.


3. If you won't call for legalization of those drugs because you assume they're dangerous, will you make a case for them being dangerous with reference to some real research rather than exaggerated generalizations?

No.


4. Have you started beating your kids and wife (or husband) yet?

That will never happen, sir (and I'm using the term "sir" loosely at this point).


5. How soon can we expect to see you lying in the gutter in a pool of espresso?

That's right: Jeff's friend, apparently incapable of rational thinking on, at least, occasion.


6. Will you stop claiming to be "clean and sober" until you get the caffeine monkey off your back?

No monkey, sir.


7. And, keeping in mind that you've said you've "never known anyone with only one addiction", can we talk about this Jesus habit that makes you babble like "a fool and an addict"? As a former born-again Christian myself, I may be willing to serve as your sponsor if you recognize the depths of self-righteousness, closedmindedness and hypocrisy you've fallen to and are serious about recovery.

Dixon

Read that last paragraph again, Dixon. Ironic, isn't it, that it's such a blatant and obvious reflection of your own "self-righteousness, closedmindedness and hypocrisy"? Ironic, sir.

[Lenny]

Braggi is talking about his own experiences, and that of the healthy community he is part of. I myself don't think it's enough to base a public policy on, too many people will be like you and the people your mission is about. They would not be able to handle the challenges of that use of drugs. Question is how can public policy accommodate the Braggis while protecting you and your clients against their own weaknesses?

Here lies the nub. One cannot deny Jeff's experience and beliefs.
The majority uses statistics, historical precedence, the greater good notion, and the "protection" that the social contract mandates.
We all suffer losses of freedoms when coming together. This is one of them.

[Lenny]

Dixon,
Your reduction to absurdity argument speaks and defeats itself.
Me thinks you went to far, and I am glad. Now re-read it and apply it to why drugs are illegal. Thanks.


You've already mentioned your caffeine habit, Don. By your own criteria, this apparently means you are not "a healthy individual" and that you are abusing the drug.

Judging from your absolutistic generalizations throughout this thread, your caffeine abuse presumably also means that you're using drugs to "alter your natural state" (that's certainly true) and "escape from reality" because you "can't cope with (your) life without drugs".

I know, I know--you're gonna claim that caffeine doesn't count because it's totally safe, but you're dead wrong if you say that. Googling "caffeine abuse" yielded 9,910 hits, with link after link detailing problems of varying severity, some requiring ICU hospitalization. I myself, working in mental health, have on quite a few occasions seen severe exacerbation of psychotic and mood symptoms, occasionally leading to physical assault, due to caffeine (sometimes just a cup or two of coffee). But even those without mental illness can have serious problems if they overdo it.

Now most of us, me included, would say "Well, if you don't have a major mental illness and don't overdo it, you can use caffeine without abusing it" and we'd be right. But you, Don, equate drug use with abuse, so the obvious questions are:

1. Will you campaign for illegalizing caffeine, and call those who are in favor of legal caffeine "fools and addicts"?

2. If you insist that caffeine is exempt from your absolutistic generalizations because it's relatively safe (which indeed it is) and therefore should remain legal, will you join me in calling for the legalization of drugs which are even safer, such as psilocybin and yohimbe?

3. If you won't call for legalization of those drugs because you assume they're dangerous, will you make a case for them being dangerous with reference to some real research rather than exaggerated generalizations?

4. Have you started beating your kids and wife (or husband) yet?

5. How soon can we expect to see you lying in the gutter in a pool of espresso?

6. Will you stop claiming to be "clean and sober" until you get the caffeine monkey off your back?

7. And, keeping in mind that you've said you've "never known anyone with only one addiction", can we talk about this Jesus habit that makes you babble like "a fool and an addict"? As a former born-again Christian myself, I may be willing to serve as your sponsor if you recognize the depths of self-righteousness, closedmindedness and hypocrisy you've fallen to and are serious about recovery.

