Very interesting link....bears out my assertion that many more people do drugs than will admit it, and that anyone may know....
Very interesting link....bears out my assertion that many more people do drugs than will admit it, and that anyone may know....
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
In future people may need to use a bucket and avoid the toilet then dispose of it somewhere. They will likely be tracing right to a house or apt, especially in the US where cops are so hungry for busts. All sewer lines have cleanouts, threaded openings for access.
Last edited by Drumbones; 21-07-2015 at 06:49 AM.
Last edited by moahunter; 21-07-2015 at 09:54 AM.
Maybe my case is more unique than I thought. Most of my friends and past coworkers are too busy just trying to have normal productive lives. If anything, they are hooked on sports and travel and family and their hobbies. Now, if I associated with a lot of lawyers, corporate accountants, salespeople, small business owners, law enforcement, etc. then I'd expect considerably more covert illegal drug and alcohol use.
I really do buy into the prior trauma argument, where such traumas drive people to self medicate. It can be through extreme or atypical behaviour in one form or another. It's also a slippery slope. People with a troubled past shows up in many forms. Anything from trying to be the life of the party, extreme introversion, pursuit of fame or fortune, workaholism, other behavioral issues. Much of which often shows up long before the drug use starts. I'd guess that a lot of those people are also attracted to similar people. Others shy away from people that exhibit any kind of troubling behaviour.
In the case of Rob Ford, though, is it surprising? No. Just look at the type of person he is and possibly was. If you're attracted to people like that then I wouldn't be surprised if you have a lot of acquaintances that are drug users. If you're attracted to the type of people that are, say nuns, then odds are that there will be fewer illegal drug users among your associates, though any users that do exist, will work very, very hard to hide it.
Inconclusive, but interesting...
Personality Types Attract Different Drugs
By Jacqueline Detwiler 04/17/12
"Assuming you’ve got the traits that push you toward drug use in the first place, what else might lead you to one substance over another? Hopson says factors that play a role include what your parents use, what your friends use, and even simply what’s available where you live. Which perhaps explains Hemingway’s situation better than we could have expected: there sure was a lot of rum in Cuba."
Last edited by KC; 21-07-2015 at 10:31 AM.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/inge-f...b_7829730.htmlReducing sentences for drug users and low-level sellers will do exactly nothing to change the overall violence and criminality as gangs fight over turf, and we leave all decisions about purity and potency of drugs and sales to minors in the hands of gangs and cartels. And the trade will generate an endless supply of low-level "non-violent offenders" having their lives ruined by arrest and prosecution even if their sentences are reduced.
...and more lessons here...
"Drug re-legalization calls for a return to the pre-20th century situation in which almost all drugs were legal. This would require ending government-enforced prohibition on the distribution or sale and personal use of specified (or all) currently banned drugs. Proposed ideas range from full legalization which would completely remove all forms of government control, to various forms of regulated legalization, where drugs would be legally available, but under a system of government control which might mean for instance: ... "
Portugal abolished all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. When it was passed, critics said it would open the country to drug tourists and make the drug problem worse. However, once the results were released from a report called "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies" by Glenn Greenwald, released by the Cato Institute, came out, the impact of Portugal's new legislation became obvious. The report found that in the 5 years after drugs were decriminalized, drug use among teens dropped, rates of new HIV infections from sharing dirty needles dropped, and the number of people seeking treatment for addiction more than doubled. Portugal boasted the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 years of age at 10%. To put that into perspective, America lifetime marijuana use rate in people over 12 is 39.8%. Lifetime use of an illegal drug among 7th to 9th graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%, drug use in older teens fell, lifetime heroin use in 16-18 year olds fell, new HIV infections in drug users fell 17%, deaths related to hard drugs were cut by more than half, treatment for drug addiction rose, as well as saved money on enforcement while increasing funding for treatment. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest in the EU for virtually every substance.
Last edited by KC; 21-07-2015 at 11:19 AM.
"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." ĖMark Twain
Here's another "respectable" person, House of Lords member, deputy speaker, and an old ally of Tony Blair:
Most people who do hard drugs aren't addicts, just like most people who drink aren't alcholics.
The deputy speaker of the House of Lords has resigned his position after publication of photos and a video allegedly showing him using cocaine with prostitutes.
John Sewel’s alleged behaviour is “shocking and unacceptable,” Lords Speaker Baroness D’Souza said Sunday, adding she is calling in police to investigate on an urgent basis.
“These serious allegations will be referred to the House of Lords commissioner for standards and the Metropolitan Police for investigation as a matter of urgency,” D’Souza said, adding that “the House of Lords will continue to uphold standards in public life.”
She said Sewel, who is married, has stepped down from his special position in Britain’s upper house. He remains a member of the House of Lords.
Last edited by moahunter; 27-07-2015 at 11:54 AM.
