Escape from Elba

National => Drugs => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:57:47 PM



Title: Drugs
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:57:47 PM
Discuss the national drug policy.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on April 25, 2007, 05:19:31 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 02:21:57 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."

Do they grow good stuff down there?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 02:32:29 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."

Do they grow good stuff down there?

It depends.  On the street you can get "Bush weed" or you can get "High Grade".  Of course, everyone calls what they're selling high grade.  The stuff you can get (as a tourist) is not what Americans expect in terms of high grade stuff.  It has its share of seeds.  Its not perfectly cured.  It may even be a little wet from the humidity in the air (difficult for spliff rolling). Its green and good, but not the kind of hydroponically grown, indoor nugget that is distributed by your local college campus hippie.  This is the herb grown locally on the island outdoors by farmers who want to supplement their income to build houses.  The home lending rate is over 40% so you can't just take out a loan to build your house.  Many homes are built out of pocket over the span of many years.  The nicer homes that sprout quicker are usually the home of a farmer who was taken to growing the Marijuana plant.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:06:27 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."

Do they grow good stuff down there?

It depends.  On the street you can get "Bush weed" or you can get "High Grade".  Of course, everyone calls what they're selling high grade.  The stuff you can get (as a tourist) is not what Americans expect in terms of high grade stuff.  It has its share of seeds.  Its not perfectly cured.  It may even be a little wet from the humidity in the air (difficult for spliff rolling). Its green and good, but not the kind of hydroponically grown, indoor nugget that is distributed by your local college campus hippie.  This is the herb grown locally on the island outdoors by farmers who want to supplement their income to build houses.  The home lending rate is over 40% so you can't just take out a loan to build your house.  Many homes are built out of pocket over the span of many years.  The nicer homes that sprout quicker are usually the home of a farmer who was taken to growing the Marijuana plant.

I suppose that might also be the case for some farmers in America as well.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 06:11:57 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."

Do they grow good stuff down there?

It depends.  On the street you can get "Bush weed" or you can get "High Grade".  Of course, everyone calls what they're selling high grade.  The stuff you can get (as a tourist) is not what Americans expect in terms of high grade stuff.  It has its share of seeds.  Its not perfectly cured.  It may even be a little wet from the humidity in the air (difficult for spliff rolling). Its green and good, but not the kind of hydroponically grown, indoor nugget that is distributed by your local college campus hippie.  This is the herb grown locally on the island outdoors by farmers who want to supplement their income to build houses.  The home lending rate is over 40% so you can't just take out a loan to build your house.  Many homes are built out of pocket over the span of many years.  The nicer homes that sprout quicker are usually the home of a farmer who was taken to growing the Marijuana plant.

I suppose that might also be the case for some farmers in America as well.

In Mexico maybe but I don't think so here.

I doubt any of the "professional" grow operations are done by farmers, at least outdoors.  Most of the "high grade" that is consumed in the NorthEast comes from Canadian indoor hidden greenhouses.  Some is grown domestically, but again mostly indoors (thats why we don't find too many seeds) and on a much smaller scale due to the surveillance that the "War on Drugs" has brought on in America.



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:39:19 PM
I just got back from Jamaica. 

We took a tour and asked the guide about Marijuana policy.

"No one goes to jail for Marijuana"

what about growers?

"If ya neighbor a stiff-neck and call the police on you, and you is growing nothing but ganja crops, then YES, you're in a likka hot water.Bbut if they come and see some ganja plants but you're also planting the yellow yam, and other crops, they don't mess with you and get angry at your neighbor for causing them the trouble."

Do they grow good stuff down there?

It depends.  On the street you can get "Bush weed" or you can get "High Grade".  Of course, everyone calls what they're selling high grade.  The stuff you can get (as a tourist) is not what Americans expect in terms of high grade stuff.  It has its share of seeds.  Its not perfectly cured.  It may even be a little wet from the humidity in the air (difficult for spliff rolling). Its green and good, but not the kind of hydroponically grown, indoor nugget that is distributed by your local college campus hippie.  This is the herb grown locally on the island outdoors by farmers who want to supplement their income to build houses.  The home lending rate is over 40% so you can't just take out a loan to build your house.  Many homes are built out of pocket over the span of many years.  The nicer homes that sprout quicker are usually the home of a farmer who was taken to growing the Marijuana plant.

I suppose that might also be the case for some farmers in America as well.

In Mexico maybe but I don't think so here.

I doubt any of the "professional" grow operations are done by farmers, at least outdoors.  Most of the "high grade" that is consumed in the NorthEast comes from Canadian indoor hidden greenhouses.  Some is grown domestically, but again mostly indoors (thats why we don't find too many seeds) and on a much smaller scale due to the surveillance that the "War on Drugs" has brought on in America.



I have friends with a large farm and they grow a few plants each year for their own comsumption.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 08:40:14 PM
The War on Drugs claims a few more lives.

ATLANTA (April 26) -- Two police officers pleaded guilty Thursday to federal and state charges, including manslaughter, in the death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid in which 39 gunshots were fired into her home and marijuana was planted there to cover up the crime.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/two-cops-plead-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/20070426093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/two-cops-plead-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/20070426093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:53:00 AM
The War on Drugs claims a few more lives.

ATLANTA (April 26) -- Two police officers pleaded guilty Thursday to federal and state charges, including manslaughter, in the death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid in which 39 gunshots were fired into her home and marijuana was planted there to cover up the crime.

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/two-cops-plead-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/20070426093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/two-cops-plead-guilty-in-fatal-shooting/20070426093309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)




Thank  you for this story.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 08:10:13 PM
Former President Bill Clinton announced agreements with drug companies Tuesday to lower the price in the developing world of AIDS drugs resistant to initial treatments and to make a once-a-day AIDS pill available for less than $1 a day.

Good for Clinton.  The Clintons are great, civic minded people.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 10, 2007, 03:46:55 PM
$1 a day sounds good, til i remember in developing countries you might be lucky to pull down $30 a week to feed your family.  Still..  progress it would seem.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 08:12:50 PM
$1 a day sounds good, til i remember in developing countries you might be lucky to pull down $30 a week to feed your family.  Still..  progress it would seem.

I don't know this for a fact, but I believe that most of these drugs are paid for through grants and donations from charities like the Gates Foundation.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 09:01:45 PM
Discuss the national drug policy.

Do we actually have one?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 12:42:47 PM
Discuss the national drug policy.

Do we actually have one?

Sure, sell more.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 09:15:27 AM
Quote
Most of the "high grade" that is consumed in the NorthEast comes from Canadian indoor hidden greenhouses.

kam;
 Wow. You seem to be very well-informed about this marijuana subject. Of personal interest to you or just part of your 'casual' reading?

note: Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been employed by the federal government. Please answer as you see fit.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:34:28 AM
Where I live in NH, indoor farming seems to be quite prominent.  These farmers own houses in upscale neighborhoods and the entire building will be filled with plants. 


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 22, 2007, 05:42:57 PM
Quote
Most of the "high grade" that is consumed in the NorthEast comes from Canadian indoor hidden greenhouses.

kam;
 Wow. You seem to be very well-informed about this marijuana subject. Of personal interest to you or just part of your 'casual' reading?

note: Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been employed by the federal government. Please answer as you see fit.

How best to answer.... 

Lets say i'm economically fortunate enough to not have to involve myself with the industry (and its inherent legal risks) on anything but a consumer level.  But that wasn't always the case.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 07:37:54 PM
Quote
Lets say i'm economically fortunate enough to not have to involve myself with the industry

Yes....well put. I've had my own involvement with 'industry representatives' over the years....it was an education (of sorts). Now, for better or for worse, age has intervened and placed me firmly in the hands of the more well-known companies who advertise their products on TV.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:08:48 PM
Quote
Lets say i'm economically fortunate enough to not have to involve myself with the industry

Yes....well put. I've had my own involvement with 'industry representatives' over the years....it was an education (of sorts). Now, for better or for worse, age has intervened and placed me firmly in the hands of the more well-known companies who advertise their products on TV.

Products like Geritol and Prep H?  My drugs are prescribed by the doctor.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Driver125 on May 22, 2007, 11:53:07 PM
Quote
My drugs are prescribed by the doctor.

Quite so. Mine too. Those are precisely the kind of drugs I was alluding to. The unfortunate part for me is that consumption is no longer optional.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 08:02:48 AM
Quote
My drugs are prescribed by the doctor.

Quite so. Mine too. Those are precisely the kind of drugs I was alluding to. The unfortunate part for me is that consumption is no longer optional.

LMAO...same here.  And the consumption of alcohol, the greatest social drug, came to a hault 25 years ago.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 23, 2007, 11:56:05 AM
It doesn't make sense to me that a drug like Alcohol is found acceptable and a plant like Marijuana is not.  Alcohol is the cause of so many problems and yet its legal status is never questioned.  As far as being a GATEWAY drug, i drank and smoked cigarettes long before i smoked any weed. Why aren't we concerned about those Gateway drugs and make them illegal?  Its hypocrisy plain as day. At the very least, treat Marijuana like Alcohol and tobacco are treated in this country.   


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Driver125 on May 23, 2007, 12:22:53 PM
Quote
Why aren't we concerned about those Gateway drugs and make them illegal?

Always an interesting area of discussion. In my opinion in won't be too many more years before possession of a small amount of weed for personal use will be decriminalized in a lot of the U.S. What would you say about legalizing other drugs such as cocaine? There are strong opinions on both sides of the fence about something like that.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 01:05:38 PM
Quote
My drugs are prescribed by the doctor.

Quite so. Mine too. Those are precisely the kind of drugs I was alluding to. The unfortunate part for me is that consumption is no longer optional.

LMAO...same here.  And the consumption of alcohol, the greatest social drug, came to a hault 25 years ago.

I like that term: "greatest social drug".

I think it is, too.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 01:48:38 PM
Quote
My drugs are prescribed by the doctor.

Quite so. Mine too. Those are precisely the kind of drugs I was alluding to. The unfortunate part for me is that consumption is no longer optional.

LMAO...same here.  And the consumption of alcohol, the greatest social drug, came to a hault 25 years ago.

I like that term: "greatest social drug".

I think it is, too.


Well, it is a socially acceptable  mind altering drug even sold by some state owned stores.  In NH it is sold in such stores located conveniently along the main north-south interstate. 