Dixon

[thewholetruth]

Zeno, you appear to overlook one important fact here, sir. Jeff knows that what he claims is b.s. Everyone in the drug community knows that drugs are a crutch sir, when they aren't serving any medicinal need. I believe he even admitted that his use is "recreational", although now he claims it's for some spiritual religious use. I can laugh when drug heads make the classic excuses that all drug heads make for using drugs, Zeno. It's not that my life experience is "rather limited", sir, that causes me to laugh. It's because my life is NOT "rather limited" that I laugh, in the same way that I laugh quietly to myself whenever a new addict joins our program and starts to tell me what's wrong with their counselor, always because "it makes me feel ______". It's classic, Zeno, the excuses drug heads make for their use. Granted, Jeff has reached a little deeper into his imagination than most in his effort to try to rationalize his own drug use, but do you think I haven't heard his excuses before, in 17 years of working with drug abusers and addicts? You see, Zeno, his attempts to rationalize his drug use, were they valid, would certainly have resulted in some degree of legalization by now, would they not? Were they valid, they would. America makes a lot of concessions for religions, Zeno, but I guarantee you that if Jeff were found with his drugs of choice in his possession, he would be arrested. He would not be let go "for religious use" only.

People like you, Zeno, who don't work with drug abusers, alcoholics and drug addicts, really tend to have absolutely no clue about the common thread which runs through every addict's mind. The excuses, while sometimes creative (usually not), are the same from person to person to person. Jeff is one (we see them regularly, albeit not as regular as most) who learned about Native American peyote use, which of course led him to dig up every civilization who ever used drugs in his effort to build a case for his own drug use/abuse, and he's latched onto that mode of rationalization for his own drug abuse.


You come clearly over as a person, Don. But there is nothing else in your response. No detail, no information. Just a facial expression as it were. Makes me think that your life experience is indeed rather limited. You can only laugh at experiences you are not familiar with or categorize them in terms you are familiar with, "getting stoned."


Hamlet:


And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,


Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Braggi is talking about his own experiences, and that of the healthy community he is part of.

"Healthy" is a subjective term, sir, and can be misused just like the word "truth" can be misused and misapplied. Just because it's "his own experiences" doesn't mean they are any different than any other drug abuser's experiences, in motivation nor in rationalization.


I myself don't think it's enough to base a public policy on, too many people will be like you and the people your mission is about. They would not be able to handle the challenges of that use of drugs.

That's because it's not "use", Zeno. It's abuse. History has shown that legalized drug use does not benefit societies overall. Allowing random drug use causes problems in society as well as in families. We don't have to try it again in case it might be different this time. We have the benefit of thousands of years experience to draw from, Zeno. Just because Jeff believes his drug abuse is a good thing, doesn't make it so. Child molesters believe that molesting a child is a good thing, and it's not so. Would you agree?


Question is how can public policy accommodate the Braggis while protecting you and your clients against their own weaknesses?

I don't believe that is the question. Why should society "accomodate" drug abuse? We've been there/done that, Zeno, throughout history. Give me one good reason why we should imagine it will be any different now. I believe the question is how can we encourage people to embrace life on life terms so that (1) we aren't dealing with intoxicated individuals everywhere we go, (2) we can identify actual mental illness which are blamed on the drugs/masked by the effects of drugs oftentimes, (3) children can be raised by parents who have the full benefit of their feelings and emotions to guide them, so that the children can learn how to deal with their own feelings and emotions. Drug abusers abuse drugs for many reasons, Zeno, but not for THAT many reasons. The most common reason is that drugs - most drugs, it seems - help folks avoid their feelings and emotions, emotions like shame and guilt which are God-given and which are intended to help guide us away from certain behaviors. A "healthy" society does not abuse drugs, but simply uses them for medicinal purposes. The societies which decided to allow drug abuse have always been unhealthy and suffered in many ways as a direct result of allowing drugs to be used randomly.

I don't expect you to understand my position, Zeno, and I see how easy it is for you to imaging that my life experience is "limited", despite you not really knowing that about me, as it facilitates your dismissing my POV as invalid.

Seen it thousands of times, Zeno, when talking to people who don't understand drug abuse/drug abusers/addicts. Your dismissal of my POV will not sway me from my path, sir. I know what I know, and I can't NOT know just because you or Jeff tell me that abusing drugs is sometimes "healthy".

