View Poll Results: Is it time to legalize/control all illicit drugs?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    52 73.24%
  • No

    14 19.72%
  • Not sure

    5 7.04%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 138

Thread: Is it time to legalize/control all illicit drugs?

  1. #1

    Default Is it time to legalize/control all illicit drugs?

    We skirt around this issue in lots of threads, so I thought it might be nice to have a thread on. Is it time to legalize/control all illicit drugs?

    Advantages I see are:

    1. Users will know exactly what they are buying (as corporations will make, liquor stores perhaps distribute)
    2. Health warnings will be explicit – people won’t be “guessing” as to the consequences
    3. Health consequences can me measured more accurately – people will be able to come forward and be studied (not afraid of being “caught”)
    4. Gangs won’t make money from producing and distributing drugs anymore
    5. Age limits can be strictly enforced (like booze). This won’t be perfect, but at the moment there is zero control.
    6. Profits will be taxed (a bit like gambling / booze / cigarettes)
    7. More effective control and treatment in penitentiaries
    8. No more home labs / drug houses
    9. Foriegn policy tie in - e.g. Afghanistan farmers could legitimatley farm Opium to supply Canadian corporations, instead of this money they make funding the Taliban.

    Disadvantages include that it “legitimizes” the activity (not that it isn’t already “legitimate” in many sectors of society).

    What do you think? I realize this is a bit beyond just an “Edmonton” topic, but it is very topical right now for Edmonton (with the sad death at WEM) and all of Canada.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2009 at 02:56 PM.

  2. #2
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    There are definitely advantages to legalizing and control illicit drugs, but there are problems too... such as easy access. At the moment, if your dealer is out of town or whatever, I'm sure it can be difficult to find your drug of choice at times.

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    There are definitely advantages to legalizing and control illicit drugs, but there are problems too... such as easy access. At the moment, if your dealer is out of town or whatever, I'm sure it can be difficult to find your drug of choice at times.
    Not really, because if you're a regular user of a particular substance there's a very good chance you know of half a dozen people who can get what you want (need) at any one time.

    I don't know that outright legalization of everything is the right course of action, but the status quo certainly isn't working. The War On Drugs is three decades old and virtually nothing has been accomplished.

    Unfortunately it's probably too much to ask of society and our politicians to actually take a dispassionate view of things and actually open their minds to more effective courses of action to deal with drugs and the problems they cause.

    A great example of that thinking is the continued use of the DARE program, despite it repeatedly being shown to be ineffective or actually counter-productive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Ab...ation#Efficacy

  4. #4

    Default

    My honest answer is that I'm not sure. I've been thinking about the WEM incident and how I'm going to talk to my child about drugs when he's old enough.

    Personally, I question the efficacy of "Just Say No" type campaigns. Put yourself in a teen's position. You're told the worst about drugs: you'll get addicted, you'll get brain damage, you'll die. Then some of your friends try pot or ecstasy at a party one weekend and tell you how much fun it was. "Hmmm," you might think. "They tried it and they're not addicts, brain damaged or dead. In fact, drugs sound like fun. Maybe drugs aren't so bad, after all."

    Maybe we need to have a more frank and honest discussion with our children. And maybe decriminalization, if not outright legalization, makes that easier. I can't say I have any easy answers other than to suggest the status quo does not seem to be working.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Dusty Bear, please see my link above your post. "Just Say No" campaigns like DARE have been proven to be useless at best, counterproductive at worst.

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    Make the possession of illegal drugs a criminal offence because clearly just making trafficing illegal does not work. Put the fear of incarceration into everyone who uses them and I bet most of the market will dry up.

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Make the possession of illegal drugs a criminal offence because clearly just making trafficing illegal does not work. Put the fear of incarceration into everyone who uses them and I bet most of the market will dry up.
    Last I checked, it WAS a criminal offense to be in possession of narcotics in Canada. Even pot. It's just not frequently enforced by the police because there's little point in throwing someone in jail for having a couple grams of pot or a couple pills on them. What you're advocating is basically the American system, but on steroids. Considering that numerous states are on the verge of bankruptcy and "law and order" (read: massive privately owned, state funded prisons) funding is choking them, I'd rather we don't go down that path thanks.

  8. #8

    Default

    Yes - legalize it, regulate it, and tax the heck out of it. Ban advertizing of it and continue discourage it's use.

    If tobacco was all of a sudden illegal (like recreational drugs are right now), smokers would be buying and smoking tax-free cigarettes from underground tobacco dealers, and the rest of society would still be paying for the associated health and police costs.

    If drugs were made legal at least the money from all the drug sales to junkies and old hippies will go into things like police, education, and health care instead of lining the pockets of some seedy dealer.

  9. #9

    Default

    Don't forget prostitution, it needs legalizing too.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  10. #10

    Default

    ^I agree (having come from a country where it is legal), but for another thread.

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Put the fear of incarceration into everyone who uses them and I bet most of the market will dry up.
    It seems pretty clear to me that the fear of incarceration does very little to prevent crime.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    At the moment, if your dealer is out of town or whatever, I'm sure it can be difficult to find your drug of choice at times.
    Great! All we need to do is get all the dealers to go out of town or whatever, and it will be more difficult for people to get drugs!