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 24, 2007, 04:34:59 PM
Quote
Why aren't we concerned about those Gateway drugs and make them illegal?

Always an interesting area of discussion. In my opinion in won't be too many more years before possession of a small amount of weed for personal use will be decriminalized in a lot of the U.S. What would you say about legalizing other drugs such as cocaine? There are strong opinions on both sides of the fence about something like that.

I believe in personal liberty and degrees of legalization.  You mentioned Cocaine. I don't like Cocaine. I don't think its a particularly useful drug.  It is probably more lethal than some of the other drugs we've mentioned here.  Despite all that, I don't think possessing a small amount is something law enforcement should be concerned with.  Going after drug traffickers who import mass amounts of the stuff or who have set up an illegal network of labs and courriers... those people should be subject to persectution because they're the ones likely to be armed and dangerous.

What the average Joe or Jane does in the secure confines of their home is not my business.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 04:56:43 PM



What the average Joe or Jane does in the secure confines of their home is not my business.

If it weren't for their demand, would there need to be a supply?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 26, 2007, 09:32:53 AM
I believe in personal liberty and degrees of legalization.  You mentioned Cocaine. I don't like Cocaine. I don't think its a particularly useful drug.  It is probably more lethal than some of the other drugs we've mentioned here.  Despite all that, I don't think possessing a small amount is something law enforcement should be concerned with.  Going after drug traffickers who import mass amounts of the stuff or who have set up an illegal network of labs and courriers... those people should be subject to persectution because they're the ones likely to be armed and dangerous.

I don't believe that there is any middle ground such as decriminalization. If you allow usage, you must allow for supply. Considering that the majority of, and worst, problems associated with illicit drug use are caused by the supply side, full legalization is the only reasonable answer. You would eliminate most of the violence, be able to reallocate law enforcement into more productive endeavors,  and use tax dollars for education and rehabilitation that are currently being spent on an unwinnable War on Drugs. You would also remove a major source of revenue for many criminal and terrorist organizations such as the drug cartels, al-Qaida, and the CIA.

We could even go back to building more schools than prisons.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 26, 2007, 11:20:55 AM
tjax

hey, don't you have a more recent photo of Rascal?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 26, 2007, 11:39:51 AM
tjax

hey, don't you have a more recent photo of Rascal?

Sure do.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k310/tjaxon/Raspig.jpg


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 26, 2007, 11:49:34 AM
(smile)

thanks. hope to see him again soon.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 26, 2007, 12:15:39 PM
He'll enjoy that nearly as much as I will.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 03:16:09 PM
Does anyone really think there will come a day when the war on drugs is over?  The these compounds will be legalize and sold in state stores next to the booze?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 26, 2007, 03:32:37 PM
Does anyone really think there will come a day when the war on drugs is over?  The these compounds will be legalize and sold in state stores next to the booze?

Legalization does not mean unregulated. In fact, heroin, cocaine, meth etc are currently regulated only by the cartels and black market. Some will likely be next to the booze counter, others in the pharmacy, some mayhap even in your garden.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 26, 2007, 03:57:04 PM
Of the illegal drugs (as opposed to Cigarettes and Alcohol and other pharmaceuticals) Marijuana should be legalized and sold OTC first.  Then the other drugs can follow suit or not depending on what is deemed socially acceptable.  I don't think the American Public is ready for complete legalization of everything under the sun.  Amsterdam allows "soft drugs" like Marijuana and Fungi to be sold in stores while "hard drugs" Heroin and Cocaine are not. 


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 26, 2007, 04:03:26 PM
some day personal freedom to choose, combined with personal responsibilty for one's choices, will be socially acceptable.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 26, 2007, 04:06:05 PM
that is, my hope is that personal freedom dot dot dot...


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 08:14:43 PM
There was a time in America when drugs were legal.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 27, 2007, 05:02:22 PM
Of the illegal drugs (as opposed to Cigarettes and Alcohol and other pharmaceuticals) Marijuana should be legalized and sold OTC first.  Then the other drugs can follow suit or not depending on what is deemed socially acceptable.  I don't think the American Public is ready for complete legalization of everything under the sun.  Amsterdam allows "soft drugs" like Marijuana and Fungi to be sold in stores while "hard drugs" Heroin and Cocaine are not. 

Why should being socially acceptable be a criteria for legality? Many things in this country are not socially acceptable, or are just becoming so, such as abortion, porn, homosexuality, being a Yankees fan, etc., yet are legal, though regulated in different manners. (Please don't think that I am comparing any of the listed behaviours, it is just a quick list of things lacking widespread acceptance in so-called "polite society".).

I understand that the Netherlands still have problems with heroin and cocaine trafficking and abuse, while little with cannabis. Enough to make one wonder, I would think.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:56:26 AM
What about being a Red Sox fan?  Is that the same as being a drug addict?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 28, 2007, 09:21:14 AM
What about being a Red Sox fan?  Is that the same as being a drug addict?

No, that is worse. Addiction to drugs can usually be cured. Fans of the Red Sox  and Raiders have no long term hope, only brief glimpses of what could be before tumbling back to reality.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 28, 2007, 10:42:59 AM
Or, as some of us Astros fans like to say, "stumble back into our own orbit."


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:42:03 PM
Speaking of orbits, I was in one yesterday.  Vicodin and antihistamne are wonder drugs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 28, 2007, 03:07:52 PM
Quote
Does anyone really think there will come a day when the war on drugs is over?

How the hell do you defeat a drug or drugs in general? Do ya hang it, do ya execute it? If the drug wants to surrender, who does it surrrender to?  The War on Drugs is a ludicrous proposition in and of itself. It implies warfare--get the tanks, get the artillery, get the generals and we'll fight it out until we get  unconditional surrender. What a stupid thought. Phraseology leads to difficulties to say the least. We have spent untold billions on the so-called war. We have taken billions of drugs off the stree, put thousands of dealers and users in jail and to what end? The addiction rates remain the same, sometimes in individual individual cases or locations dropping -- but the gross rate rate remains stable. All of the Drug dealers and users taken off the streets have been replaced. Drtu dealing is  still the most lucrative business in America and the dissemination of illicit drugs continues at the same or higher rates than ever. Its a joke, an expensive, cruel joke, a study in failure. Its like picking spit up from the bar. It just has no gross effectiveness--individual successes are noted--I see them every day in my local paper---but admission rates in rehabs remain the same, convictions remain the same, and percentages remain the same. One day the Congress will awake to find it is funding a proposition which works on an individual level, but on a national level has absolutely no effectiveness whatever.

Addiction is a  condition which afflicts a given percentage of the popuation at any given time. Very little funding is given directly to the treatment of the condition. Instead we concentrate on trying to halt the supply and distribution. The problem with addiction is not the drug involved--its the person involved. Everytime there's a raid and heroin is taken off the streets, Oxycontin sales soar. Take away an addict's drug and he will substitute immediately. Take away his dealer and he'll find another one and in the morning a new dealer will appear.

Addiction is what we should be after---drying up the drug supply has never worked and never will work. Dry up the demand and that might work--but to dry up the demand, you need to concentrate on preventing addiction and treating it when it occurs. A condition does not disappear as a result of 14 months in jail. If it did, we could cancer by putting all cancer victims in jail...  Oh, well, I think I made my point

And,NO, I'm not for the legalization of controlled substances....I'm for the treatment of addiction and putting it in remnission--not feeding it and sustainiing it.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 28, 2007, 03:27:39 PM
And,NO, I'm not for the legalization of controlled substances....

I'm confused, Bob. You say the WOD isn't working, but are still not for the legalization of controlled substances. I agree with you that we should treat addiction agressively, but even doing that will do nothing to stop the WOD, since the vast majority of illicit drug use is strictly recreational, not due to addiction.

Can you explain your view more clearly, please?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 28, 2007, 04:12:22 PM
First, I disagree with the proposition that the vast majority of illicit drug use  is recreational. There's adistiction, of course, between drug abuse--which  may be what you are getting at--the vast majority of illicit drug use may be in that category. I can't prove what I say, I don't think anyone can. It's just a thought after 27 years in the field.

I can't be clearer. I'm not offering an alternative to the War on Drugs, I'm merely pointing out its futility. It ain't workin'. I don't know what would work. I'm at a loss after all these years to suggest a way to reduce addiction, except  to treat it. And even that doesn't eem to dent the problem. Once again, no matter what response society has given so far--addiction rates remain stable. I cannot morally support the feeding the beast I worked all these years to do alleviate.

IUt's a little like if we can't solve a problem--legalize it and it'll go away--well it won't--its a condition which affects people at random. To think it'll go away if the feeding of the condition ids legalized isa pipe dream---the only result of that will be fewer arrrests and convictions. The victims, however, will still  be out there--but now they'll be proclaiming in all their glory that it's OK to use or abuse drugs or to be addicted, because its legal. I get that line day in and day out by Alcoholics who swear they have no problem--EVERYBODY DRINKS and its legal. Then they come up will all sorts of "reasons" why their behaviors led to their admission to treatment, discounting, of course, their use or  abuse or dependence on alcohol, when the realty is, Alcohol use, abuse or dependence  was the primary reason leading to the behaviors which led to their admisssion.

The Drug is not the problem, the person is.But I'll be damned, legalization will do nothing to solve the problem of abuse and dependence.

My main point though is the War on Drugs is a consummate failure, but legalization is not the solution. I have no idea what the solution is.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: weezo on May 28, 2007, 04:25:05 PM
Bob,

My understanding is that addiction or dependence is a psychological problem, either a personality disorder, or a mental illnes, perhaps both. I don't know that there are any treatments or drugs that can be used to solve the problem. Therapy, while helpful to some, as is AA, doesn't help all of those with the condition. There is no miracle cure.

Perhaps, like the common cold, it is just something humanity has to learn to live with.



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 28, 2007, 05:43:15 PM
I think it covers the realm, there are psychological, psychiatric, neurological, medical and personality aspects which are in the mix.  I hope you didn't misread my post. I never brought up the issue of whether drugs can be used to treat he condition. certainly the current mode of treatment is a combination of inpatient  treatment involving therapoy, followed by outpatient therapy or at least counselling. AA/NA  really are the two most effective ways to get better and stay better, bar none. The highest success come with inpatient, outpatient  & AA/NA--and a lot of luck, hard work and motivation (and, I might add, thousands of cigarettes, gallons of coffee and  a lot of chocolate).....ask any recovering person and they'll agree!!! Its sounds like substitution with the caffeine and nicotine and tyrosene, but by God, they help!!!!