Here's how I would do it.
I would hold a referendum.
"Please select which of the following drugs on the banned list you belive should be made legal. Select all that apply (a) (b) ....."
50% gets it off the list and onto the controlled-like-tobacco list.
The rest stay on the list.
The penalty for possession of anything more than one dose is hanging. With a presumption of guilt for everyone caught on the premises.
I think it's time for society to decide which recreational drugs it can live with.
The rest... No mercy. None, Zero. Illegal drugs not fully and mercilessly stopped are worse than murder. Because of what it entails, the organized crime, the street f**ckers, etc.
Which drugs do I believe should be on the list? All. Or none. I could not care less.
The important thing is not the drug. It is its ban without proper and completely, utterly merciless enforcement.
Last edited by AShetsen; 27-07-2015 at 06:01 PM.
^the penalty for possession of more than 1 dose should be hanging?
Dude what in the actual ****! Please seek help.
be offended! figure out why later...
just look at his other posts... obvious attention seeker.
^^^ wow... Just wow
I just hate how our laws and enforcement of illicit drugs are so wishy-washy that they are mostly ineffective. Anyone who has worked in a big hospital knows that every day, people from all walks of life show up needing medical attention for bad reactions or overdoses from illegal drugs. Making select substances illegal has not stopped (nor even slowed) their use. And the half-arsed approach to catching/punishing producers and dealers (and borderline tolerance for some illegal drugs and not others) hasn't helped either. The only people making a profit are the drug dealers and organized crime. The rest of us lose through higher police, court, prison, and medical costs, not to mention the costs of other crimes (theft, prostitution, human trafficking) to pay for drug addictions.
We need to make a decision - either we allow ourselves to be a free country and let people go about their business and do the drugs they want and take the revenue stream away from the black market dealers (maybe even let dealers and producers go legitimate so they pay taxes and a responsible for assuring quality control, etc.), or we completely crack down like Singapore and have absolute zero tolerance with strict and severe punishment for anybody having anything to do with illegal substances.
Personally, I am for legalization and control of drugs. In fact, I am against legalizing marijuana unless we legalize and control everything else along with it. Legalizing one illegal drug just because it's the most popular, while keeping all others illegal, makes very little sense.
So basically what Ashetsen said.
For people convicted of possession of weed?
I've got mixed feelings on that. Why just weed, and not other drugs as well? There is a pardon system already, and even getting a pardon won't neccesarily help much with travel.
I'm looking forward to weed being legal, but I hope some common sense is applied and other drugs are looked at after that. Be consistent, get the drug trade profits out of the gangs. Prohibition is stupid policy, just look at all the tax revenues we are losing now re menthol cigarette sales which have gone from legit and taxed to illegit and not taxed on the black market.
As for a pardon. Well, if you break a law it doesn't say much for your respect for our country and its laws. If it's a law that is proven to be unconstitutional or somehow unjust, I'd say pardons should be near automatic. However, smoking weed? I don't think there's a great moral reason to break that law. Any pardon would be more pragmatic. Giving people a better chance to improve their futures.
Marcus Richardson is, in the eyes of the law, a criminal.
Never mind that a judge ruled the six kilograms of cannabis police found in his car was for severely ill patients at a medical marijuana dispensary.
Or that the same judge imposed only a minimum sentence because anything more would fail to maintain "a just, peaceful and safe society."" - CBC News
Just one example that have criminal records stick with them.
Live and love... your neighbourhood.
Not often I click on Facebook link filled with annoying advertisements, then find something amazing inside. If you watch one cartoon this year, watch this one, filled win interesting stuff (like that twenty percent of Vietnam soldiers did heroine to kill time):
By making drugs illegal, we have distorted the market. Because fentanyl is easier to smuggle, it is replacing brown sugar on the streets:
Moreover, the current criminalization likely supports thousands upon thousands of legal, stable jobs (lawyers, judges, police, prison workers, prison builders, social workers, etc.). Changing the system to an efficient, effective, more logical system may not be a desired change. We regularly see policy, legislation and spending decisions that entrench or expand seemingly nonsensical and even counterproductive jobs. One must realize that such grand job creating inefficiencies increase the velocity of money in the economy, keep people off the streets and thus stabilize the economy while reducing reliance on a highly volatile private sector. The digging ditches and filling them in again effect. Or in this case destroying lives and rebuilding some again.
A compromise might be a new form of non-"criminal" record that wouldn't preclude most holders from ever again obtaining productive self-sustaining employment.
Last edited by KC; 23-05-2016 at 03:19 PM.
Legalization should include automatic pardons for all non-violent drug related offenses. I'm sure we can find something productive for police to do, like engaging with the community and actually investigating and prosecuting property crime. Surplus prison guards can supervise the petty thieves and vandals doing their community service, or actually try to provide conditions conducive to rehabilitating violent criminals in the now less overcrowded prisons.