[thewholetruth]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">thewholetruth wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64144#post64144)
... Jeff? Do you imagine nicotine to be a more addictive drug than heroin? ...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
Go do some reading Don. Nicotine has the curious ability to "create" new receptor sites for itself in the brain which rapidly creates dependency. Heroin works on our natural opioid receptor sites and therefore true addiction happens more slowly.

I'm not suggesting the world would be a better place if all tobacco addicts were hooked on heroin.

However, the world would certainly be a better place if tobacco addicts smoked moderate amounts of cannabis instead. (Assuming no interference from law enforcement, of course.)

-Jeff

It was a yes or no question, Jeff. I'll wait for your answer...

[thewholetruth]

Don, comment on what I wrote if you wish, but don't put words in my mouth.

-Jeff

I didn't put words in your mouth, Jeff. You said:


It's worth noting that the "Western" Judeo-Christian culture is the only one on Earth, except for eskimos, that have no history of spiritual use of these substances. Eskimos have no psychotropic plants that would serve the purpose. It's also worth noting that our Western culture is the only one with significant drug problems.

To which I responded:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">thewholetruth wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=64234#post64234)
Jeff, you couldn't be more wrong if tried. Drug problems are worldwide, sir, not just here in the West. ...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You stand corrected, sir. Perhaps now that I've removed that imaginary obstacle (your incorrect assessment that I had "put words in [your] mouth") might you have any thoughts about my statement?

[Braggi]

History, Jeff.
Chinese to be specific, circa 1700 to 1904.
Or more recently, a quick snapshot of USA, circa 1964, prior to LSD becoming illegal.
Maybe that's why it became illegal? Do ya think?
Fire good. No, Fire bad.......

Couple of minor points Lenny: we aren't in China. The year is 2008. Things are different.

So let's look at 1964. What happened? Perhaps you could remind us.

And this was the question that you didn't answer:


Braggi wrote:
So, Lenny, would you start habitually taking LSD if it were legalized tomorrow? How many people that you know well would?

Perhaps you could try again.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I didn't put words in your mouth, Jeff. ...

You stand corrected, sir. Perhaps now that I've removed that imaginary obstacle (your incorrect assessment that I had "put words in [your] mouth") might you have any thoughts about my statement?

A comment taken out of context is equivalent to a misquote. Here is what I actually said:


It's worth noting that the "Western" Judeo-Christian culture is the only one on Earth, except for eskimos, that have no history of spiritual use of these substances. Eskimos have no psychotropic plants that would serve the purpose. It's also worth noting that our Western culture is the only one with significant drug problems. The other cultures that now have drug problems are largely due to the interference of Western governments, as Lenny mentioned in his comments on the "opium wars" which were fought over England demanding the right to import opium into China.

Please name a few of the major drug problems that existed in cultures before they were exposed to Judeo-Christian Western culture.

I'm not talking about use as a problem. I'm talking about "significant drug problems." Please describe some.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

May be interesting to consider in this discussion the drug policy of the Netherlands. It's distinguishing trait is the approach from public health, rather than criminalization of drug use.
I quote from Wikipedia
The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:
Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists
It is a pragmatic policy. Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results. By comparison, most other countries take the point of view that drugs are detrimental to society and must therefore be outlawed, even when such policies fail to eliminate drug use. This has caused friction between the Netherlands and other countries, most notably with France and Germany. As of 2004, Belgium seems to be moving toward the Dutch model and a few local German legislators are calling for experiments based on the Dutch model. Switzerland has had long and heated parliamentary debates about whether to follow the Dutch model, but finally decided against it in 2004; currently a ballot initiative is in the works on the question. In the last few years certain strains of marijuana with higher concentrations of THC and drug tourism have challenged the current policy and led to a re-examination of the current approach.[1]
Netherlands has a high anti-drug related public expenditure, the second highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (after Sweden). 75% is law enforcement expenditures including police, army, law courts, prisons, customs and finance guards. 25% is health and social care expenditures including treatment, harm reduction, health research and educational including prevention and social affairs interventions.[2][3]
cont. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

Interesting. I barely understand English, so if you would translate the following from the above, "Netherlands has a high anti-drug related public expenditure, the second highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (after Sweden)"