    No... that's not an argument for keeping the status quo. When the dealer is available it's relatively simple for the person to get the drugs (and illegally, I might add). And once a dealer is removed, another dealer takes his place pretty much immediately.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,394

    Default

    I'm on board with legalize, regulate and tax as well. Other essential elements of a good drug strategy are education and addiction treatment.
    Education needs to be factual and balanced. Informing people of all the things that can go wrong is important, but if it isn't balanced by a realistic explanation of the feelings and effects a drug produces it will be dismissed (particularly by young people) as fearmongering.
    As for addiction treatment, anyone who realizes they have a problem needs to be able to access the help they need immediately, before they change their mind. Good addiction treatment is expensive, but it can be funded by drug tax revenue.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Good addiction treatment is expensive, but it can be funded by drug tax revenue.
    That's a great thought. I think there is something similar with gambling. If a significant portion (if not all) of the tax revenues were directed to treatment, education, research into health impact, and crime prevention (as addiction fuels much of our crime), the impact could IMO be really meaningful.

  15. #15
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    this one got a ringing endorsement in the "not sure" category from me... i'm far from an expert but as far as i know there are some drugs - i.e. heroin and marijuana - where some users can succesfully be either occasional social users or regular daily users and still function within typical societal norms. i don't think that's the case with cocaine or crystal meth and for others - like exstacy - i think it might depend as much on "manufacturing quality" as anything else. i don't know if there is one "single" answer that will result in a "least harm to society and least harm to users" solution but rather doubt it will be as simple as either "lock them up and throw away the key" or "legalize/control all illicit drugs", presumably making them "illicit" no longer as a result.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Good addiction treatment is expensive, but it can be funded by drug tax revenue.
    That's a great thought. I think there is something similar with gambling. If a significant portion (if not all) of the tax revenues were directed to treatment, education, research into health impact, and crime prevention (as addiction fuels much of our crime), the impact could IMO be really meaningful.
    I agree 100% moahunter.
    Drugs would be funding their own 'demise'. But how much $/g,kg,l etc would the cost of drugs be? and if it was too expensive to buy legal drugs, would illegal dealers/smugglers start showing up like they did when Ontario raised cigarette prices? I guess it is a moot point as Canada would still be ahead in social costs compared to today.

    Is there any other country/state/province that has tried total legalization of drugs? What were the effects? Some people would argue: "It’s clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse." http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
    Of course that is from the DEA itself so I don't know how much you can trust it, or where they got their facts from.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Make the possession of illegal drugs a criminal offence because clearly just making trafficing illegal does not work. Put the fear of incarceration into everyone who uses them and I bet most of the market will dry up.
    Hasn't worked in the U.S. with the three strikes law.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469 View Post
    Dusty Bear, please see my link above your post. "Just Say No" campaigns like DARE have been proven to be useless at best, counterproductive at worst.
    I was writing my post when you posted that. Confirms what I thought.

  19. #19

    Default

    ^The quality has to be "good" to or no-body would switch. An example is Canadian government supplied medicinal dope which I understand is terrible (watered down to make less harmful). I have no doubt that a corporation, even with tax, could beat the price of a gang supplied product though - otherwise we would have gang made cigarettes (as opposed to smuggled in from US). And corporations will have an incentive to supply good product to make a profit (just like cigarettes). It wouldn't be that different from the tobacco industry / alcohol industry.

    As to no-body legalizing, well, some developed country has to be first I guess. There is historical precedent (opium was in Sears cataloges), but that is not really relevant as education, health information and and drug programs would be much more effective today. I think legalization is inevitable as people can see the current policies just don't work. It is a freedom thing to, at the end of the day - current laws just seem overly paternal and ineffective. I don't like de-criminalization though - I don't think that solves anything as the profits stay in gangs / with criminals.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-04-2009 at 05:41 PM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBear View Post
    But how much $/g,kg,l etc would the cost of drugs be? and if it was too expensive to buy legal drugs, would illegal dealers/smugglers start showing up like they did when Ontario raised cigarette prices?
    The cost of drugs would have to be determined based upon what people are willing to pay for them (like we do with booze and cigarettes), as well as being careful not to make them too expensive as to encourage black market and bootlegging (like excessive tobacco prices did in Ontario). If people are buying them right now and dealers are making money, there's no reason why the government couldn't sell at similar prices yet offer the "guarantee" to the customers on dose and purity that street dealers can't give.

    Also, I would imagine that different rules would have to be set for drugs that are proven to be addictive (opium, cocaine) versus ones that aren't (LSD, ecstacy). Ones that are addictive arguably have more risk associated wth them.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 27-04-2009 at 05:43 PM.

  21. #21
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,308
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    this one got a ringing endorsement in the "not sure" category from me... i'm far from an expert ...
    Same here.

    The "war" on drugs has proven unsuccessful. The demand is too high and the money too great.

    However, the impacts to people is also quite large and far reaching. We have a hard enough time with gambling and smoking and drinking consuming our income, destroying families, and ruining lives so I definitely do not buy into the "tax it and then fund its demise" malarky either...they've been taxed to death and wowie wow wow, they're still here destroying lives when they are abused.

    I simply do not know where that line is. It was defined at smokes, booze, and casinos, but do we just make it a free for all and get ourselves a hit of Sobey's brand crack - cold filtered for that extra smooth taste and less Tide than the regular name brands? Try the new PREMIUM METH, we only use Eveready batteries and true WD-40 for that real, honest to goodness kick to the head, not bargain AA's and Liquid Wrench that leaves you unstaisfied and only a pathetic pauper veg....
    Onward and upward

  22. #22

    Default

    The Economist recently (March 5, 2009) published an article entitled: "How to stop the drug wars; Prohibition has failed; legalization is the least bad solution." It can be found at www.economist.com.