Getting serious, though, the current trend is to use opiate blockers to help with iopioid abuse, and of course Methadone. Both seem to have some success, but its rooted with all of the above, especially motivation. The blockers and Methadone do not represent a "cure,"  but represent a an aide to prevent relapse.

I'm an old timer with respect to recovery--preferring people to be totally drug free rather than rely on blockers, but I'm wise enough to know the blockers really help in selected cases. I can go on all day like this. Some issues are unresolvable.

There is no cure, but there is recovery and abstinence. How you define either is the stuff of many a tome. Maybe I'll write one some day.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 28, 2007, 06:01:09 PM
First, I disagree with the proposition that the vast majority of illicit drug use  is recreational. There's adistiction, of course, between drug abuse--which  may be what you are getting at--the vast majority of illicit drug use may be in that category. I can't prove what I say, I don't think anyone can. It's just a thought after 27 years in the field.

I base that on the fact that government estimates say that between 70 and 80% of illicit drug use is marijuana usage, which is difficult to abuse (though around 10% of the users do manage). Recreational use is like those who smoke a joint after work, or on weekends with friends; those who may do a line of coke at a party 2 or three times a year; eat mushrooms on occasion; take a hit of ecstasy at a rave once a month or so - much like social drinkers. That is the silent majority who rarely draw attention to themselves, rarely get involved with law enforcement, and do not let their proclivities affect their lives.

Drug abuse is those who may start sneaking a toke break at or before work; maybe an upper at breaktime; a shot of vodka to hold them til quitting time. Their usage begins to affect their work, their personal relationships, becomes a focus of their existence. They are exactly like the drinker who, instead of having a couple drinks after work has a six pack or 6 or 7 shots. Often, their usage will lead them to full fledged addiction, which does (and always has) affected between 10 to 15% of the population. Part of the reason is genetic, some is environmental (peer pressure, etc.), most of it is psychological. You are correct that laws will not stop addiction, and treatment is underutilized. The only law that ever had an effect on addiction rates was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which mandated that the ingredients of foods and medicines be on the label. Prior to that, the US had a high rate of opiate addicts from the use of patent medicines - when the users found out what they were taking, rates of addiction dropped.

Quote
I can't be clearer. I'm not offering an alternative to the War on Drugs, I'm merely pointing out its futility. It ain't workin'. I don't know what would work. I'm at a loss after all these years to suggest a way to reduce addiction, except  to treat it. And even that doesn't eem to dent the problem. Once again, no matter what response society has given so far--addiction rates remain stable. I cannot morally support the feeding the beast I worked all these years to do alleviate.

I firmly believe we need an alternative to the WOD. Why fight a losing battle, wasting valuable resources that could be effectively used elsewhere? I also believe that the best way to fight that war is to recognize what the true enemy is, which I suspect you do, and use education as the key weapon against it, instead of brute force. I get the impression that you are involved in law enforcement. If so, and you would like to see the opinions of some of the top LE in the country, I highly recommend you spending some time investigating Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. It could answer some questions, and give you some alternatives. 

http://www.leap.cc/main.htm

Quote
It's a little like if we can't solve a problem--legalize it and it'll go away--well it won't--its a condition which affects people at random. <snip> I get that line day in and day out by Alcoholics who swear they have no problem--EVERYBODY DRINKS and its legal. <snip>

I absolutely disagree. No one is claiming that legalizing drugs will make them go away. Addiction will remain, as will abuse of various drugs. What legalization would bring about is reallocation of LE resources to true criminal problems, and put medical problems back into the realm of medical professionals. It would curtail the black market with the inherent problems it presents.

To expand on your example of alcohol abuse. Remember the lessons learned from Prohibition? We did not relegalize because it is ok to abuse alcohol, we did so because Prohibition aggravated the problems, and built criminal cartels that had a negative effect on society. Ending Prohibition allowed us to focus on the problem drinkers and stop wasting resources on those who were not problems. Those who drank were provided with cleaner, safer products as well, which reduced many of the effects of Prohibition.

Quote
The Drug is not the problem, the person is.But I'll be damned, legalization will do nothing to solve the problem of abuse and dependence.

I absolutely agree with the first sentence, but think that education and treatment will do much more than prohibition to help alleviate the problems of abuse and dependence.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 28, 2007, 08:51:09 PM
Bob,

My understanding is that addiction or dependence is a psychological problem, either a personality disorder, or a mental illnes, perhaps both. I don't know that there are any treatments or drugs that can be used to solve the problem. Therapy, while helpful to some, as is AA, doesn't help all of those with the condition. There is no miracle cure.


You may want to do a search on ibogaine therapy. It holds promise for some. There has also been some promising research in other areas, but I will have to find my links to provide more data.

You are correct, there is no miracle cure, but then, there has been too little research on addiction. We are investing to much into interdiction and incarceration, and too little in research and education.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 28, 2007, 11:44:11 PM
Tjaxon:

I don't know how the government ever came to the conclusion you cite, but I disagree with it.  I'd have to see the actual study to properly comment on it -- but on the face of it, I disagree with the conclusion.Most marijuana abusers I've met insist they don't abuse it, but they realy do.

I also believe, like you, that we need an alternative to the War on Drugs--I'm just saying I have no alternative, but reject legalization. 

These are just opinions I hold--no proofs, no studies to back them up--just opinions.

I work in treatment. I've been in the field for 27 years and helped in the treatment of thousands of addicts and abusers. I pointed out above the most effective sequence to get a person better is a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment along with regular AA/NA attendance. AA/NA are the single most successful modalities to wellness, bar none.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 28, 2007, 11:54:40 PM
ibogaine therapy: Whatever turns you on. I'm sure, like all the other "miracle"  solutions, somebody will benefit by it, but I'll stick with the regimine above--why? Because over all the years I've been working in treatment that combination seems to be the most successful. About every five years or so another "new and exciting"  advance is made--only to bite the dust  after a year or so--we'll see what happens in this case, but so far I see as yet another in a long series of super detoxes which get discredited over the long  run.  Time will tell.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on May 29, 2007, 02:55:41 AM
Tjaxon:

I don't know how the government ever came to the conclusion you cite, but I disagree with it.  I'd have to see the actual study to properly comment on it -- but on the face of it, I disagree with the conclusion.Most marijuana abusers I've met insist they don't abuse it, but they realy do.

I also believe, like you, that we need an alternative to the War on Drugs--I'm just saying I have no alternative, but reject legalization. 

These are just opinions I hold--no proofs, no studies to back them up--just opinions.

I work in treatment. I've been in the field for 27 years and helped in the treatment of thousands of addicts and abusers. I pointed out above the most effective sequence to get a person better is a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment along with regular AA/NA attendance. AA/NA are the single most successful modalities to wellness, bar none.

Many of these people don't seek to be cured.  They would prefer it to be legal.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 29, 2007, 05:33:13 AM
You are so right....they choose to use and, of course, would prefer marijuana to be legal. Any user, addicted or not, would prefer legalization. It makes it easier, less threatening , to use---it also takes feelings of guilt, if they have any such feelings, away. They wouldn't have to  "sneak"  around or fear arrrest. I can't blame them---but I don't support them either.

There are other reasons for legalization, but I happen to disagree with the concept in general.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 05:44:18 AM
I have no documentation for this, but I think a lou t of the problem comes from a societal acceptance of casual use of drugs (recreational use if you will) as we see in the movies and television programs.  Even phrases like "whatever turns you on" relates to the use of drugs.  It is like the old expression "Do as I say, not as I do."


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 29, 2007, 08:03:21 AM
Tjaxon:

I don't know how the government ever came to the conclusion you cite, but I disagree with it.  I'd have to see the actual study to properly comment on it -- but on the face of it, I disagree with the conclusion.Most marijuana abusers I've met insist they don't abuse it, but they realy do.


Bob, I'm looking forward to this discussion, but it will be delayed, as I start a new job today. Let me say that my statistics came from the Dept. of Justice. Of course, most mj abusers you've met insist they don't abuse it, but you must consider the environment that you meet them under, due to your profession.

Do you not believe that it is possible to use mj, or any other drug, without abusing it? Does use always equate with abuse?

Please take some time to review the LEAP website, and let me know what you think of it.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 29, 2007, 08:43:30 AM

The Drug is not the problem, the person is.But I'll be damned, legalization will do nothing to solve the problem of abuse and dependence.

My main point though is the War on Drugs is a consummate failure, but legalization is not the solution. I have no idea what the solution is.

Legalization may not be the solution to the problem of abuse and dependence but we know that the DRUG WAR is definitely not a solution. Plain vanilla criminalization of scheduled substances won't solve individual problems of abuse and dependence either. Pretty much leaves us with the notion of social acceptance. Why is it acceptable to see someone sitting on a bar stool, but not so acceptable to imagine somebody tokin' away on their couch? Or alongside the bar-stooler, for that matter?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 01:51:49 PM

The Drug is not the problem, the person is.But I'll be damned, legalization will do nothing to solve the problem of abuse and dependence.

My main point though is the War on Drugs is a consummate failure, but legalization is not the solution. I have no idea what the solution is.

Legalization may not be the solution to the problem of abuse and dependence but we know that the DRUG WAR is definitely not a solution. Plain vanilla criminalization of scheduled substances won't solve individual problems of abuse and dependence either. Pretty much leaves us with the notion of social acceptance. Why is it acceptable to see someone sitting on a bar stool, but not so acceptable to imagine somebody tokin' away on their couch? Or alongside the bar-stooler, for that matter?

I do get confused at times:  if a substance is illegal to use, then is any use abuse?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: chauncey.g on May 29, 2007, 02:25:24 PM
Let's back up a bit. What (we already know who) determines the legality of a substance?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 29, 2007, 07:29:36 PM
WoW!!! I really didn't think my posts would generate the replies they have. I'll try to keep my answers short and simple. I thought I'd just post once or twice, but it's going on a few days. So,here goes:

The law determines the legality of a substance. I know that sounds snotty, but its really very simple. The substance isn't illegal, its possession and use without a prescription, or its possession or use per se is illegal? Why? For many reasons ranging from public opinion to the need to protect the idividual by keeping certain substances under the control of the physician. You can write entire books on why certain substances are OK and others are not, so I'm not going any further than this on that subject. Public policy dictates a lot.