Does that mean the spend a lot of money against drugs? It can't, so it makes no sense to me. Sorry.
But what is most interesting are the Dutch. You mentioned you went to a Calivin based school while living there. I had a friend Ido, also from the Netherlands and he would laughingly tell me the Dutch were some of the most repressed people on earth. He would explain that most all the dope & hooker activity was not BY the natives, but foreigners. True? Mentioned that not every single Hollander was as straight as an arrow, but on the whole, as a people they were very conservative in their personal lives. Any truth to that? Such as to the point that the country's laws may be liberal, but "we don't do that in my house" kind of behavior.
I recall the Swiss decriminalized their drug laws and were picking up dead junkies daily, a la Monte Python's (Holy Grail?) Picking-Up-The-Dead routine. Got fed up with it and changed it back.
If what I ask, above, has any truth to it, would never work in America. Not unless we gave up that "human beings are special" stuff and really practiced that "did not care" attitude as a public policy. Now THAT would bring population down to size, eh?
Awhile back I proposed we take all druggie type criminals and force heroin on them for a month. If they want to quit, then they would have to "prove it". Otherwise they could be get all the heroin they wanted, as much as they wanted, and be"happy" unitl death do them part. I found it to be very utilitarian: cheap, address overpopulation drug crime, happy dope addicts, the list goes on. You got your European way; I got an American way

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno, you appear to overlook one important fact here, sir.

As an aside, Don, why do you call me and other people on this list "sir" and do you throw in my name so often? To me this comes over as aggressive.

If it's not important to you could you please stop doing it?

[MsTerry]

I mentioned no "caffeine habit", Dixon, because one doesn't exist here. A cup of coffee a day, and not every day, is not typically defined as "habit".


Don
By your definition, Jeff doesn't have a habit either.
By your definition, (it is not abuse, if I drink coffee (drugs) in a self-prescribed way), Jeff is not abusing drugs either.

As Dixon pointed out, you tend to see other people's "addictions" as a problem, therefore you must be healthy.

[Braggi]

Zeno, you appear to overlook one important fact here, sir. Jeff knows that what he claims is b.s. Everyone in the drug community knows that drugs are a crutch sir, when they aren't serving any medicinal need. I believe he even admitted that his use is "recreational", although now he claims it's for some spiritual religious use. ...

Don, I've tried to maintain my composure in the face of your immature claptrap on this list. I have put forth my sincere reports of my own experiences and those of my fellows. I have given links to the real, contemporary medical studies now underway as well as links to historical studies that support what I'm saying. The fact that you have learned nothing is not surprising to me. You have a very narrow point of view about all this based on your own personal experiences which you have made abundantly clear.

I have supported what I say with facts. You have offered your opinions which I have proven to be in error with facts. You obviously are not interested in doing your homework on this issue, which is strange to me since you claim to be a teacher and an exemplar in this field.

You complain of others using drugs as a crutch, while you submit to a religious cult that could easily be viewed by others as a crutch. It is a cult that divides families, steals time and money away from other pursuits, aggrandizes itself with the construction of massive monuments, focuses on the collection of "gold" (do a search on gold in your searchable Bible), defines and demonizes enemies (do a search on enemies in your searchable Bible), has empowered and sheltered child molesters, blames others for adherents bad behaviors (the Devil made me do it) and finally, offers instant gratification even following a life of evil and debauchery as long as there is a deathbed confession. Seems pretty sick to me, but I don't demand that cult be outlawed. That cult has arguably caused more harm and misery on this Earth than all other forces combined, certainly more than drug use and abuse, but I look to the fact there are good Christians out there. My own dear mother is one of them. A lot of your cult members are doing fine things as a result of their membership and I applaud them for that. I think the ones that harm others through the missapplication of their cultish powers should be punished and, thankfully, some few of them have been in recent years although the majority will probably never be caught.

I've never heard of a group of potheads starting a war. Pot is a lot safer than Christianity and I think that's well proven by history.

Despite all the problems I'm not calling for the outlawing of Christianity. I guess that makes me a lot more open minded than you, Don.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... the world would certainly be a better place if tobacco addicts smoked moderate amounts of cannabis instead. (Assuming no interference from law enforcement, of course.)-Jeff


Jeff, would you still tout that (above) if researchers found out pot was bad for the body?