    With their careful, sober-minded analysis, The Economist has looked at this issue, and arrived at the same conclusion that we have here. While the risk of jail time should be an effective deterrent, time has proven that it simply does not prevent drug-related crime, "Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before." It is a good article, I recommend that you look it up.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,394

    Default

    ^^ Legalised doesn't mean unregulated. I'd suggest that recreational drugs be sold in specifically licensed headshops. They wouldn't be able to sell anything other than recreational drugs and related products, nobody under 18 would be allowed in and advertising would be strictly limited (you could advertise the existence of your store in adult-oriented media but absolutely no advertising of specific products).

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    However, the impacts to people is also quite large and far reaching. We have a hard enough time with gambling and smoking and drinking consuming our income, destroying families, and ruining lives so I definitely do not buy into the "tax it and then fund its demise" malarky either...they've been taxed to death and wowie wow wow, they're still here destroying lives when they are abused.
    But drugs and all associated crime also destroy lives, except society gets NOTHING in return for trying to enforce the current zero tolerance stance.

    And yes - gambling, smoking, and drinking are all destructive things, but the regulations, restrictions, and taxes surrounding them help reduce the overall harm they bring to society. The idea is "harm reduction". Drugs do a severe amount of harm to society, and likely always will. However, their illegal status also brings unintentional harm as well - it drives up the street value of the drugs, makes bigger profits for dealers and organized gangs, uses lots of police resources for enforcement, leaves drug users vulnerable to harm from dangerous/impure products.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    We skirt around this issue in lots of threads, so I thought it might be nice to have a thread on. Is it time to legalize/control all illicit drugs?

    Advantages I see are:

    1. Users will know exactly what they are buying (as corporations will make, liquor stores perhaps distribute)
    2. Health warnings will be explicit – people won’t be “guessing” as to the consequences
    3. Health consequences can me measured more accurately – people will be able to come forward and be studied (not afraid of being “caught”)
    4. Gangs won’t make money from producing and distributing drugs anymore
    5. Age limits can be strictly enforced (like booze). This won’t be perfect, but at the moment there is zero control.
    6. Profits will be taxed (a bit like gambling / booze / cigarettes)
    7. More effective control and treatment in penitentiaries
    8. No more home labs / drug houses
    9. Foriegn policy tie in - e.g. Afghanistan farmers could legitimatley farm Opium to supply Canadian corporations, instead of this money they make funding the Taliban.

    Disadvantages include that it “legitimizes” the activity (not that it isn’t already “legitimate” in many sectors of society).

    What do you think? I realize this is a bit beyond just an “Edmonton” topic, but it is very topical right now for Edmonton (with the sad death at WEM) and all of Canada.
    To some extent I agree because of the items you reference. At the same time, we already have a "legalized" drug cartel, being the provincial and federal governments who completely control, 100%, legal substances. How many other countries in the world can a person not buy liquor in a supermarket? So I am against government controlling yet another syndicate.
    We are all the same, just different...

  26. #26

    Default

    This is a good Idea but it will never happen. Drugs were made illegal to increase profits and if they were ever made legal again a lot of people in high places would probably be exposed for involvement in laundering or trafficing. The story of Freeway Ricky Ross is a good start.

  27. #27

    Default

    Yeah I agree - too many high level vested and profitable interests (include wages to the police and enforcement agencies) to get approval to legalize them. Everyone is 'on the take' one way or the other. But the laws and their failure are making drug lords wealthy enough to be able to challenge the rule goverments themselves. (Remember that trial in Quebec that fell apart a few years ago after they spent millions building a special courtroom to contain the defendents... and the judge resigned.... a total failure of gov't to rule.)

    (I don't even drink so to me if they stay illegal I don't see how alcohol could not be included in the list.)

  28. #28
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    We as a society are running out of options. This one is the best of the bunch. Take the control away from the criminals.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I don't even drink so to me if they stay illegal I don't see how alcohol could not be included in the list.
    Thank you for pointing this out. There are a lot of visible parallels between recreational drugs and alcohol. And by all counts, alcohol IS the most popular and widely acceptable recreational drug.

    Alcohol is notorious for being one of the most destructive substances of abuse in the world. It was banned outright at one point last century, then re-legalized. Why did that happen? It's because alcohol became even MORE destructive to society when it was outlawed! Making it illegal did little to curb its use. All that happened is that underground producers and sellers got rich, drinkers got poisoned from contaminants in improperly-made alcohol, and criminals became more organized and dangerous (gang wars).

    Since the government regained control of alcohol's production, distribution, sale, and places of use (among other things), it has been able to monitor and control its usage. The government also gains billions of dollars from public use of alcohol through licenses and taxes.

    Right now the only people who benefit from the recreational street drug industry are the criminals. And they don't pay taxes nor contribute anything positive to society.

  30. #30

    Default

    So, a lot of people who post on this board think is should be legalized, or at least want this option to be trailed or looked at closely.

    But how is change achieved? To even suggest this idea, risks branding yourself as a hippie or green crack pot. This a shame, for the idea transcends that - with people supporting on the left and right (e.g. the economist) supporting it. Political parties don't go near it, for fear of losing more support than they will gain.

    I wonder if the only way this will ever happen, is for a party to gain power and just do it (i.e. not include it in political manifesto)? But what do you think? Could a mainstream party like the Liberals run on such a platform - or would that be suicide politically because of the backlash?