Why is it legal to sit on a bar stool and not to blow  joint? Public policy, pure and simple. Read a good history of the development of such policies. I find them very subjective at times and very practical at other times.

What constitutes abuse? God....that's the question of the day. That also can be very subjective. Simply because somebody uses a drug without a prescription or uses a substances, the possession of which is per se illegal, does not in my mind constitute abuse. In my, in order to determine whether abuse is present, I use DSM IV guidelines.  (I'll link to them later). So to me a person can blow a joint without being an abuser, he may need to answer to the law, but thats not my business. A person can use alcohol without abusing it. However, experience tells me that there are certain substances whose qualities or nature lead to "trouble" very quickly in a given population. The field I work in is very interesting and there's a need to keep a very open mind regarding what constitutes abuse or dependence. So I hesitate to generalize. Exceptions abound. So I make judgements on an individual basis....that is, I interview people, in depth, over maybe an hour and in a very conversational manner before I conclude one way or the other. Even then, in my place of employment there are two others making the same diagnostic decisions--so my conclusion is subject to review and to be overridden. Protection of the patient comes first. There's a need to be very careful before concluding an individual may be an abuser or be dependent on alcohol or a drug.


Just because the Dept of Justice comes to a conclusion doesn't make it so. Just read a good history of the Department....


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 29, 2007, 07:44:21 PM
http://allpsych.com/disorders/substance/index.html

Link to DSM IV critera. For those of you unfamiliar with the text, there are specific critera for specific drug classifications based on the general critera listed inthis link. Here you can see the difference between abuse and dependence. Generally, a person is not considered addicted until he meets requirements for dependence.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 29, 2007, 08:55:26 PM
The law determines the legality of a substance. I know that sounds snotty, but its really very simple. The substance isn't illegal, its possession and use without a prescription, or its possession or use per se is illegal? Why? For many reasons ranging from public opinion to the need to protect the idividual by keeping certain substances under the control of the physician. You can write entire books on why certain substances are OK and others are not, so I'm not going any further than this on that subject. Public policy dictates a lot.


Why is it legal to sit on a bar stool and not to blow  joint? Public policy, pure and simple. Read a good history of the development of such policies. I find them very subjective at times and very practical at other times.

Bob, I appreciate your input and opinions. Most of what you say, I agree with, though there are a few points that do bother me.

I am a believer in law - as long as the law is Constitutional, sensible, and achieves the proper effect. I see little sense, and little reasonable benefit to most drug laws currently on the book. (The Constitutional issues I'll leave aside). Current drug laws do nothing to limit drug abuse, and in fact make matters worse for most addicts/abusers. That just doesn't make sense to me, and is certainly not effective. I see abuse/addiction as a medical issue, one better treated by medical personnel than by law enforcement. Currently, it is much easier to get arrested than to get treatment - that sure doesn't seem effective. Public policy also is not a good rationale for continuing the WOD, but it is hard to discuss that without getting into the Constitutional issues.

Quote
What constitutes abuse? God....that's the question of the day. That also can be very subjective. Simply because somebody uses a drug without a prescription or uses a substances, the possession of which is per se illegal, does not in my mind constitute abuse. In my, in order to determine whether abuse is present, I use DSM IV guidelines.  (I'll link to them later). So to me a person can blow a joint without being an abuser, he may need to answer to the law, but thats not my business. A person can use alcohol without abusing it.

Again, we are pretty much on the same page here, and I like your way of using the DSM IV guidelines to make determinations about your patients. I just don't understand why that if one does not fall into the abuse/dependence/addiction parameters, making it none of your business, why it should be the business of law enforcement or the public?

I think too much is emphasis is placed on drugs as a primary factor of abuse/addiction.  I see no difference between one who abuses drugs or one who abuses alcohol, sex, food, religion etc.  I think in most cases, one who is by nature subject to abusive behaviors will find something to abuse, transferring and/or substituting between one self-destructive behavior or another until the issues that cause those tendencies are dealt with, or in the case of genetic predispositions, one is retrained to deal with them in more productive ways. Criminalizing them does nothing to help them, and much to harm them.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 30, 2007, 05:39:56 AM
Its the business of the law because of public policy. I can't put it any other way. Never forget that  people judge people based on their behaviors. Think about that....then think about what happens to behaviors when a persons auses drugs to excess. In many instances the behaviors, not the usage per se, but the behaviors associated with the usage lead either to arrest or treatment. That's a fact of life.

As to alcohol--it IS a drug. The other manifestations you list are classified in psychiatry as compulsive disorders--the treatment of which is different from the treatment for addiction. They are just as serious as any other disorders. All addcts are compulsive, but not all compulsives are addicted. There's an overlap. But I see your point.

We can discuss public policy and constitutionality until the cows come home, but reality is reality. I respect those like yourself who work to change public policy and bring up Constitutional issues and I'll never  attempt to change or otherwise alter your beliefs, but I'm getting old and addled--I'll stick to treatment and let someone else work on change. I did my bit in the 60's with Civil Rights and opposition to Vietnam.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on May 30, 2007, 07:59:51 AM
Bob, I can't help but like the way you think for the most part. I suspect that our major disagreement would be the degree to which public opinion should affect law, and less with the effectiveness of current policies.

Frankly, I don't envy you your career choice. I've spent the last 7 months trying to help my youngest with her meth addiction, and can't imagine what it would be like dealing with those issues for a living. I'd go nuts.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on May 30, 2007, 06:44:39 PM
I am a little nuts....I'm convinced after years of doing what I do that a perfectly "normal" person can't do it. Every time we hire somebody it takes just days to find out if they "fit."  "Normals"  generally start with the best of intentions and freak out rather quickly. Those who have what can be called "different" or downright "extraordinary" lives  seem to fit in, to understand better, function better in highly extraordinary situations. There's lid for  every pot. I think I'd be bored silly in a normal job. I like working under conditions which change  by the hour, where no schedule stays intact and where  I have to be aware that things can break down at any given time. I also have to be aware that I can a ring a bell now and again which alerts a patient that its time to get well--and they do....
So there's a reward for the negative, which far outweighs it. There's nothing like witnessing a persons epiphany and then crossing your fingers and waiting to see if its real.

Anyhow---I don't think we disagree much on the law...we probably agree more than we disagree even on that point. Law, off the top of my head, is the product of the society we live in. Remember what Bismark said: that there are two things you never want to see, the making of law and the making of sausages? What ingredients go into lawmaking should sometimes not be examined, lest we lose all faith in the system. Laws are made by people exercising their judgement, based on their belief sytem and taking into cognizance the wants and needs of society as they perceive them. Put 435 of these guys and gals into the same room and what comes out of their deliberations is sometimes very profound and enlightening and other times deeply disturbing. I agree with Bismark---but then again, if you want to change the law, you must first convince others the present law needs to or should  be changed. In my mind it is easier to do this through pulling people toward the change than pushing them toward it. Attraction works more effectively. Don't tell pepole why they are wrong in supporting an existing law, rather convice them (pull them) toward changing  the law for positive reasons. If I push against something, I get resistance. If I pull, its much easier. Ever try pushing a Mule? So with the drugs laws, when people ar told how wrong the law is you are really calling them stupid in a sense for supporting that law. Convince them how much better it might be  if we could make progress and change the law for positive reasons.

I sit sometimes with law enforcement and explain to them why I prefer not to send marijuana users to rehabilitation units. I see more and more nods of the head as years go by as they gain more and more understanding. I don't disparage the law, I explain the different effects different drugs have on people. In the end some of them see how, in reality, marijuana doesn't seem to be ogre they thought it was.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 01, 2007, 12:21:22 AM
Quote
I'd support any move to deal with addiction as a medical/public health issue. 

But it is being treated as a a medical;/public health issue---thats what I've been doing for 27 years along with thousands of others. There are other legitimate aspecs involved, for instance--the legal and moral issues, psychiatric and psychological aspects.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 01, 2007, 12:23:07 AM
Wider perspective?---In what way?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on June 01, 2007, 07:27:55 AM
Quote
I'd support any move to deal with addiction as a medical/public health issue. 

But it is being treated as a a medical;/public health issue---thats what I've been doing for 27 years along with thousands of others. There are other legitimate aspecs involved, for instance--the legal and moral issues, psychiatric and psychological aspects.


Yes, Bob, but you and your profession deal with just a fraction of those who need your services. The majority of those who need your services are waiting in line for an opening (unless they are like the Hiltons and Lohans who can afford immediate service). Many get entangled in the judicial system before they can get help, many others resist getting help for fear of the legal system. It is true that some would never even ask for help were they not court ordered, but it seems to me that if some of the resources spent on incarceration and interdiction were rerouted into treatment and education, we would be much more effective dealing with the issues.

I wonder how many are taking up space in rehab due to being court ordered that really don't need to be there, or are not yet ready for rehab?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on June 01, 2007, 01:27:44 PM
I wonder how many are taking up space in rehab due to being court ordered that really don't need to be there, or are not yet ready for rehab?

Exactly.  I was in this spot myself 10 years ago.  Can't say I was ready for rehab.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 06:09:40 PM
It is easier to punish than to solve problems, though it generally costs more.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 01, 2007, 07:43:32 PM
tjaxon

What you say is true. I believe many more are waiting to get in rehabs than we think. I don't know the statistic.  We all sort have our nitch. We can reach beyond and either succeeed or fail, but basically we all perform a given function or functions. Whatever we do its constricting by necessity--there's only so much a person can do in eight or ten hours  in any given day.

Let me clarify my job lest you get the wrong impression. I don't work in a rehab. I work in a psychiatric hospital on a dual diagnosis unit which has 20 beds. It is, of course, usually filled. The complexion of the unit varies, but right now we have 2 patients with fresh gunshot wounds to their head. One of these patients had the bullet come through her  right eye socket, narrowly missing the eye itself. Neither of these patients are one bit motivated to get well. 4 other patients face current court dates with rather serious  charges pending. That's the fire under their ass--2 of them want rehabs. I'll help them do that. The other two just want to impress a judge---manipulators and they readily admit it. These four came in suicidal. Three others  came under involutary circumstances for violent behaviors which threated either the public safety or the safety of their families--all drug related. One other came in psychotic--drug induced--and is still totally out of his mind after 4 days.  And so it goes on....That gives you a picture of the unit. Anyone I can induce or inspire to get better or to go to a rehab to get help, I will go out of my way to help. There ain't a hellava lot of motivation in spite of the carnage and circumstances in their lives....I've gotten used to that part over the years.