The main reason I said that is because pot is so much more benign physically than tobacco. There have been hundreds of studies attempting to prove that pot is "bad" for the body. They haven't turned up much of anything.

I'm frankly surprised they haven't been able to come up with anything. Even in the most chronic, heavy smokers chronic bronchitis is about the worst thing they've seen. Pot seems to be protective of lung cancer.

The well known, very serious health impacts of tobacco affect us all when we pay for health care services and on tax day. Moderate smokers cost us nothing except for the costs of the Failed War on Some Drugs. Pot smokers have even been shown less likely to get in traffic accidents though I don't recommend anyone drive while under the influence of anything.

So yes, the negative impact on society would be orders of magnitude lessened if every tobacco addict was a pot smoker instead. Same goes for alcohol and perhaps even more so.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Review
Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic (https://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21)
Robert Melamede. Harm Reduction Journal 2005, 2:21doi:10.1186/1477-7517-2-21

Received:
30*November*2004
Accepted:
18*October*2005
Published:
18*October*2005
© 2005 Melamede; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Keywords: marijuana, tobacco, cancer, smoke, cannabinoids, carcinogens, nicotine

Abstract

More people are using the cannabis plant as modern basic and clinical science reaffirms and extends its medicinal uses. Concomitantly, concern and opposition to smoked medicine has occurred, in part due to the known carcinogenic consequences of smoking tobacco. Are these reactions justified? While chemically very similar, there are fundamental differences in the pharmacological properties between cannabis and tobacco smoke. Cannabis smoke contains cannabinoids whereas tobacco smoke contains nicotine. Available scientific data, that examines the carcinogenic properties of inhaling smoke and its biological consequences, suggests reasons why tobacco smoke, but not cannabis smoke, may result in lung cancer.

Review

Tobacco has dramatic negative consequences for those who smoke it. In addition to its high addiction potential [1], tobacco is causally associated with over 400,000 deaths yearly in the United States, and has a significant negative effect on health in general [2]. More specifically, over 140,000 lung-related deaths in 2001 were attributed to tobacco smoke [3]. Comparable consequences would naturally be expected from cannabis smoking since the burning of plant material in the form of cigarettes generates a large variety of compounds that possess numerous biological activities [4].

While cannabis smoke has been implicated in respiratory dysfunction, including the conversion of respiratory cells to what appears to be a pre-cancerous state [5], it has not been causally linked with tobacco related cancers [6] such as lung, colon or rectal cancers. Recently, Hashibe et al [7] carried out an epidemiological analysis of marijuana smoking and cancer. A connection between marijuana smoking and lung or colorectal cancer was not observed. These conclusions are reinforced by the recent work of Tashkin and coworkers [8] who were unable to demonstrate a cannabis smoke and lung cancer link, despite clearly demonstrating cannabis smoke-induced cellular damage.

Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including: lung cancer [9], breast and prostate [10], leukemia and lymphoma [11], glioma [12], skin cancer [13], and pheochromocytoma [14]. The effects of cannabinoids are complex and sometimes contradicting, often exhibiting biphasic responses. For example, in contrast to the tumor killing properties mentioned above, low doses of THC may stimulate the growth of lung cancer cells in vitro [15].

The genotoxic effects of partially oxidized hydrocarbons created by burning either cannabis or tobacco have been widely examined as the likely source of genetic changes that lead to the carcinogenic state [16]. As a result, the medical potential of cannabis has been obscured by the potential negative impact of using a smoked medicine [17]. Those who deny the validity of "medical marijuana," cite that marijuana smoke contains four fold more tars than does tobacco smoke [18]. Nevertheless, smoking is often the preferred route of intake by medical cannabis users because rapid action allows self-titration [19]. Are the biological consequences of smoking cannabis and tobacco similar?

cont. at https://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/21

[Zeno Swijtink]

Interesting. I barely understand English, so if you would translate the following from the above, "Netherlands has a high anti-drug related public expenditure, the second highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (after Sweden)"

Does that mean the spend a lot of money against drugs? It can't, so it makes no sense to me. Sorry.


If you read the whole article it will come all together for you.