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I wonder if the only way this will ever happen, is for a party to gain power and just do it (i.e. not include it in political manifesto)? But what do you think? Could a mainstream party like the Liberals run on such a platform - or would that be suicide politically because of the backlash?
    I think as long as they emphasize a catchphrase like "The Harm Reduction Measure" or something along those lines and constantly remind the public that it's not to "decriminalize" or "legitimize" drugs, then there is a shot. If they sell it as a measure for the government to control drug use in a manner that can decrease gang war activity, free up police resources, and contribute taxes for things like health care, education, and rehabilitation programs (like alcohol and tobacco do), that will help.

    It would probably have to be a Liberal party proposal, too. Conservatives won't touch anything like this, and I'm guessing that the Left-leaning parties just want decriminalization.

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    ^it's political suicide, because most people don't think through ANY issues with much rational thought. Politics is all about knee-jerk reactions and pandering to the many, and unfortunately most people seem to think that having drugs illegal is somehow making society a better place, when it's pretty obvious that the policy has failed if you look at it objectively.

    The Economist article mentioned above: http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=13237193

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469 View Post
    ^it's political suicide, because most people don't think through ANY issues with much rational thought.
    I agree - politics is a lot like advertizing, except with fewer rules.

    The government would have to have a solid majority. They would then have to admit to the public that gangs are getting stronger, and out-of-sight drug use has been rampant across the country this entire time, and the government wants to take away the #1 moneymaker from the criminals.

    And that's also why the strategy would have to have a fancy catchphrase associated with it, too.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    This has to be one of the most intelligent threads I've seen on C2E in a long time.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  35. #35
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    So, a lot of people who post on this board think is should be legalized, or at least want this option to be trailed or looked at closely.

    But how is change achieved? To even suggest this idea, risks branding yourself as a hippie or green crack pot. This a shame, for the idea transcends that - with people supporting on the left and right (e.g. the economist) supporting it. Political parties don't go near it, for fear of losing more support than they will gain.

    I wonder if the only way this will ever happen, is for a party to gain power and just do it (i.e. not include it in political manifesto)? But what do you think? Could a mainstream party like the Liberals run on such a platform - or would that be suicide politically because of the backlash?
    it's been a long time since i was branded as a hippie or green crack pot... nowadays it usually starts and stops with just crack pot.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Conservatives won't touch anything like this
    Ironically, legalization should arguably be the ideological position for small government-minded conservative/libertarian types.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Conservatism in this country is riddled with irony.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Control the mfg and distribution and grab the taxes just like the other vices then get elected on the "social impact"
    Or :
    Alberta gambling revenue expected to outstrip oilsands royalties""
    watch tonite's news

    Ken, I prefer to think of those of our ilk as perhaps "chipped" pots

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I'd suggest that recreational drugs be sold in specifically licensed headshops.
    I think pharmacies would be a good place for the sale of drugs if they became legalized. They are already secure and set up to sell and inform customers about controlled products already. Plus, the pharmacist is as much of an expert on drugs as one can get - you know that they wouldn't be giving misleading info to their customers.

    Plus, upon a sale the pharmacist can give an informed and educated spiel to the purchaser about warnings on the specific drug before handing it to them, such as:
    - how much to take / how to avoid overdoses
    - what to avoid while taking it (E.g. avoiding alcohol or cold medications to prevent harmful drug reactions)
    - don't attempt to drive until "x" time passes
    - warning signs that you should call a doctor or poison control center, etc.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 28-04-2009 at 03:03 PM.

  40. #40

    Default

    ^That would be a tough call, in that I am not sure if Pharmacies would want these customers (although I guess they distribute methadone already). The other option is liquor stores, which are set up to not allow kids in. Pharmacy would be better at explaining than liquor store though - esp. when needles and similar involved. They could also refer a good dentist for Meth users.

    The other big issue that would need to be dealt with is liability - obviously corporations would need some sort of immunity for producing a harmful product that might make some people crazy. Presumably there are some laws around this already, re booze and cigarettes, and even chemo type treatments that can do more harm than good sometimes.

  41. #41

    Default

    I wonder if robberies concerning pharmacies would rise? I get the thought that they would be the cornerstore of drugs.

  42. #42

    Default

    Pharmacies already carry all kinds of addictive conrolled substances and are already targets for break-ins and robberies. Many prescription drugs in pharmacies and hospitals have higher street value than illegal substances (things like ecstasy, for instance).

    Adding more drugs won't make a difference.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 29-04-2009 at 02:38 PM.

  43. #43
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    ^it's not a given that pharmacies would be the point of distribution. Perhaps a government monopoly similar to the liquor stores back in the day, with appropriate security and locations. I don't know what the exact plan or landscape would be for a legalized recreational drug program, but I think it's something we should be looking at very hard.

  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west downtown
    Posts
    673

    Default swing the gates ....

    lets tell all of the lawless in our society that soon it will all be legal because we are to lazy or tied up with red tape to enforce the law!
    oh ....the poor drug addicts,
    gimmie a break!

  45. #45

    Default

    Ummm... Not all drugs are addictive. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of recreational drugs aren't addictive at all.

    Really, the only drug arguably as addictive as plain old nicotine is heroin (and other chemicals from the opium poppy - things like morphine and codeine).

  46. #46
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    ^and of course, heroin is actually one of the less damaging drugs if administered safely. Believe it or not. I'd still never touch the stuff though.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raz0469 View Post
    ^and of course, heroin is actually one of the less damaging drugs if administered safely. Believe it or not.
    That's very true. Heroin has a very low toxicity.