My point, I suppose  is this: Rehabs for the most part have residents who want to be there for whatever reason. They are voluntary---not that that can't be manipulated--I'm not that naive. But in my place, there's a continuing grand effort to get out!!! Not to stay in!!! We do a lot of motivational work. And we see a lot of death.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 01, 2007, 08:03:56 PM
Here's one thing I find fascinating. The belief that its hard to get into a rehab...I call rehabs daily. As often as not the waiting period is less than a week and as often as not, within a day or so...Now, I don't work either in or around a major city. That's where the problem may lie--but where I'm at, in an area of , say, 100,000 spread over a wide geographic area, rehab conditions and halfway house conditions aren't really that bad.

The problem with treatment today is its shortness. The old 28 day programs are disappearing as managed care private insurance companies and magnaged care  medicaid cut down on the number of days they'll pay. Case Manage units are still holding out, but their funds are limited by state appropriations and are not available to those who hold private insurance or to thoswe under the new managed care medicade programs. Average lengths of stay have shrunk to 14 days, to 21 if your lucky. And no new Rehabs are emerging when older rehabs collapse---

As to celebrities----moey really does talk--in fact it screams, as does notariety. Notariety brings business....Paris Hilton might yield tens of thousands of dollars in business. I'd give her a freeby. It would allow me to use the money generated to help a few poor bastards who couldn't get help otherwise.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 02:44:01 PM
tjaxon re:#61
"I see abuse/addiction as a medical issue..."

and Bob, whom I hope won't regard me as flippant for what I am about to say.

It has become more than ever a medical issue when today it originates at the doctor's office( of course, by the visits from pharmaceutical reps). Maybe it will eventually be resolved, for now it seems almost every other week that  a columnist or editor over at the nytimes.com is catching on and doing an article or an editorial on the political nature of this transaction.

When I first mentioned this phenomena, about four years ago, to a poster who was the book keeper/accountant at an un-named Swiss company in the business, the poster was quite commiserating and shocked that this was happening -- here, in the US, in fact, the poster was stunned about some so easily handed over prescriptions for real killers as long as medical insurance or Medicare paid for it. Perhaps, I should have stated that in reverse? --as long as medical insurance or Medicare paid for it, prescriptions for real killers are so easily handed over to the unsuspecting in a process of elimination.  It takes awhile before anyone apparently notices the particular percentage of the population that has gone missing from prescribed medications too readily judged usefull  by a physician with an already altered standard of judgment.

So that, in that sense, abuse and addiction certainly is a medical issue where it is considered normal for a physician to become readily and overly addicted to perqs. They are motivated by what their financially successful peers in other professions attain. What's the harm in that?

Well, apparently it is removing the possibility of medical care out of the range of more and more people, while merely killing a percentage not personally missed by the profession anyway.

I have no grounds that would prove it became a more widespread factor throughout the profession, when psychiatric medicine had made the change to pharmaceutical treatment as a quicker results oriented outcome than an analytic therapy; but then I would have to look further outside of the profession itself and at the corporate-political purposes that might be behind the misuse of drugs. Could that be what they mean by,"the war on drugs"; or, rather what they meant when that was the overused polemic, although one still does here the use of the connection made between Afghani poppy fields and the war on terror? But, pardon me, but that sounds awfully familiar, I seem to have heard that  rationale before.  Today, the connection is made that (not,"terrorists"but...) specific national groups in the Middle East, or specific religious factions "obtain their money to buy  supplies and their cache of weapons, by selling drugs"; and we've been going along with that motto, while overlooking that we seem to be operating on the same supply chain in regard to all the specifics that have to change hands.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 02, 2007, 05:56:05 PM
God!!! Don't get me started on doctors prostituting themselves to drug companies. I see it everyday. To me its outright bribery. They pay off the physician to push the drug. That's how Oxycontin got out of hand. There's abook out, the title of which I can't recall, which details how  the manufacturer pushed Oxycontin in a small or mid-sized city in Kentucky, I think. It details the spread of  addiction to the drug throughout the area. Of course no one took responsibility. But thats what happens. It goes on every day. I know a doctor who went to Greece, compliments of a drug company because of the many presentations he gave for their products (at $500 a pop) and because he was the largest dispensor of the particular drug in Northeast Pennsylvania. There are lunches and dinners almost on a daily basis at times for Hospital staffs--entire staffs!!! These are not cheap charlie affairs, they're at fancy eateries. Pens, paperweights, computer mouses, magic markers, all sorts od do-dads are given away with the company logos on them. You could furnish the top of a desk with their stuff....Drug companies spend as much on Public Relations pushing heirdrugs as they do on research and development.

And here's the best of all--they do their own research--which, of course, always ends up glorifying their product. Why do doctors believe the research of the drug companies when the drug companies have a stake in the results of the research? The typical major drug takes ten years and 125 million dollars to produce. Do you really think the reasearch is going to  indicate its a killer?  Look at the last year--look at the huge fine just paid by the manufacturer of Oxycontin when they admitted that they lied about how addictive the drug was....THEY LIED and Admitted it---They killed people with their lie--but nobody went to jail. I complained about Oxycontin within seeing the first ten cases of addiction which we treated. They blew me off...Now there are hundreds of addicts dead.

ENOUGH!!! I can contiunue all night long.

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/health/03docs.html?hp


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 02, 2007, 06:03:18 PM
And here's another one. Once again its about lying to physicians and the public about how dangerous  a diabetes drug is. As a result people have died of heart attacks unecessarily. I call that murder.  Before the problems  about this drug were revealed another similar drug was taken off the market because it caused liver damage. And they knew that too. I want the Department of Justice to start sending Drug executives and researchers and writers to jail for knowingly contributing to the death of human beings...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/business/02drug.html


Title: Tamiflu
Post by: Dzimas on June 06, 2007, 01:09:09 AM
The drug companies are doing the same in Eastern Europe, especially with less strict laws governing test results.  But what gets me is when WHO announces one of its scares, like the repeated bird flu scare and then mentions Tamiflu by name.  I wish I had bought stock in the company at the time.  Everyone was going out buying Tamiflu.  None was available.  Bird flu didn't turn out to be anywhere near as virulent as WHO claim, but Tamiflu must have made a fortune off that one.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 04:28:17 PM
Whatever happened to bird flu?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 07, 2007, 08:27:58 AM
It's in North Vietnam, where it has killed 42 out of 95 victims. H5N1 virus has killed 189 out of 310 victims so far....it seems to moving from East to west, which is the general pattern of flus in the past....they move ever so slowly.

Did you know that almost all flus come from chickens and most of them originate in or around China? remember the Hong Kong Flu way way back?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 08:33:06 AM
With numbers like that, its virulence isn't in question, but the spread of it.  We have repeatedly received warnings from the US Embassy here in Vilnius, also mentioning Tamiflu by name.  There have been some bird flu cases noted in Turkey and Central Asia, but as far as I know none in Europe proper yet.  So many other things to worry about, such as the incredible death toll of malaria each year, not to mention other flu strains which no longer get much mention.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 01:01:02 PM
With numbers like that, its virulence isn't in question, but the spread of it.  We have repeatedly received warnings from the US Embassy here in Vilnius, also mentioning Tamiflu by name.  There have been some bird flu cases noted in Turkey and Central Asia, but as far as I know none in Europe proper yet.  So many other things to worry about, such as the incredible death toll of malaria each year, not to mention other flu strains which no longer get much mention.

Do you have malaria in your country?  I always think of malaria being in the tropics.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Dzimas on June 07, 2007, 03:10:15 PM
I was referring to the numbers who die yearly as a result of malaria, not that it poses a threat to Europe, except for those Europeans who choose to travel in the tropics.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 07, 2007, 06:32:21 PM
OK.  That makes sense.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 08, 2007, 07:56:56 PM
Poor Paris....Poor, Poor Paris!!!! :'(   I( suggest the timing of her release has more to do with withdrawal than with any other "medical" problem.....The 72 hour hurdle takes a better man than she to overcome :D


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 11:07:39 AM
Poor Paris....Poor, Poor Paris!!!! :'(   I( suggest the timing of her release has more to do with withdrawal than with any other "medical" problem.....The 72 hour hurdle takes a better man than she to overcome :D

Do you think Bush's calling in sick had anything to do with his drug problems?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Bob on June 09, 2007, 08:35:55 PM
 ;D No Comment!!!!

His problems go beyond drugs---perhaps a drug might clear his mind...maybe thats what he needs.....But, then again, ya can't medicate a personality disorder (and there ain't nothin' worse than a personality disorder on drugs).

As to the other one....she's a walking spoiled brat, probably a borderline personality disorder who is using drugs...and when she couldn't get any of her "stuff"  went hysterical and manipulated her way out of jail. When the crap flew she lost control of the situation and that's where all the tears came from. Just look at the performace in Court--the plea for help went to her mother--she's never grown up. She's about 5 or so. As long as she gets her way she's fine--when she doesn't she loses it.

By the way, you don't call a psychiatrist  in for "medical" problems--but you do for problems associated with an inability to cope with stress, for anxiety for instance====perhaps 5mg of Valium q 4hrs might do the trick (and perhaps that might have been what she was withdrawing from in the first place).


Another hint: Borderlines "split" people around them, causing  massive disagreements regarding their behaviors. In the hospital we sometimes judge the severity of a borderline's condition by the amount of time spent discussing their situation and arguing whether the particular patient has been wronged. She sure meets that criteria


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 10, 2007, 07:31:54 AM
;D No Comment!!!!

His problems go beyond drugs---perhaps a drug might clear his mind...maybe thats what he needs.....But, then again, ya can't medicate a personality disorder (and there ain't nothin' worse than a personality disorder on drugs).

As to the other one....she's a walking spoiled brat, probably a borderline personality disorder who is using drugs...and when she couldn't get any of her "stuff"  went hysterical and manipulated her way out of jail. When the crap flew she lost control of the situation and that's where all the tears came from. Just look at the performace in Court--the plea for help went to her mother--she's never grown up. She's about 5 or so. As long as she gets her way she's fine--when she doesn't she loses it.

By the way, you don't call a psychiatrist  in for "medical" problems--but you do for problems associated with an inability to cope with stress, for anxiety for instance====perhaps 5mg of Valium q 4hrs might do the trick (and perhaps that might have been what she was withdrawing from in the first place).