Legal mind altering substances like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, etc though weren't apparently enough to dissuade people from marijuana and a whole group of other drugs. I doubt legalizing marijuana will diminish much of the alternates consumption. I doubt legalizing them would change much in the way of consumption.
Reducing the number of people having criminal records might create considerable change. Ie the legal profession is renowned for its degree of alcoholism, which is legal, and so they retain their jobs and fill 'productive' roles in society. Suggest locking people up for alcoholism and you'd see a change in attitudes.
Last edited by KC; 24-05-2016 at 01:45 PM.
Last edited by KC; 24-05-2016 at 05:29 PM.
Rehabilitation does work. Not for everyone. But it's simple minded and short sighted to just assume that every single person convicted of a crime will remain a criminal for the rest of their lives, and basing policy on such a staggeringly ignorant opinion is folly.
Criminal rehabilitation has a marginal success rate, and I think our society would get a better value for the cost by spending those resources on crime prevention and enforcement instead of rehabilitation.
In some ways this stuff seems closer to anthrax or uranium than pot, alcohol or what I'm used to hearing about.
RCMP officers to be equipped with naloxone kits to deal with fentanyl exposure
Last edited by KC; 13-09-2016 at 11:40 PM.
If recreational use of opioids were legal we wouldn't be having this problem. Few users would turn to fentanyl if they had access to morphine and heroin, and if they really wanted fentanyl they could get it pre-diluted and packaged in standardized doses. Pure fentanyl powder would never be seen. Some people would still commit suicide by intentionally overdosing, but there would be far fewer unintentional exposures or ODs.
While I would like to see legalization/controls in place for drugs, the social responsibility campaigns that will come with it would be troublesome if you ask me. That is a big hang up with the policy/legislative decisions around pot right now. Do they align it with current alcohol strategies or make it more strict? Doctors are calling for more strict rules than alcohol when it comes to pot. Quite the double standard? Yet, other illicit drugs have greater addictive reactions than their counterparts, too. Tough policy decisions to please proponents of marijuana, but also to please the medical/expert community. Covering all illicit drugs under said policies would take infinitely more time. You can't turn on the pump over night without doing due diligence first.
The black market would still continue to operate with new drugs coming online or non-diluted offerings. If it can offer said drugs at a cheaper offering than the regulated market, they will most definitely still be in business. That is a key reason addicts jump ship to fentanyl - ease of access, both by price, but also by the strength of the drug. A better high at a cheaper price? I'll sell you premium gasoline 20 cents cheaper than the guy down the block!
Fentanyl is cheaper and easier to get because it is a lot easier to smuggle and distribute a kilo of fentanyl than 100 kg of heroin or a ton of morphine. Drug dealers love it because they can sell product that is 99+% filler and still keep their customers happy. It sucks for users because an upstream dealer who doesn't weigh properly can easily result in product that is only 95% cut and a deadly overdose. It also has a shorter duration of action, making it less desirable for many users.
Legalization won't eliminate black markets (there is still a certain amount of alcohol and tobacco that goes untaxed), but it will certainly control them. As for user control, dispensing rules are a minor part of a comprehensive approach that needs to include more pubic education about addiction and much better access to addiction treatment as the "carrots" and near-zero tolerance for public intoxication as the "stick".
Fentanyl is a game changer. Or should be to any sentient human that cares about life, and living. No more can people discretely snort a line of coke, do some Crack, or Meth (why would anybody, that junk has horrid effects) but with Fentany lacing becoming much more common any one decision to use illicit drugs can result in death, overdose, becoming paraplegic.
The case is so sad, as tragedy always is when it impacts impressionable young people with their whole lives ahead of them that make one mistake in judgement. (which honestly we all make) Pay attention to the telltale false reassurances as well. We're scoring off friend, someone we know, what harm can come from it....which ignores that most people have access to only narcotics that have been stepped through various middle men and chains of distribution whereby any nefarious party could decide to cut a drug with something.
note the other fallacy of the parents allowing kids to party because that keeps the activity under watch and what harm can come from it.
These are all falsehoods that need to be revisited in the age of Fentanyl.
Our whole notion of drugs being a recreational aspect probably needs to change immediately UNTIL they are closely and rigidly manufactured as much as controlled pharmaceuticals.
For a society to allow people to buy contraband like Ecstasy, meth, Coke, Heroin etc and not know whats in it, and what it can do is irresponsible. When does the carnage stop?
WE shouldn't be providing Fentanyl but drug lacing alone is enough reason to provide legal monitored and controlled substance delivery in a harm reduction approach over what people get on the street that is killing hundreds of Albertans every year.
This is officially an epidemic now and it isn't going away. Brave decisions, actions, need to be made. Countless lives depend on it.
Last edited by Replacement; 20-09-2016 at 11:35 AM.
"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"