    The problem lies in the fact that it blocks the pain-modulating pathways in the brainstem, which eventually makes the user unable to block pain. Pretty soon their body actually becomes reliant on heroin just to feel normal, and without it they suffer immesely. It gets so bad and they get so desperate that they will do almost anything (legal or illegal) just to get more heroin. THAT is where the cost to society comes in, and the addicts need to be treated like someone with a medical addiction instead of a criminal. Locking them up takes them off the street, but it doesn't fix the addiction that's causing the problem in the first place. It would be like locking a smoker up to get him to quit smoking - that just doesn't work.

    Scary stuff. But once again, if it was legalized, regulated, and available for cheap, we would be able to better monitor people who take it. The fact that it's an expensive street drug I'm sure costs society billions of dollars in property crimes. heroin addiction would ideally be more like tobacco addiction instead of a drug that causes nothing but total destruction for people taking it and the neighborhoods that heroin users live in.

    That's also why I previously mentioned (in this thread or the other one on drugs) that different rules might have to be made for legalizing addictive substances (heroin, cocaine) versus legalizing non-addictive ones (pot, LSD, ecstasy). I'm not sure exactly what that would need to do, but it would be a good idea to have it addressed.
    Last edited by MrOilers; 29-04-2009 at 03:36 PM.

  48. #48
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    42

    Default

    I know everytime the police crack down and bust people a good friend and dealer in Edmonton tells me business booms with new clientel and she can inflate prices to rediculous levels $300/ounce of kush (high grade marijuana) as there is more risk involved. what better business is there and its tax free. Most money is made selling prescription drugs as my friend gets them for free thorugh medical plans etc and turns around and sells say 1 oxycotten or percoset for about $80. her customers will actually die from withdrawls if they don't get their fix and I am sure the police know that and why they won't bust her. I have seen people smoke it , snort it, inject. I've seen them in withdrawl scarry stuff.

    The days of coke are gone its all prescription drugs and its all government controlled, kinda makes you think.

  49. #49
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    $80 for a pill? Christ... I had a friend who was hit by a car in October and she got like 3 bottles of that stuff, and only took a few of them. I wonder what happened to the rest?

  50. #50
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    $80 for a pill? Christ... I had a friend who was hit by a car in October and she got like 3 bottles of that stuff, and only took a few of them. I wonder what happened to the rest?
    Hey man, Viagra is sold "on the street" so to speak for $20-40 a pill, when it costs about $15 with a valid prescription.

  51. #51

    Default

    The most dangerous quality a drug can have is an addictive one. Addicitions make people desperate, and that is when things get dangerous.

    The "buzz" or "numbing" effect a person can get from a drug (like ecstasy or pot) is the least of society's concerns.

  52. #52

    Default Ontario to remove OxyContin from list of funded drugs

    While I don't have a problem with the government not subsidizing this drug anymore, I don't see how limiting access to it, is going to help things:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2342526/

    Ontario, Canada's pill-popping capital, is taking OxyContin – and its pending replacement, OxyNeo – off the list of drugs it normally funds.

    Starting Feb. 29, all new prescriptions for the long-acting, potent and addictive oxycodone painkiller will need approval through Ontario's Exceptional Access Program. This means physicians will need to provide a compelling reason their patients need the drug.
    Oxy was one of the few drugs that we could actually invest in, with a view to making some profit from users (like cigarettes and booze), without having to break the law / be a supporter of gangs.

  53. #53

    Default Softening tone, Harper concedes drug war ‘is not working’

    A lot of talk right now that South and Central America might legalize the drug trade. I think traditionally they haven't, in large part because of the foreign aid they get. Things are starting to change though now, as their econoimes improve, and people realize current policies aren't working.

    Even the Conservatives are "slowly" starting to realize this. The free market side of Conservatisim should be open to legalization:

    There is increasing doubt about whether we are taking the best approach to doing that, but nobody thinks these transnational networks are good guys, or that changing the law is somehow going to make them good people,” Mr. Harper told reporters at a news conference following the close of the Summit of the Americas.

    “I think what everyone believes and agrees with, and to be frank myself, is that the current approach is not working, but it is not clear what we should do.”

    The gathering of 31 leaders agreed to analyze the approach to the drug situation in a more formal way through the Organization of American States.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2403500/

  54. #54
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    If Harper thinks the current approach isn't working, why did he double down on some absolutely ridiculous mandatory minimums for grow ops and the like here?

    I'll believe it when I see some actual policy that doesn't completely contradict what he said there.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    A lot of talk right now that South and Central America might legalize the drug trade. I think traditionally they haven't, in large part because of the foreign aid they get. Things are starting to change though now, as their econoimes improve, and people realize current policies aren't working.

    Even the Conservatives are "slowly" starting to realize this. The free market side of Conservatisim should be open to legalization:

    There is increasing doubt about whether we are taking the best approach to doing that, but nobody thinks these transnational networks are good guys, or that changing the law is somehow going to make them good people,” Mr. Harper told reporters at a news conference following the close of the Summit of the Americas.

    “I think what everyone believes and agrees with, and to be frank myself, is that the current approach is not working, but it is not clear what we should do.”

    The gathering of 31 leaders agreed to analyze the approach to the drug situation in a more formal way through the Organization of American States.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2403500/

    Fascinating isn't it. Like prohibition in the USA. Another clash of ideologies...



    Bottom line though isn't it that; "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got"?