[Zeno Swijtink]

But what is most interesting are the Dutch. You mentioned you went to a Calivin based school while living there. I had a friend Ido, also from the Netherlands and he would laughingly tell me the Dutch were some of the most repressed people on earth. He would explain that most all the dope & hooker activity was not BY the natives, but foreigners. True? Mentioned that not every single Hollander was as straight as an arrow, but on the whole, as a people they were very conservative in their personal lives. Any truth to that? Such as to the point that the country's laws may be liberal, but "we don't do that in my house" kind of behavior.


It's hard to make any generalization about any culture, but if that's Ido's experience it was not mine. Much changed after WWII, so maybe Ido is of an older generation.

Contradicting this one could generalize that American culture gorges of violence while Western European culture gorges on kinky sex.

[As somewhat of an aside, does that mean that, on a deeper level, Americans are relaxed around sex but find violence troublesome?? Etc. ??]

It's hard to imagine American painting would give us anything near Klimt's Beethoven Frieze, as in these details:

https://www.dl.ket.org/webmuseum/wm/paint/auth/klimt/klimt.beethoven-frieze1.jpg

https://www.secession.at/beethovenfries/images/gl_feindl.jpg

Even the better American erotic literature seems all be written while the authors stayed in Europe.

Or compare European films such as Vilgot Sjöman's I Am Curious Yellow/I Am Curious Blue (1967)

https://www.nialler9.com/blog/images/pandabear.jpg

https://www.jahsonic.com/Curious.jpg

films that had a wide circulation

with American porno which is really about violence

https://www.mature-naked.adult-collections.com/mature-xxx/deep-troat-mature-baby.jpg

Proof of all this will be when Barry will move this thread to Censored because of these images!!

[theindependenteye]

>>Jeff knows that what he claims is b.s. Everyone in the drug community knows that drugs are a crutch sir, when they aren't serving any medicinal need. ...

This thread has actually elicited a lot of interesting and informative argument, despite the acrimony. Though since the statement has been repeatedly made, one way or another, that anyone in favor of any degree of legalization is a fool, a user, and therefore an addict, I'll keep my mouth shut on the subject.

But since Jeff has been the subject of attacks as an addict and, in the above quote, a hypocrite (knowing that what he claims is b.s.), I need to respond to that narrow issue.

I'm quite sure that if what he says is b.s., no, he *doesn't* know it. So give him credit at last for the courage of his convictions.

Actually, I've known him for about 15 years or so, and his wife & daughter, and in my view he's one of the more functional, balanced, kind and hard-working persons I've ever had the privilege of knowing. Granted, he may have deceived us all these many years, but as far as I'm concerned, whatever he's done to his head, he's a good testimonial for continuing to do it.

(I'd willingly offer equal evaluation to anyone on the other side of the argument if I knew'em, but I don't.)

I do have a question about this comment:

>>Anyone using drugs without medicinal need is abusing them. Escaping into LaLa Land isn't "medicinal" or therapeutic... It's recreational, which translates into "drug abuse". ... We use drugs for a reason, boredom not being a valid reason.

Why not? Should we, by the same logic, give up dancing, seeing movies, listening to music, watching sports, eating food for pleasure instead of what's needed strictly for nutrition? I don't mean to do a reductio ad absurdum here: it really seems to me that this is where that logic leads.
I quite agree that any of these things can be an escape from reality -- and that they can cause abuse to your well-being, whether by wasting time, adding bulge to your butt, or just rotting your mind. But I don't understand the translation of "recreational" as "abuse."

-Conrad

[thewholetruth]

As an aside, Don, why do you call me and other people on this list "sir" and do you throw in my name so often? To me this comes over as aggressive.

If it's not important to you could you please stop doing it?

Attempts at inserting familiarity, and manners, si- um, I mean bro.

I'm surprised to hear you say it comes off as aggressive, Zeno. I would think that if I didn't make any attempt to be polite, you might find THAT more aggressive.

Frankly, I post the way I do because that's the way I speak to people - at least... perhaps that's not accurate. Perhaps I insert your name (and others') in order to create a pause, so that you might absorb what I just said, and then be prepared for the next part of my comment.

Hadn't given it much thought. I've posted on boards for about 15 years now. I just post how I post. I don't intentionally do either of those things.

[thewholetruth]

>>Jeff knows that what he claims is b.s. Everyone in the drug community knows that drugs are a crutch sir, when they aren't serving any medicinal need. ...