Another hint: Borderlines "split" people around them, causing  massive disagreements regarding their behaviors. In the hospital we sometimes judge the severity of a borderline's condition by the amount of time spent discussing their situation and arguing whether the particular patient has been wronged. She sure meets that criteria


IMHO, they are both spoiled brats and both losers.


Title: Influenza
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 06:50:09 AM
In regard to bird flu, more persons die each year as a result of the garden varieties of influenza than they do bird flu,

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm

63,000 is a staggering number for the US alone (2001 figures).  Whereas, the figures for bird flu worldwide are over 100,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/21/health/main1428489.shtml

which makes me wonder why so much copy is given to bird flu, and so little to influenza in general. 


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: tjaxon on June 11, 2007, 08:38:52 PM
which makes me wonder why so much copy is given to bird flu, and so little to influenza in general. 

One of my drivers went home sick today with bird flu. I think he got it from Wild Turkey.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 16, 2007, 02:56:00 PM
Reefer is by far the best drug.


Title: Rolling Stoned
Post by: Kam on June 16, 2007, 03:34:10 PM
I know this girl ... smoke cigarettes til the day she died

DETECTIVE WINSLOW - I suggest you puff a big spliff of some good sensimilla

And watch this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfk3kqngHCk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfk3kqngHCk)





Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Detective_Winslow on June 16, 2007, 03:52:04 PM
Classic!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 23, 2007, 02:45:18 PM
Yawn.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on June 23, 2007, 05:10:42 PM
Quote
Yawn


Tired? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaeopola8eA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaeopola8eA)

You need a fix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvV76jDZFyk&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvV76jDZFyk&mode=related&search=)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 24, 2007, 07:06:21 AM
Actually, I was yawning at DW.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on June 25, 2007, 11:17:00 AM
Cuz when theres trouble you
call D W



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: samiinh on June 29, 2007, 09:07:17 AM
Cuz when theres trouble you
call D W



I thought it was, called G W


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Kam on August 16, 2007, 07:25:48 PM
Reefer is by far the best drug.

(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.mediadupes.com/images/uploads/reefer-madness.jpg&usg=AFQjCNG-IhJ0p7tiUuW1OkhnQH-pT789Bg)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: playa on August 18, 2007, 10:08:48 AM
http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm about 13 min


http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm
It is not drugs but rather drug laws that have made drug dealing profitable. Drug laws have also fostered drug-related murders and an estimated 40 percent of all property crime in the U.S. Ethan A. Nadelmann, whose article "Drug Prohibition in the United States" in the September 1, 1989, issue of Science has been a major catalyst for public discussion of legalization, argues that "the greatest beneficiaries of the drug laws are organized and unorganized drug traffickers. The criminalization of the drug market effectively imposes a de facto value-added tax that is enforced and occasionally augmented by the law enforcement establishment and collected by the drug traffickers." Rather than collecting taxes on the sale of drugs, governments at all levels expend billions of dollars in what amounts to a subsidy of organized criminals.

The war on drugs creates casualties beyond those arrested. There are those killed in fights over turf, innocents caught in cross fire, citizens terrified of city streets, escalating robberies, children fed free crack to get them addicted and then enlisted as runners and dealers, mothers so crazed for a fix that they abandon their babies, prostitute themselves and their daughters, and addict their unborn. Much of that, too, is the result of the drug laws. Cocaine, after all, has been around a long time and was once sold over the counter in tablet form and consumed in Coca-Cola. What makes it so irresistible today is its lucrativeness. And it is lucrative only because it is illegal.

The media usually portray cocaine and crack use as a black ghetto phenomenon. This is a racist caricature. The New York Times reported on October 1, 1989, that there are more crack addicts among the white middle and upper class than any other segment of the population and far more such occasional cocaine users. The typical user is a single white male 20 to 40 years old who generally obtains his drugs from black dealers. The white demand makes the drugs flow. Americans consume 60 percent of the world?s illegal drugs -- too profitable a market for dealers to ignore.



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Donotremove on August 18, 2007, 01:07:20 PM
Playa.  Exactly.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 04, 2007, 12:30:24 PM
Word, and Ron Paul is the only candidate I've heard that's even identifying the War on Drugs as an issue.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on November 05, 2007, 10:15:52 AM
Just can't put our trust in the Food and Drug Admin.

Better living thru orgasm.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/11/03/50_years_after_his_death_supporters_promote_scientists_work/

RANGELEY, Maine --It was 50 years ago that physician-scientist Wilhelm Reich, best known for his discovery of a purported cosmic life force associated with sexual orgasm, died in federal prison, his books burned and his equipment destroyed by the government.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: thecap0 on November 11, 2007, 07:51:36 PM
Here in Denver, our mayor made his name and his fortune by being a brewer and tavern keeper.

I cannot understand the cognitive dissonance involved in his opposition to decriminalizing marijuana.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: weezo on November 11, 2007, 08:01:12 PM
Cap, in one word -
competition!


Title: This is a drug forum, right?
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 21, 2007, 02:50:50 AM
G-13:




(http://www.tokacola.com/cannabis-seeds/doggies-nuts-cannabis-seeds/images-large/g13.jpg)




wow!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on December 04, 2007, 03:09:53 AM
http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/allport/allport21.html

To those strongly concerned about the dangers (physical, moral, or other) of  drugs, I say: Please express your concern in a civilized fashion. Supporting the violence and coercion of prohibition is no more civilized than supporting initiated violence and coercion in any other part of life. The violence and coercion of prohibition are far more dangerous – and not only to our health – than the drugs that prohibition is supposedly saving us from.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: josh on December 31, 2007, 09:45:44 PM
About 3 weeks ago, Roberto expressed the opinion that alcohol is not addictive. He also noted that there is no cost to society in keeping drugs illegal. Roberto said he would do some research into what I'd said and discuss it with me in here, so I figured to get the ball rolling.


I was wondering what the folks in here think about it.

Is alcohol addictive? (Have any links that you would recommend?)

Is there a social cost to keeping drugs illegal? How would that be determined?


Title: Are Drugs and Alcohol a Disease ?
Post by: playa on January 01, 2008, 02:24:42 PM
If drugs and alcohol are a disease, is the only one that can bought and sold.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only  disease  that provokes crime.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only one without a germ or virus.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease, it's the only one that needs your consent.

I believe it's a spiritual problem that needs a catergory  to be understood.





Title: Re: Are Drugs and Alcohol a Disease ?
Post by: josh on January 01, 2008, 03:14:20 PM
If drugs and alcohol are a disease, is the only one that can bought and sold.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only  disease  that provokes crime.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only one without a germ or virus.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease, it's the only one that needs your consent.

I believe it's a spiritual problem that needs a catergory  to be understood.

There are diseases that provoke crime and which require your consent to acquire, and certainly that don't require a germ or virus. This does not mean that you are mistaken about there being a spiritual component.

However, the piece that your description misses is that alcohol and drugs are not diseases.

Addiction is the disease.


Title: Re: Are Drugs and Alcohol a Disease ?
Post by: playa on January 01, 2008, 03:40:43 PM
If drugs and alcohol are a disease, is the only one that can bought and sold.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only  disease  that provokes crime.

If alcohol and drugs are a disease, it's the only one without a germ or virus.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease, it's the only one that needs your consent.

I believe it's a spiritual problem that needs a catergory  to be understood.

There are diseases that provoke crime and which require your consent to acquire, and certainly that don't require a germ or virus. This does not mean that you are mistaken about there being a spiritual component.

However, the piece that your description misses is that alcohol and drugs are not diseases.

Addiction is the disease.

My point was many called drugs and alcohol diseases because they don't have any idea on what catergory to put it in.

So to help patients understand, they refer alcohol and drugs as a disease.

I taught spirtuality classes and saw many come clean and stay clean after their 90 day stay.

Many came to realize it was a spiritual problem  that they had and not a disease.

Many were told they had this addiction disease and would always have it for life.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: weezo on January 01, 2008, 05:20:50 PM
Out of sheer curiousity, what is the germ or virus that causes Bipolar Depression, a mental "disease" which can be mitigated by the correct cocktail of drugs?

Yes, I know that folks have maintained their were "spiritual" cures for depression and other mental illnesses, but I have never, ever, heard someone claim that schizophrenia was ever cured spiritually. Depression, like addiction, can go away on its own without obvious treatment, or can require contant treatments for lengthy periods of time.



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: playa on January 01, 2008, 05:45:33 PM
I beg to differ I have heard of many who have committed themself to God and those mental illnesses have deceased.

You would probaly call them miracles, but there are places where troubled people go and leave changed for life . http://www.freedomvillageusa.com/ (http://www.freedomvillageusa.com/)

listen to the program at (9:30 pm night mon-fri )http://wdcxfm.com/ (http://wdcxfm.com/)

Just click on listenlive at9:30 pm  tonight or every day morning at 6:15 am or 11:30 am.

PEACE

I'm talking schizophrenia, bipolar, people  that were on many meds that they took daily.



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: weezo on January 01, 2008, 08:30:07 PM
Playa,

During my life, I have sometimes found myself too much "in the know" about the frauds perpetrated by religious "leaders". Just because some guy on tv says some number were "cured", does not mean it actually happened, and that the doctor treating them agree that the illness is completely cured. And, it would not mean that the illness was not in a natural "remission" and will pop up again in the future. And, I would not accept as evidence an illness that went away, and "came bacK when the person fell out of grace." That would just indicate a typical remission that is common in mental illnesses.







Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: josh on January 01, 2008, 09:01:30 PM
Playa,

During my life, I have sometimes found myself too much "in the know" about the frauds perpetrated by religious "leaders". Just because some guy on tv says some number were "cured", does not mean it actually happened, and that the doctor treating them agree that the illness is completely cured. And, it would not mean that the illness was not in a natural "remission" and will pop up again in the future. And, I would not accept as evidence an illness that went away, and "came bacK when the person fell out of grace." That would just indicate a typical remission that is common in mental illnesses.

Conversely, while my sentiments echo yours on the fraud end, my examination of the placebo effect and other results of faith, even without the divine element, prevent me from simply assuming all such results are false. In particular, the morphine experiments in India were striking.