  56. #56

    Default "pure ecstasy can be “safe” when consumed responsibly by adults"

    B.C.’s top health official says taking pure ecstasy can be “safe” when consumed responsibly by adults, despite warnings by police in Alberta and British Columbia about the dangers of the street drug after a rash of deaths.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle4258230/

    Advocates producing the drug cleanly so its safe, rather than current mixtures which are produced by criminal gangs.

  57. #57

    Default

    as we slide from the 3rd circle and into circle 4.....

    Great, lets use the word 'responsible' in the same sentence with 'illicit'...genius.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  58. #58

    Default

    Right now we have the worst possible situation:

    1. People are continuing to take drugs
    2. Criminals are making a nice profit providing the drugs
    3. Many of the drugs in circulation are dangerous
    4. Health care, police, prisons, and court costs for drug enforcement and treatments are all at the taxpayer expense, as the millions of dollars that criminal dealers are raking in do not pay for any of it

    It's a mess, and our country seriously needs to rethink policy on drugs.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^also, you have to be a criminal to be allowed to invest in the industry (at least with tobacco I own some tobacco shares to profit from others). Ideally I'd like to see it opened up to pharma or tobacco corps, and taxes to improve education.

  60. #60

    Default Trudeau’s legalization stand set to revive debate on cannabis

    Has Mr Trudeau been reading this thread? Jk. Still, legalizing pot is a good start, I agree 100 percent:

    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...service=mobile
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-07-2013 at 10:28 AM. Reason: title

  61. #61
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    The status quo isn't working and decriminalizing it is a halfassed solution that doesn't actually solve the gang problems with production and distribution. I'm glad that finally a politician has had the balls to stand up and say what's been obvious to anyone for decades. The statements coming from the Conservatives in response are pants-on-head idiotic.

  62. #62

    Default

    The next federal election will be very interesting!
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    The statements coming from the Conservatives in response are pants-on-head idiotic.
    In fairness, its the same statements the Liberal party used to make, and that the police still make. I don't agree with the Conservatives on this, but I'm not sure its a big vote winner for the Liberals either. For example, I think their soft crime policies are a bigger vote loser (crime being a bigger issue in the electorate, even if its on the decline). NDP has the most nonsensical policy though - decriminalization is stupid, you get all the health issues with people being allowed the drug, but none of the tax revenues because gangs continue to produce it.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    For example, I think their soft crime policies are a bigger vote loser (crime being a bigger issue in the electorate, even if its on the decline).
    Interesting, that. Despite evidence to the contrary, Canadians are fearing a more violent society. Who is putting that idea in their minds?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  65. #65
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ media

    bleeds it leads etc
    be offended! figure out why later...

  66. #66

    Default

    Also, the Harper Government.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,464

    Default

    Pot and illicit drugs must stay illegal till end of world period.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  68. #68
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    In fairness, its the same statements the Liberal party used to make, and that the police still make.
    The Liberals tried to decriminalize pot 10 years ago. They haven't been saying it recently. And while a lot of police associations speak in opposition to legalization, it's entirely a labor issue from their perspective. Legalizing pot would likely result in significant savings in police budgets, which means less officers. Most police chiefs in Canada at this point are quite frankly sick of pot being illegal, because they know damn well how misguided it is and what a waste of police and court resources it is.

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Legalizing pot would likely result in significant savings in police budgets, which means less officers.
    I've never believed that - there is more than enough criminal activity with other drugs, prostitution, break-ins, theft, etc. that police will be just as busy. Not to mention, police will be busy enforcing new pot legislation (checking to see if grow-ops are legally set up, licenses are current, etc.).

  70. #70
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Legalizing pot would likely result in significant savings in police budgets, which means less officers.
    I've never believed that - there is more than enough criminal activity with other drugs, prostitution, break-ins, theft, etc. that police will be just as busy. Not to mention, police will be busy enforcing new pot legislation (checking to see if grow-ops are legally set up, licenses are current, etc.).
    That may well be the case, but there's a reason that police associations and prison guard unions in Canada and the US are vehemently opposed to legalization, and it's not because they're concerned about anything other than their own jobs.

  71. #71
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Drugs are unhealthy. Do not take them.

  72. #72
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    83

    Default

    let's play soccer instead

  73. #73

    Default

    I'd rather smoke a joint thank you very much... also soccer is whack... worse then crack..

  74. #74
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    83

    Default

    ^ At least soccer or any soprt might make you fit

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    That may well be the case, but there's a reason that police associations and prison guard unions in Canada and the US are vehemently opposed to legalization, and it's not because they're concerned about anything other than their own jobs.
    Police associations were opposed to the sale of alcohol in the US during the prohibition years - referring to all the gangs and criminal elements associated with booze. The gangs will never go away but the profits they make from drugs (like they once made from booze in the US), could.

  76. #76
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ there are other drugs that these gangs can sell.
    I am not against legalization but i think it is kinda silly to think that legalization will somehow make all these gangs pack up and go home.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  77. #77
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ there are other drugs that these gangs can sell.
    I am not against legalization but i think it is kinda silly to think that legalization will somehow make all these gangs pack up and go home.
    No one's claiming that they'll disappear. Yes they'll still have other sources of revenue. But when was the peak of the Mob in the US? During Prohibition. Legalizing alcohol took away a major source of revenue and significantly weakened them. The same will be true if pot is legalized, it's a huge source of revenue for numerous criminal organizations.

  78. #78

    Default

    I read that pot makes up about 30% of cartel profits, those being a good chunk in the USA, Central/South Americas. 30%. That's a big wad-a-dough for just grass. Also, in other words, 30% of efforts to tackling pot related crime-fighting can go towards harder drugs. That's 30% off hard-drug crime-fighting. Everyone likes a sale, right?