This thread has actually elicited a lot of interesting and informative argument, despite the acrimony. Though since the statement has been repeatedly made, one way or another, that anyone in favor of any degree of legalization is a fool, a user, and therefore an addict, I'll keep my mouth shut on the subject.

But since Jeff has been the subject of attacks as an addict and, in the above quote, a hypocrite (knowing that what he claims is b.s.), I need to respond to that narrow issue.

I'm quite sure that if what he says is b.s., no, he *doesn't* know it. So give him credit at last for the courage of his convictions.

Actually, I've known him for about 15 years or so, and his wife & daughter, and in my view he's one of the more functional, balanced, kind and hard-working persons I've ever had the privilege of knowing. Granted, he may have deceived us all these many years, but as far as I'm concerned, whatever he's done to his head, he's a good testimonial for continuing to do it.

(I'd willingly offer equal evaluation to anyone on the other side of the argument if I knew'em, but I don't.)

I do have a question about this comment:

>>Anyone using drugs without medicinal need is abusing them. Escaping into LaLa Land isn't "medicinal" or therapeutic... It's recreational, which translates into "drug abuse". ... We use drugs for a reason, boredom not being a valid reason.

Why not? Should we, by the same logic, give up dancing, seeing movies, listening to music, watching sports, eating food for pleasure instead of what's needed strictly for nutrition? I don't mean to do a reductio ad absurdum here: it really seems to me that this is where that logic leads.
I quite agree that any of these things can be an escape from reality -- and that they can cause abuse to your well-being, whether by wasting time, adding bulge to your butt, or just rotting your mind. But I don't understand the translation of "recreational" as "abuse."

-Conrad

While I appreciate your personal testimony on Jeff's behalf, I find your inquiry regarding dancing, movies, musit, sports, etc. to be absurd. When doing all of those things, one is not intoxicated. If you want to make a comparison, Conrad, an accurate comparison would be getting drunk, getting wired - all forms of intoxication and inebriation. Watching movies doesn't cause intoxication, nor does listening to music. If you need to run someone to the hospital in an emergency situation - your child, perhaps - would you be equally capable to drive if you were loaded on LSD as you would be if your listening to music?

See the illogic in your comparison now?

[thewholetruth]

Lenny, did you get my email this morning? I emailed to your address in your profile.

[thewholetruth]

It's late, Jeff, and you've said so much about so much that I'll get back to you in the morning.

It's nice that you're so openminded about all of this, sir! That's great to hear! :thumbsup:



Don, I've tried to maintain my composure in the face of your immature claptrap on this list. I have put forth my sincere reports of my own experiences and those of my fellows. I have given links to the real, contemporary medical studies now underway as well as links to historical studies that support what I'm saying. The fact that you have learned nothing is not surprising to me. You have a very narrow point of view about all this based on your own personal experiences which you have made abundantly clear.

I have supported what I say with facts. You have offered your opinions which I have proven to be in error with facts. You obviously are not interested in doing your homework on this issue, which is strange to me since you claim to be a teacher and an exemplar in this field.

You complain of others using drugs as a crutch, while you submit to a religious cult that could easily be viewed by others as a crutch. It is a cult that divides families, steals time and money away from other pursuits, aggrandizes itself with the construction of massive monuments, focuses on the collection of "gold" (do a search on gold in your searchable Bible), defines and demonizes enemies (do a search on enemies in your searchable Bible), has empowered and sheltered child molesters, blames others for adherents bad behaviors (the Devil made me do it) and finally, offers instant gratification even following a life of evil and debauchery as long as there is a deathbed confession. Seems pretty sick to me, but I don't demand that cult be outlawed. That cult has arguably caused more harm and misery on this Earth than all other forces combined, certainly more than drug use and abuse, but I look to the fact there are good Christians out there. My own dear mother is one of them. A lot of your cult members are doing fine things as a result of their membership and I applaud them for that. I think the ones that harm others through the missapplication of their cultish powers should be punished and, thankfully, some few of them have been in recent years although the majority will probably never be caught.

I've never heard of a group of potheads starting a war. Pot is a lot safer than Christianity and I think that's well proven by history.