But Playa, in the process of making your point, I think you have made mine. Faith-based healing has taken place around substance abuse, but it has as surely been involved in healing for cancer, infection, and many many others. Given that, how then are you distinguishing addiction from these other diseases?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: jbottle on January 01, 2008, 09:20:02 PM
Every schizo knows that a tinfoil hat is a good "kitchen remedy" for what ails ya.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: jbottle on January 05, 2008, 03:16:58 AM
In general, does you think that "drugs" is "catching on"??


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on January 25, 2008, 05:27:52 PM
In general, does you think that "drugs" is "catching on"??

Caught a ride with some Salvia the other day for the first time. Lawdy! Be careful, kiddies.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on February 04, 2008, 05:37:02 AM
Just stick with what works....



(http://www.advancednutrientsmedical.ca/budoftheweekpics/VBS_BlackberryXWhiteWidow.jpg)




 :o


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: MrUtley3 on February 10, 2008, 07:56:13 PM
About 3 weeks ago, Roberto expressed the opinion that alcohol is not addictive. He also noted that there is no cost to society in keeping drugs illegal. Roberto said he would do some research into what I'd said and discuss it with me in here, so I figured to get the ball rolling.


I was wondering what the folks in here think about it.

Is alcohol addictive? (Have any links that you would recommend?)

Is there a social cost to keeping drugs illegal? How would that be determined?


Wait. roberto said something and then failed to back it up with anything? How is this news??


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: playa on February 11, 2008, 06:23:42 AM
Out of sheer curiousity, what is the germ or virus that causes Bipolar Depression, a mental "disease" which can be mitigated by the correct cocktail of drugs?

Yes, I know that folks have maintained their were "spiritual" cures for depression and other mental illnesses, but I have never, ever, heard someone claim that schizophrenia was ever cured spiritually. Depression, like addiction, can go away on its own without obvious treatment, or can require contant treatments for lengthy periods of time.



If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only one contacted by an act of your will.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease that's habit forming.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease spread thru advertising.

My point was if you go to a rehab center this is what catergorythey put drugs and alcohol addiction in.'

I'm talking drugs and alcohol. ;)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: josh on February 11, 2008, 08:02:14 AM
Out of sheer curiousity, what is the germ or virus that causes Bipolar Depression, a mental "disease" which can be mitigated by the correct cocktail of drugs?

Yes, I know that folks have maintained their were "spiritual" cures for depression and other mental illnesses, but I have never, ever, heard someone claim that schizophrenia was ever cured spiritually. Depression, like addiction, can go away on its own without obvious treatment, or can require contant treatments for lengthy periods of time.



If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only one contacted by an act of your will.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease that's habit forming.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease spread thru advertising.

My point was if you go to a rehab center this is what catergorythey put drugs and alcohol addiction in.'

I'm talking drugs and alcohol. ;)

You are redundant.

And, to reiterate, addiction is the disease.

And gambling can also be addictive, is also encouraged (but not spread) by advertising, and is also contracted by an act of one's will.

Sexually transmitted diseases are also encouraged by advertising and are contracted by an act of one's will.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: playa on February 11, 2008, 09:04:23 AM
Out of sheer curiousity, what is the germ or virus that causes Bipolar Depression, a mental "disease" which can be mitigated by the correct cocktail of drugs?

Yes, I know that folks have maintained their were "spiritual" cures for depression and other mental illnesses, but I have never, ever, heard someone claim that schizophrenia was ever cured spiritually. Depression, like addiction, can go away on its own without obvious treatment, or can require contant treatments for lengthy periods of time.



If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only one contacted by an act of your will.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease that's habit forming.

If drugs and alcohol are a disease it's the only disease spread thru advertising.

My point was if you go to a rehab center this is what catergorythey put drugs and alcohol addiction in.'

I'm talking drugs and alcohol. ;)

You are redundant.

And, to reiterate, addiction is the disease.

And gambling can also be addictive, is also encouraged (but not spread) by advertising, and is also contracted by an act of one's will.

Sexually transmitted diseases are also encouraged by advertising and are contracted by an act of one's will.

You are not comprehending the thread, we are talking about drugs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: josh on February 11, 2008, 12:22:17 PM
it's the only disease

No it isn't
[/quote]

You are not comprehending the thread, we are talking about drugs.
[/quote]

I get the thread - But overstatements are still overstatements. And misstatements are still misstatements.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: playa on February 11, 2008, 01:39:51 PM

You are not comprehending the thread, we are talking about drugs.
[/quote]

I get the thread - But overstatements are still overstatements. And misstatements are still misstatements.
[/quote]

Ok Josh you are correct on the overstatements.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: josh on February 11, 2008, 01:53:37 PM
I know people who have become addicted to the medications that they were being given by their physicians.

They still have the addiction, even though they are not criminal, were not seeking illicit pleasures, etc. It was not advertising that caught them. It was not an act of will.

The disease of addiction is still there.

The spiritual approach has worked for some people. It does not work for all.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 04, 2008, 05:20:13 PM
This drug war has got to be stopped now. Sick.

http://reason.com/blog/show/125297.html


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 04, 2008, 05:50:20 PM
From John McCain's website...

John McCain has been a leader in pushing legislation through Congress that requires all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers. While the first line of defense for children will always be strong and involved parents, when they send their child to school or drop their child off at the library, parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children.

Is it safe to assume that a child won't be strip searched? Are you really looking out for the children Senator McCain?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 04, 2008, 05:52:46 PM
Senator Obama on the drug war.

Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.


Nothing about children being fucking molested by school nurses.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 04, 2008, 05:53:48 PM
Senator Clinton on the drug war.

?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 04, 2008, 06:35:21 PM
Some cops get in on the action as well.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=668448

You and your children belong to the State.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 04, 2008, 08:47:24 PM
All your drugs are belong to us.

Hey, good to see so many NYT refugees here. ;D

Now, let's get down to the business of winning that war on drugs so we can declare war on some other...  substance.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 05, 2008, 08:33:53 AM
Yeah, like a war on jokes. Or of jokes.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/47941.html


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 05, 2008, 03:29:53 PM
Wow. Seems apparent from that video that we should be making every effort to saturate those Talibangers and other towelheaded terrorists with LSD, rather than killing them.

Of course the effect shown might be specific to Brits, given the ... uh... nature of their sense of humor.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 06, 2008, 08:18:57 AM
Who's we?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 06, 2008, 11:03:03 AM
Who's we?

Anyone who feels threatened enough by Islamic extremists to want to do something to change their behavior.

BTW I don't number myself among such, so my bad for saying "we".


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 06, 2008, 11:44:54 AM
Thank you for clearing that up.

I have yet to read but have read and heard reviews and discussions of Chalmers Johnson's books that address the "blowback" resulting from the behavior of the usdotgov in foreign affairs. Of course, that is for another forum but I see a parallel in regards to the drug policy that "we" (as represented by usdotgov) have engaged in over the years. That discussion is for another day though. Got stuff to do today.

Thanks for the input.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 06, 2008, 06:43:07 PM
Ponder,

I hope you'll give us a review if/when you do get to read those books. And I think there's plenty of interface with that subject and the subject of drugs - especially "control" thereof by usgov.

I have always opposed "The War On Drugs" as I consider ingesting stuff to be a matter of personal responsibility. And likewise, individuals should be responsible for any behavior that results from ingesting stuff. I have never understood why the concept of "substance abuse" shouldn't extend to dropping a rock on your foot.

The WOD is a futile effort and a despicable waste of resources.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 06, 2008, 11:15:06 PM
It may be a while before I get to 'em actually. Kinda burnin' out on politics and such. Other than a few websites and blogs I'm pretty much sticking to fiction and poetry. What passes for news these days is just too damn depressing.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 07, 2008, 08:28:21 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/826059,CST-NWS-bagban05.article

Tiny plastic bags used to sell small quantities of heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and other drugs would be banned in Chicago, under a crackdown advanced Tuesday by a City Council committee.

Yes, I is convinced. Peoples who call themselves public servants have got idiot genes in their DNA.

"Damn. No more li'l plastic baggies to move my product. Guess I hafta go work at McDonald's." John Q. Drug Dealer


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 07, 2008, 02:33:38 PM
Quote
"Damn. No more li'l plastic baggies to move my product. Guess I hafta go work at McDonald's."

P-ppptt - Riiight!

The stoopid should hurt more.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 12, 2008, 11:39:33 AM
Mary Ann busted. Damn.

http://news.bostonherald.com/track/star_tracks/view.bg?articleid=1079652&srvc=home&position=also


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 12, 2008, 11:48:05 AM
Well, there's still Ginger...  :-[


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: jbottle on March 12, 2008, 05:49:31 PM
I heard that sandwich bags store more weed and coke than sandwiches now, people have gathered statistics and cross-checked between the DEA and the FDA and all, and Reynolds and other companies who make "baggies" (but don't forget about balloon mfg's.,either) who were all like "no comment" on various congressional and like, regulatory meetings.  It's the "dirty little secret" the packaging conglomerates have no doubt acknowledged in cigar-smoke-filled boardrooms for YEARS.  For every balloon filled with helium, there's like 25-30 filled with H, supposedly, but these statistics are slow to leak out, even the Clown Association will not issue a joke about this because of the drug/balloon/circus triangle.  It's like a three-ring triangle actually, with a lot of multinationals and regulatory agencies and dictatorships with skin in the game, so anyway, next time the average american pulls that chicken salad sandwich out of the "sandwich bag," he has to realize that the repercussions resonate in areas as far apart as peru and afghanistan and it's totally international.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 12, 2008, 06:09:58 PM
 :'(  I looked through every one of our sandwich bags. Nary a drug in any of them. What are the chances of that?

I'll keep looking...


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 12, 2008, 10:42:23 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102540.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Despite congressional demands for transparency, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has a murky budget that understates its emphasis on popular law enforcement efforts over treatment and prevention programs, budget and drug policy experts say.

The drug office's failure to comply "is part of a pattern of practices that frustrates Congress's and the public's ability to measure the effectiveness of our nation's drug control policies," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of a House oversight subcommittee that will hold a hearing on the office's budget today.


The current policy is ineffective in keeping drugs out of the market but is quite effectively converting law enforcement agencies into paramilitary organizations.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 13, 2008, 11:57:09 PM
Speaking of places that usdotgov should stay out of.

http://www.theroot.com/id/45224

March 11, 2008--When a self-righteous crusader like Eliot Spitzer is caught with his pants down, a lot of onlookers might feel a tinge of glee to see such hypocrisy revealed.  But the law under which he may be prosecuted, the Mann Act, is a relic that should give pause to anyone looking to hold Spitzer accountable in court on counts of prostitution.