    It's funny though, I was talking to a friend of mine who buys regularly, and he has no interest in legalization. He says that it's easy enough to get it at the moment; however, we were in Frisco a year back, and it put everything back into perspective. The issue is not access, it is the prosecution of many underprivileged, small-time users, and it prevents people from selling then getting busted and put in jail. There is a need, I told him - for he's the Need-er - and he is putting his dealer at risk of jail time, and the growers/suppliers at risk of jail time, health hazards... it's all about the big picture, not just going out and buying it. It's all about capitalism, and capitalizing on a wanted product with less health risks than booze, and a strong market to boot.

    Imagine Whyte Ave a few years back with the riot. Replace half the bars with hash-cafes. What a violent crowd they would have been... sorry to speculate, but it's merely another burden off police's shoulders.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  79. #79

    Default

    Pot cafes about to open in Colorado:

    http://mobile.nzherald.co.nz/world/n...ectid=11178166

    Standing amid thousands of lovingly tended cannabis plants, their pungent buds awaiting harvest, businessman Andy Williams is outlining his plan for what will be one of the first shops in America to sell the drug legally.

    "My inspiration is an Apple store," Mr Williams says smiling. "Something that's really comfortable, exciting to be in, fun, and you have great products too. It's going to be a very relaxed, beautiful setting. I want it to be elegant. I want women on their own to feel safe. People will come here from all over, even Europe."

  80. #80

    Default

    legalize it. I sure as heck would check out a cafe like that! (and not fly to CO on air can-o-crap)

  81. #81
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,394

    Default

    I also support legalization, but I wish marijuana users would realize that THC is orally active. Marijuana smoke isn't as bad as tobacco, but it still stinks. Put out that joint and go bake some brownies.

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I also support legalization, but I wish marijuana users would realize that THC is orally active. Marijuana smoke isn't as bad as tobacco, but it still stinks. Put out that joint and go bake some brownies.
    Not very orally active, takes a long time for the metabolization to occur so it ends up happening further down the GI near the start of the small intestine. (why brownies seem to kick in after an hour or so).

    Vape's are great because there is much less smell and much smaller amounts are needed and you still get one hell of a kick in the pants. You can get small pocket sized vapes that are very good.

    Joints are fine in my eyes but I agree with you that they can stink and be unpleasant for those who don't like the odour.

    Baked goods are the way to do it along with having a small trusty pocket vape when out in public. For walks in nature joints are where it's at. And when at home break out the heavy hardware (pipes, bongs, etc.).

    I do however love my gandalf style wood pipe, me and it have been on some great adventures and it just works amazingly (and looks awesome as hell). *not that I admit to ingesting anything of a questionable legal nature that is just a plant through it).

    Hookahs when using steam stones or a herbal shisha mixed with a bit of whacky grass is always a good time. Though I have to build a different way to heat the shisha as I am not a fan of coals..

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Marijuana smoke isn't as bad as tobacco,.
    It depends on how you define bad, although perhaps you mean the smell? Tobacco smells better IMO. I personally know two people who got psychotic delusions and were mentally ill for more than a year after briefly using dope (Google it, it happens to some unlucky soles). I also grew up around some kids whose life was just a stoned lazy blur, from the first joint in the morning for the rest of he day. Personally, I have found I'm sluggish mentally for at least a week after dope. These aren't reasons to criminalize it, but they are reasons to have good education on the risks of this and other drugs.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-12-2013 at 12:42 PM.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Marijuana smoke isn't as bad as tobacco,.
    It depends on how you define bad, although perhaps you mean the smell? Tobacco smells better IMO. I personally know two people who got psychotic delusions and were mentally ill for more than a year after briefly using dope (Google it, it happens to some unlucky soles). I also grew up around some kids whose life was just a stoned lazy blur, from the first joint in the morning for the rest of he day. Personally, I have found I'm sluggish mentally for at least a week after dope. These aren't reasons to criminalize it, but they are reasons to have good education on the risks of this and other drugs.
    That's the problem. We make these things out to be evil bad monsters. Which, yes, they can be. That doesn't mean they are bad all the time in all situations. The problem is we just make them illegal instead of educating people as to the risks of them. And for some psychotropics can have great value. A friend of mine is using LSD to control serious social anxiety as part of an experimental treatment program (doctor controlled). My ex gf's sister used pot to treat her depression and serious mood swings (under the direction and watchful eye of a psychiatrist and psychologist). Ketamine, morphine, amphetamines, etc. etc. are all medically important chemicals be they used for pain management, metabolic issues, or psychiatric needs. The problem is people aren't educated about these things and worse follow misinformation from both those trying to stamp out drug use and those who don't have access to psychiatric and other medical research databases. Hell even doing research on these chemicals is nearly impossible. It's easier for me as a lab to get weaponizable biochemical material or organisms (think the really scary stuff) than it is to get THC, an order of magnitude in fact. So instead we have misinformation from "public health and safety" idiots, and messed up druggies talking about "freeing your mine" with little understanding of the effects of ego death. It's a travesty. Education is what counts here.

  85. #85

    Default Trudeau opposess taxpayer money on anti marijuana ads

    You know, if Trudeau can promise to keep his hands off raising taxes, I think I'll vote for him, like what he is saying here (well, im ok with health message maybe):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08...+-+Top+Stories)

    Trudeau said he agrees with Health Canada’s message that marijuana use in young Canadians is dangerously high but said the government shouldn’t pay for the ads and called on doctors to speak out about it.