Despite all the problems I'm not calling for the outlawing of Christianity. I guess that makes me a lot more open minded than you, Don.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Attempts at inserting familiarity, and manners, si- um, I mean bro.

I'm surprised to hear you say it comes off as aggressive, Zeno. I would think that if I didn't make any attempt to be polite, you might find THAT more aggressive.

Frankly, I post the way I do because that's the way I speak to people - at least... perhaps that's not accurate. Perhaps I insert your name (and others') in order to create a pause, so that you might absorb what I just said, and then be prepared for the next part of my comment.

Hadn't given it much thought. I've posted on boards for about 15 years now. I just post how I post. I don't intentionally do either of those things.

I now wonder whether you served in a branch of the military. Remember seeing in some movies the phrase: "Permission to speak freely, Sir. "

In progressive circles around here this constant throwing in of sirs and ones name comes over as aggressive.

[Zeno Swijtink]

While I appreciate your personal testimony on Jeff's behalf, I find your inquiry regarding dancing, movies, musit, sports, etc. to be absurd. When doing all of those things, one is not intoxicated. If you want to make a comparison, Conrad, an accurate comparison would be getting drunk, getting wired - all forms of intoxication and inebriation. Watching movies doesn't cause intoxication, nor does listening to music. If you need to run someone to the hospital in an emergency situation - your child, perhaps - would you be equally capable to drive if you were loaded on LSD as you would be if your listening to music?

See the illogic in your comparison now?

If you find someone's posting absurd but really want to understand this person you need to hypothesize a pov from with the posting makes sense.

[thewholetruth]

I now wonder whether you served in a branch of the military. Remember seeing in some movies the phrase: "Permission to speak freely, Sir. "

In progressive circles around here this constant throwing in of sirs and ones name comes over as aggressive.

Interesting that a term of respect is considered aggressive by an entire group of individuals. I have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because it begs for the other person to be respectful, as well? What do you think?

BTW, you're the only one I recall having a problem with it...dood. ;-)

[thewholetruth]

If you find someone's posting absurd but really want to understand this person you need to hypothesize a pov from with the posting makes sense.

I'm afraid your comment didn't make sense to me...

[Zeno Swijtink]

Interesting that a term of respect is considered aggressive by an entire group of individuals. I have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because it begs for the other person to be respectful, as well? What do you think?

BTW, you're the only one I recall having a problem with it...dood. ;-)

It's because sir-ring and using someone name when you talk to them - instead of a Thou -creates distance. It denies the bond that is supposed to be established by being in their presence. And it reminds people of the military.

[Zeno Swijtink]

BTW, you're the only one I recall having a problem with it...dood. ;-)

Conrad (The Independent Eye) expressed the same sentiment many moons ago.

[Dixon]

FWIW, I'll weigh in on this "sir" thing:


Interesting that a term of respect is considered aggressive by an entire group of individuals. I have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because it begs for the other person to be respectful, as well?

BTW, you're the only one I recall having a problem with it...dood. ;-)

I would not call it "aggressive" to use the term "sir", but I don't think "term of respect" describes its use quite accurately either. When I was required to call officers "sir" in the Army, they called it "respect", but it was clearly about submission, which is only mistaken for respect by those with authoritarian tendencies.

In civilian life, "sir" bothers me a bit because it usually seems to have a distancing effect, with undertones of hierarchical structuring of relationships (who's dominant, who's submissive). But in fairness, I think it is often intended as a term of respect.

I'm quite comfortable with you using "sir" if you want, Don. Heathen knows there are more important things to worry about. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you use it as a term of respect, but perhaps you can see that it's hard to feel respected when you call us things like "fool" for disagreeing with you, or characterize our positions as "lies from Hell", or suggest we should be criminalized for using different drugs than you even if we're hurting no one. If you could show a little more respect in those ways, I'm sure the "sir' issue would disappear entirely.

Regards;

Dixon

[MsTerry]

BTW, you're the only one I recall having a problem with it...dood. ;-)
Not true, Sir Don Christian.


Interesting that a term of respect is considered aggressive by an entire group of individuals. I have to wonder why that is. Perhaps it's because it begs for the other person to be respectful, as well? What do you think?
Not true, Sir Don Christian.