End the drug war. Legalize prostitution. Quit legislating morality. Keep politics out our personal lives.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on March 14, 2008, 04:10:41 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/842107,CST-NWS-bagban14.article

Tiny plastic bags used to sell small quantities of heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana and other types of drugs may not be banned in Chicago after all.

Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th) said Thursday she joined her colleague, Ald. Helen Shiller (46th), in sandbagging the plastic bag ban at this week's City Council meeting because it would "criminalize legal conduct."


One step in the right direction. Now quit dragging that other foot and think about why the consumption of certain substances is criminal in the first place. Prohibition does not work. Imposing morality through legislation is downright...immoral.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ponderosa on April 28, 2008, 08:20:29 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/health/main4048107.shtml

Timothy Garon's face and arms are hauntingly skeletal, but the fluid building up in his abdomen makes the 56-year-old musician look eight months pregnant.

His liver, ravaged by hepatitis C, is failing. Without a new one, his doctors tell him, he will be dead in days.

But Garon's been refused a spot on the transplant list, largely because he has used marijuana, even though it was legally approved for medical reasons.

At some, people who use "illicit substances" _ including medical marijuana, even in states that allow it _ are automatically rejected. At others, such as the UCLA Medical Center, patients are given a chance to reapply if they stay clean for six months. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.


How's that democracy workin' out for ya?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: bambu on September 26, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
It's now 2017, and marijuana is just as bad as it was in 2008.

"Hey, maaaaaan...I've been booooongin' on for decaaaades...aaand theeere's noooothin' wrong with meeeee."


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: FlyingVProd on November 12, 2017, 05:49:35 PM
Canadian drug gangs getting rich off Aussie ice dumping
Mark Buttler, Herald Sun
August 23, 2014 5:00am

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/canadian-drug-gangs-getting-rich-off-aussie-ice-dumping/news-story/0b12f89f65d748199bc6bbcad9949d7e (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/canadian-drug-gangs-getting-rich-off-aussie-ice-dumping/news-story/0b12f89f65d748199bc6bbcad9949d7e)

-------

See, it could happen anywhere, and building walls is not the answer.

Salute,

Tony V.


Title: Buy fake diplomatic UK passports online/USA false id card for sell/Brazilian real passport order
Post by: GoromW on April 16, 2018, 08:49:14 AM
Our team is a unique producer of quality fake documents.
We offer only original high-quality fake passports, driver's licenses, ID cards, stamps and other products for a number of countries like:
USA, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom. This list is not full.
 
To get the additional information and place the order just visit our website:
 
 
 
http://www.buysellfakepassport.cc www. buysellfakepassport.cc
 
 
>> Contact e-mails:
 
 
General support: [email protected]
 
 
Technical support: [email protected]
 
 
-----------------------------
Keywords:
 
sale false/fake passports of Afghanistan
sale false/fake passports of Albania
sale false/fake passports of Algeria
sale false/fake passports of Andorra
sale false/fake passports of Angola
sale false/fake passports of Antigua & Deps
sale false/fake passports of Argentina
sale false/fake passports of Armenia
sale false/fake passports of Australia
sale false/fake passports of Austria
sale false/fake passports of Azerbaijan
sale false/fake passports of Bahamas
sale false/fake passports of Bahrain
sale false/fake passports of Bangladesh
sale false/fake passports of Barbados
sale false/fake passports of Belarus
sale false/fake passports of Belgium
sale false/fake passports of Belize
sale false/fake passports of Benin
sale false/fake passports of Bhutan
sale false/fake passports of Bolivia
sale false/fake passports of Bosnia Herzegovina
sale false/fake passports of Botswana
sale false/fake passports of Brazil
sale false/fake passports of Brunei
sale false/fake passports of Bulgaria
sale false/fake passports of Burkina
sale false/fake passports of Burundi
sale false/fake passports of Cambodia
sale false/fake passports of Cameroon
sale false/fake passports of Canada
sale false/fake passports of Cape Verde
sale false/fake passports of Central African Rep
sale false/fake passports of Chad
sale false/fake passports of Chile
sale false/fake passports of China
sale false/fake passports of Colombia
sale false/fake passports of Comoros
sale false/fake passports of Congo
sale false/fake passports of Congo Democratic Rep
sale false/fake passports of Costa Rica
sale false/fake passports of Croatia
sale false/fake passports of Cuba
sale false/fake passports of Cyprus
sale false/fake passports of Czech Republic
sale false/fake passports of Denmark
sale false/fake passports of Djibouti
sale false/fake passports of Dominica
sale false/fake passports of Dominican Republic
sale false/fake passports of East Timor
sale false/fake passports of Ecuador
sale false/fake passports of Egypt
sale false/fake passports of El Salvador
sale false/fake passports of Equatorial Guinea
sale false/fake passports of Eritrea
sale false/fake passports of Estonia
sale false/fake passports of Ethiopia
sale false/fake passports of Fiji
sale false/fake passports of Finland
sale false/fake passports of France
sale false/fake passports of Gabon
sale false/fake passports of Gambia
sale false/fake passports of Georgia
sale false/fake passports of Germany
sale false/fake passports of Ghana
sale false/fake passports of Greece
sale false/fake passports of Grenada
sale false/fake passports of Guatemala
sale false/fake passports of Guinea
sale false/fake passports of Guinea-Bissau
sale false/fake passports of Guyana
sale false/fake passports of Haiti
sale false/fake passports of Honduras
sale false/fake passports of Hungary
sale false/fake passports of Iceland
sale false/fake passports of India
sale false/fake passports of Indonesia
sale false/fake passports of Iran
sale false/fake passports of Iraq
sale false/fake passports of Ireland Republic
sale false/fake passports of Israel
sale false/fake passports of Italy
sale false/fake passports of Ivory Coast
sale false/fake passports of Jamaica
sale false/fake passports of Japan
sale false/fake passports of Jordan
sale false/fake passports of Kazakhstan
sale false/fake passports of Kenya
sale false/fake passports of Kiribati
sale false/fake passports of Korea North
sale false/fake passports of Korea South
sale false/fake passports of Kosovo
sale false/fake passports of Kuwait
sale false/fake passports of Kyrgyzstan
sale false/fake passports of Laos
sale false/fake passports of Latvia
sale false/fake passports of Lebanon
sale false/fake passports of Lesotho
sale false/fake passports of Liberia
sale false/fake passports of Libya
sale false/fake passports of Liechtenstein
sale false/fake passports of Lithuania
sale false/fake passports of Luxembourg
sale false/fake passports of Macedonia
sale false/fake passports of Madagascar
sale false/fake passports of Malawi
sale false/fake passports of Malaysia
sale false/fake passports of Maldives
sale false/fake passports of Mali
sale false/fake passports of Malta
sale false/fake passports of Marshall Islands
sale false/fake passports of Mauritania
sale false/fake passports of Mauritius
sale false/fake passports of Mexico
sale false/fake passports of Micronesia
sale false/fake passports of Moldova
sale false/fake passports of Monaco
sale false/fake passports of Mongolia
sale false/fake passports of Montenegro
sale false/fake passports of Morocco
sale false/fake passports of Mozambique
sale false/fake passports of Myanmar, Burma
sale false/fake passports of Namibia
sale false/fake passports of Nauru
sale false/fake passports of Nepal
sale false/fake passports of Netherlands
sale false/fake passports of New Zealand
sale false/fake passports of Nicaragua
sale false/fake passports of Niger
sale false/fake passports of Nigeria
sale false/fake passports of Norway
sale false/fake passports of Oman
sale false/fake passports of Pakistan
sale false/fake passports of Palau
sale false/fake passports of Panama
sale false/fake passports of Papua New Guinea
sale false/fake passports of Paraguay
sale false/fake passports of Peru
sale false/fake passports of Philippines
sale false/fake passports of Poland
sale false/fake passports of Portugal
sale false/fake passports of Qatar
sale false/fake passports of Romania
sale false/fake passports of Russian Federation
sale false/fake passports of Rwanda
sale false/fake passports of St Kitts & Nevis
sale false/fake passports of St Lucia
sale false/fake passports of Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
sale false/fake passports of Samoa
sale false/fake passports of San Marino
sale false/fake passports of Sao Tome & Principe
sale false/fake passports of Saudi Arabia
sale false/fake passports of Senegal
sale false/fake passports of Serbia
sale false/fake passports of Seychelles
sale false/fake passports of Sierra Leone
sale false/fake passports of Singapore
sale false/fake passports of Slovakia
sale false/fake passports of Slovenia
sale false/fake passports of Solomon Islands
sale false/fake passports of Somalia
sale false/fake passports of South Africa
sale false/fake passports of Spain
sale false/fake passports of Sri Lanka
sale false/fake passports of Sudan
sale false/fake passports of Suriname
sale false/fake passports of Swaziland
sale false/fake passports of Sweden
sale false/fake passports of Switzerland
sale false/fake passports of Syria
sale false/fake passports of Taiwan
sale false/fake passports of Tajikistan
sale false/fake passports of Tanzania
sale false/fake passports of Thailand
sale false/fake passports of Togo
sale false/fake passports of Tonga
sale false/fake passports of Trinidad & Tobago
sale false/fake passports of Tunisia
sale false/fake passports of Turkey
sale false/fake passports of Turkmenistan
sale false/fake passports of Tuvalu
sale false/fake passports of Uganda
sale false/fake passports of Ukraine
sale false/fake passports of United Arab Emirates
sale false/fake passports of United Kingdom
sale false/fake passports of United States
sale false/fake passports of Uruguay
sale false/fake passports of Uzbekistan
sale false/fake passports of Vanuatu
sale false/fake passports of Vatican City
sale false/fake passports of Venezuela
sale false/fake passports of Vietnam
sale false/fake passports of Yemen
sale false/fake passports of Zambia
sale false/fake passports of Zimbabwe
================================
Novelty Alabama ID Novelty Alaska ID Novelty Alberta ID Novelty Arizona ID Novelty Arkansas ID Novelty Australian Capital ID Novelty British Columbia ID Novelty California ID Novelty Colorado ID Novelty Connecticut ID Novelty Delaware ID Novelty Florida ID Novelty Georgia ID Novelty Hawaii ID Novelty Queensland ID Novelty Rhode Island ID