    He said Canadians want a debate based on logic and evidence when it comes to marijuana laws in the country.

    Current marijuana laws are failing to protect teens from the dangers of the drug and are fuelling criminal enterprises by keeping it illegal, he said.

    Trudeau said he is not advocating making pot available for young people but rather opening up discussion on how to make the current laws more effective.

  86. #86
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Gonna be interesting to see how this issue plays in the next election. I'm fully on side with Trudeau's stance and I think that most people under 40-50 will agree with him. But the older generations may well not, and they're the ones who vote far more often. It's good that Trudeau is trying to have an honest discussion about it. It's terrible that the Conservatives aren't willing to do the same, and are pretty much lying about his stance.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...moke-1.2736152

    Fantino's flyer, like similarly worded mailings by other Tory MPs, says Trudeau's "first order of business is to make marijuana more accessible to minors," and that the Liberals "want to make buying marijuana a normal, everyday activity for young Canadians."
    Can they get any more crass?

  87. #87

    Default

    Most under reported story of the week: Marc Emery returns after sentence

  88. #88

    Default

    I think legalizing marijuana is pointless without doing the same thing with other currently illicit drugs as well.

  89. #89
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I think legalizing marijuana is pointless without doing the same thing with other currently illicit drugs as well.
    Gotta walk before you can run. It's a step in the right direction, and far from pointless.

  90. #90

    Default

    Disagree. People who want to use it already do. I don't think a single thing will change with legalization, except people who want to smoke pot will just feel less guilty about it, and criminals or organized crime who benefit financially from marijuana will just focus more on stuff like ecstasy, cocaine, etc. So I think legalization of one drug and not others is really pointless.

    Basically we'll be in slightly different version of the exact same position we have today.

    I think we need to make a decision - control everything through legalization, or clamp down hard on everything like Singapore. This wishy-washy middle ground (which all our political parties sit in) isn't helping.

  91. #91

    Default

    Ressurecting this thread after having watched this documentary. Very interesting and informative.

    Breaking the Taboo

  92. #92

    Default Saskatoon firm struggles to find drug-free applicants

    I think at some point we have to face up to the reality that it isn't just a few junkies on the streets doing cocaine and other "hard" drugs:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ree-applicants

    All applicants had the required equipment training and some even had sales experience or university education for the lucrative positions, most of which paid between $30 and $45 per hour. But over a 10-day period last month, 22 of 26 people who wanted a job with Xtreme Mining and Demolition failed the drug test, said owner Leonard Banga.

  93. #93

    Default

    ^An eye opener for sure.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  94. #94

    Default

    Here's something you can take to the bank: no matter how proper and clean-cut you and your lifestyle is, you personally know PLENTY of people who use illegal drugs. Your friends, your family, your co-workers. People who live ordinary lives, work hard, and most certainly are not 'bums'.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
    Here's something you can take to the bank: no matter how proper and clean-cut you and your lifestyle is, you personally know PLENTY of people who use illegal drugs. Your friends, your family, your co-workers. People who live ordinary lives, work hard, and most certainly are not 'bums'.
    Actually, in my case I don't know "plenty". Very, very few in fact.

    However, you're right in terms of working hard (as in having multiple degrees/designations).

    Some experts theorize that many addictions stem from earlier trauma. People are just self-medicating. Unfortunately the medication often sets them up for further trauma. I'm not sure what the thinking is on casual users.
    Last edited by KC; 20-07-2015 at 07:37 PM.

  96. #96

    Default

    Drinking is a form of self medication. Some people in the older generation think people who are on drugs lack morals or self control etc. but they fail to recognise that they knock back a few each night. They don't see that it is not an either/or situation. Drinking can be just as destructive when overdone.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
    Here's something you can take to the bank: no matter how proper and clean-cut you and your lifestyle is, you personally know PLENTY of people who use illegal drugs. Your friends, your family, your co-workers. People who live ordinary lives, work hard, and most certainly are not 'bums'.
    Actually, in my case I don't know "plenty". Very, very few in fact.

    However, you're right in terms of working hard (as in having multiple degrees/designations).

    Some experts theorize that many addictions stem from earlier trauma. People are just self-medicating. Unfortunately the medication often sets them up for further trauma. I'm not sure what the thinking is on casual users.
    You think you don't know plenty. I'd bet you don't know some of them as well as you think you do...

  98. #98
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Ressurecting this thread after having watched this documentary. Very interesting and informative.

    Breaking the Taboo
    What an excellent film. Morgan Freeman is a great narrator as well. It pretty well says it all.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
    Here's something you can take to the bank: no matter how proper and clean-cut you and your lifestyle is, you personally know PLENTY of people who use illegal drugs. Your friends, your family, your co-workers. People who live ordinary lives, work hard, and most certainly are not 'bums'.
    Actually, in my case I don't know "plenty". Very, very few in fact.

    However, you're right in terms of working hard (as in having multiple degrees/designations).

    Some experts theorize that many addictions stem from earlier trauma. People are just self-medicating. Unfortunately the medication often sets them up for further trauma. I'm not sure what the thinking is on casual users.
    You think you don't know plenty. I'd bet you don't know some of them as well as you think you do...
    No. I know my friends and I worked with a lot of the people I know fairly closely, for years. Only a very few would consider illegal drugs.

  100. #100

    Default

    lat got my point. People will hide it from friends/family because of the stigma.
    Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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