DrGreenthumb Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 (edited) True prohibition and tougher sentences for addictive drugs is the ONLY road. They are as dangerous and deadly as handguns and biological agents (anthrax). By "True" prohibition I mean the governments today are most likely covertly involved in the production / distribution / sale of highly addictive substances - it is very hard to explain the abundance of relatively exotic drugs.That, in combination with legalizing the non-addictive psychotropic substances that could be classified as "recreational drugs", should keep most people well within the legal territory when they indulge in more sophisticated methods of relaxation. Most people in a regulated market would choose the less harmful relaxants anyways, but prohibition only makes drugs like coke and meth extremely profitable to deal in. The people who are going to use a drug no matter how unhealthy it is for them will do so regardless of the law. By making these drugs available at cost to addicts, through doctor's and pharmacies would save a lot of money and prevent a lot of disease/death. If people can use opiates or cocaine recreationally and still function well and are not endangering others I say the state has no business bothering them. Also PC real natural opium in smoked form is not to be compared with heroin and synthetic opiates like oxycontin. Its actually a very nice relaxant, tastes dreamy. I've also snorted coke about 4 times in my life and never developed an addiction. Personal experience kinda blows those myths about being hooked after 1 try. You seem to be ok with some drugs, havn't you heard similar BS about MDMA and Cannabis from the prohibitionists? No drug is made safer or LESS desireable by criminalizing the people who use it. Prohibition only adds an extra layer of harm That makes the conservatives happy because they then can claim that it is the substances causing that harm and justify their moralizing to themselves and the frightened sheeple. Edited September 17, 2008 by DrGreenthumb Quote
PoliticalCitizen Posted September 17, 2008 Report Posted September 17, 2008 Most people in a regulated market would choose the less harmful relaxants anyways, but prohibition only makes drugs like coke and meth extremely profitable to deal in. The people who are going to use a drug no matter how unhealthy it is for them will do so regardless of the law. By making these drugs available at cost to addicts, through doctor's and pharmacies would save a lot of money and prevent a lot of disease/death. If people can use opiates or cocaine recreationally and still function well and are not endangering others I say the state has no business bothering them. Also PC real natural opium in smoked form is not to be compared with heroin and synthetic opiates like oxycontin. Its actually a very nice relaxant, tastes dreamy. I've also snorted coke about 4 times in my life and never developed an addiction. Personal experience kinda blows those myths about being hooked after 1 try. You seem to be ok with some drugs, havn't you heard similar BS about MDMA and Cannabis from the prohibitionists? No drug is made safer or LESS desireable by criminalizing the people who use it. Prohibition only adds an extra layer of harm That makes the conservatives happy because they then can claim that it is the substances causing that harm and justify their moralizing to themselves and the frightened sheeple. There's a very clear distinction between Narcotics - substances that will cause the user to develop a physical dependency and Psychotropic Substances that may only cause the user to develop a psychological dependency (kind of like gambling, porn etc.) There are NO excuses for making an addictive drug legal - with the exception of alcohol because the tradition of its consumption is so embedded in all cultures. Giving opiates, coca-derivatives and methamphetamine any kind of legal status may cause some people their lives. The only group of people that these could be legal for are the terminally ill suffering from severe pains. "Mild" doses of addictive drugs just as dangerous as "Full" doses. Quote You are what you do.
Murray B. Posted September 24, 2008 Report Posted September 24, 2008 A vote for Harper is a vote for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh and McCain. Okay, I need some clarification on how Canadians can vote by proxy in the coming U.S. election and is it bilateral? Would a vote for Obama also be a vote for Dion? Bush is not running for anything and neither are the other guys except McCain. So is voting for Harper really the same as voting for McCain? It seems obvious a vote for Elizabeth May is a vote for Nader but what about the NDP? They are no longer pro-labour but have also become lunatic fringe environmentalists. Are they a vote for Nader too? What if I wanted to vote for the Constitution party, Libertarians, or even the Cascadia party? How would I vote then. Please expand and clarify exactly who in the U.S. corresponds to each Canadian candidate so that people can make an informed choice. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) There's a very clear distinction between Narcotics - substances that will cause the user to develop a physical dependency and Psychotropic Substances that may only cause the user to develop a psychological dependency (kind of like gambling, porn etc.)There are NO excuses for making an addictive drug legal - with the exception of alcohol because the tradition of its consumption is so embedded in all cultures. Giving opiates, coca-derivatives and methamphetamine any kind of legal status may cause some people their lives. The only group of people that these could be legal for are the terminally ill suffering from severe pains. "Mild" doses of addictive drugs just as dangerous as "Full" doses. those aren't even the correct definitions of Narcotic and psychotropic dude, where are you getting your information? Are you seriously contending that Mild doses are JUST AS dangerous as full doses? Thats like saying taking one tylenol is just as dangerous as taking a whole bottle. That doesn't even make sense. Also I said there was a difference between natural opium and heroin or between chewing coca leaves and smoking crack. So its not even about a mild dose or full dose we are talking about apples and oranges. opium is not the same as heroin at any dose, and you would fall asleep before you could overdose on it. just wanted to add, that if there are no excuses to make addictive substances legal then what do you think the penalty should be for growing, buying or selling coffee, pepsi etc? Caffiene is addictive enough to cause physical withdrawl symptoms. Edited September 25, 2008 by DrGreenthumb Quote
the janitor Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 Stephen Harper is just like George Bush.Just like Bush, Harper fully approves of Tasers. Tasers keep the masses petrified and under strict control. Strong Taser approval makes the Taser corporation, Taser Inc. powerful and unstoppable. Harper loves that. You're right. Tasers shouldn't be allowed. The cops can shoot the bastards, for all I care. Quote
the janitor Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 That's OK...bullets are cheap. Like hell they are. Last time I went and picked up some cartridges for my .270 they cost me damn near a 1.50 each! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) Like hell they are. Last time I went and picked up some cartridges for my .270 they cost me damn near a 1.50 each! Get out your calculator and see how the Big Dogs roll.... new contracts recently let to my former employer ATK: - $21 million for 47,855,400 small caliber (5.56mm – 12.7mm/ .50 cal) rounds - $13.5 million for 27,779,760 rounds - $67.7 million for 304,995,920 rounds. I think you are paying too much......buy American...and buy in quantity! Edited September 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
the janitor Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 Get out your calculator and see how the Big Dogs roll.... new contracts recently let to my former employer ATK: - $21 million for 47,855,400 small caliber (5.56mm – 12.7mm/ .50 cal) rounds - $13.5 million for 27,779,760 rounds - $67.7 million for 304,995,920 rounds. I think you are paying too much......buy American...and buy in quantity! Wish I had that much time to spend at the range. Might head up to Alaska after this whole election thing is over. See if Sarah wants to bag a moose with me or something. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 Wish I had that much time to spend at the range. Might head up to Alaska after this whole election thing is over. See if Sarah wants to bag a moose with me or something. OK...but be careful...after a recent CBC opinion piece about Alaskans you may find a bullet in your backside. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
the janitor Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 OK...but be careful...after a recent CBC opinion piece about Alaskans you may find a bullet in your backside. Ahhhhhhhhhh...I'll pass from this life in Sarah's arms -- there's no better way to go! Quote
wulf42 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Posted September 25, 2008 Like hell they are. Last time I went and picked up some cartridges for my .270 they cost me damn near a 1.50 each! lol..............tell me about it ....a box of 20 .303 shells are over $20.00....can t afford to target shoot with anything bigger than a .22 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.