5 Years after Portugal decriminalises all drugs it's deemed an amazing success - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 10-03-2010, 06:46 PM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
i find it silly that every time this is discussed on this board, people (papya, cough) assume decriminalization = giving out heroin lollipops outside schools.

they are two different things. this thread is not about outright legalization.

decriminalization does not = COCAINE DISPENSERS ON EVERY CORNER.

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 10-03-2010, 07:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenickie View Post

i find it silly that every time this is discussed on this board, people (papya, cough) assume decriminalization = giving out heroin lollipops outside schools.

they are two different things. this thread is not about outright legalization.

decriminalization does not = COCAINE DISPENSERS ON EVERY CORNER.

actually in his defense I do believe in complete legalization of all drugs; regulated and sold on along the same lines as alcohol and tabacco. I am all for taxing the heck out of them.

It would put the drug cartels out of business quicker than anything else we have done, it would end the billions of dollars wasted fighting an endless war, it would free up at least 50% of prisions space and the money wasted on both confinement, and persecution. It would free up cops associated with the drug war to be reassigned to actually be concerned with violent crimes against others. It would create jobs both in manufactoring and sales, and it would generate tax revenue.

But then again I also thing prostitution should be legal, taxed and regulated (mandatory checkups, liscenses, etc) instead of continuing to remain another black market industry where tax money is wasted fighting it, etc.

The black market industry will exploit people as long as it is deemed an illegal act.
havocjohn is offline  
#33 Old 10-03-2010, 07:29 PM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
alright. but this thread is about decriminalization of drug social..project taking place in portugal.

but i am also for the (typically libertarian/pothead/user) view of legalizing everything, taxing it all, and easing our debt, wars, etc.

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 10-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenickie View Post

alright. but this thread is about decriminalization of drug social..project taking place in portugal.

but i am also for the (typically libertarian/pothead/user) view of legalizing everything, taxing it all, and easing our debt, wars, etc.

careful you might start to see the light and give up your dream of being the neo nazi queen of America.
havocjohn is offline  
#35 Old 10-03-2010, 07:36 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
In my experience, it's not whether the supply of an opiate is steady that influences the rate of overdosing but the potency variations that the black market brings.
GhostUser is offline  
#36 Old 10-04-2010, 01:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Digger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,897
This discussion always reminds me of my favorite Family Guy episode:

A Bag of Weed

It's set to a tune from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Dig
Digger is offline  
#37 Old 10-04-2010, 08:39 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Breezydreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 385
It's sounds like real progress how the Portugese government government handled this.
The comparisons however to prostitution are incorrect and completely ignore the nature of humanity. Just as we would not want animals life choices to be so unaturally limited, perhaps someday people will consider female humans as equal. Someday. Maybe.
Decriminalization of prostitution does not work the same way as for drugs.
Read Victor Malarek's work (The Natashas and more books or articles, just Google him) and Remya's article. The facts are the facts...and smoking weed is not the equivalent to prostitution. We are not weed or a drug or any other object to be consumed. Just a reminder for the forgetful types.
just one example
http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-remya210106.htm
Breezydreams is offline  
#38 Old 10-05-2010, 09:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
havocjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breezydreams View Post

It's sounds like real progress how the Portugese government government handled this.
The comparisons however to prostitution are incorrect and completely ignore the nature of humanity. Just as we would not want animals life choices to be so unaturally limited, perhaps someday people will consider female humans as equal. Someday. Maybe.
Decriminalization of prostitution does not work the same way as for drugs.
Read Victor Malarek's work (The Natashas and more books or articles, just Google him) and Remya's article. The facts are the facts...and smoking weed is not the equivalent to prostitution. We are not weed or a drug or any other object to be consumed. Just a reminder for the forgetful types.
just one example
http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-remya210106.htm

Prostitution has been around for a few thousand yrs; the reason there is abuse and exploitation of others with the confines of the system of prostitution is because it is illegal. Anytime you prohibat something that others want and create laws you open the door wide for abuse by others.

Prostitution is not going away and as long as it is illegal there will be explotation, violence and abuse in the system.
havocjohn is offline  
#39 Old 10-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
breezydreams "We are not weed or a drug or any other object to be consumed. Just a reminder for the forgetful types"

Of course not. And selling women, and men, should remain illegal, whether you are selling them with the claim that they are sex providers or house-cleaners.

But women should be allowed to provide sex, in exchange for money, just like dental hygienists should be allowed to clean your teeth, in exchange for money. They should be free to do so as independent agents, rather than forced into doing so as employees of criminals.
soilman is offline  
#40 Old 10-06-2010, 02:10 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

But women should be allowed to provide sex, in exchange for money, just like dental hygienists should be allowed to clean your teeth, in exchange for money. They should be free to do so as independent agents, rather than forced into doing so as employees of criminals.

I agree. (Women and men obviously.)
Pixie is offline  
#41 Old 10-07-2010, 07:06 AM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

careful you might start to see the light and give up your dream of being the neo nazi queen of America.

and how would I finance my new Fascist future? New taxes, obviously. If I want a population that is healthy and happy, I obviously need to take an active harm reduction stance. Reducing the ways people give each other blood bourne disease, carry out criminal enterprises, is perfectly compatible with how I wish the future of our country to be.

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
#42 Old 10-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
pap:
Quote:
tonite i worked an overdose who died after going to icu.

An overdose of what? What drugs, including alcohol, and legally prescribed, as well as legal non-prescription drugs, were in his system? What was tested for; what was found? What could have been in his-her system, that no-one thought to test for? What really killed him-her. One drug? Some combination of drugs, or some combination of drug or drugs along with predisposing medical condition? Or if you find an illegal drug is the death automatically blamed on the illegal drug, even though there were other drugs that could have contributed?
soilman is offline  
#43 Old 10-07-2010, 12:10 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon View Post

exactly how will the outright legalization of crack cocaine, heroin, diluadid and crystal meth get people off them? are you having trouble distinguishing between our current policies, decriminalization, and outright legalization? it seems you can only see the extremes, jailing people for using even small amounts, or selling it at walmart beside the cookies.

Why do you assume that people should be "off" of heroin and dilaudid, amphetamines, and cocaine? These substances, used in appropriate amounts, can end up doing more good than harm. The object of public policy should not be to get people off all such drugs. It should be to prevent their being sold to children, without their parents consent, to make sure they are labeled correctly as to drug or drug combination and dosage, and to make sure they meet certain standards of purity, and to make sure people who are impaired as a result of taking too large or too small an amount, do not operate dangerous machinery in places where the machinery could injure others. As to how much people should take, that is a matter between them and their doctor or nurse. Some people should be taking more, some people should be taking less, some people are best off taking little or none. It is hard to say what the exact amount is that causes impairment, as this differs according to, among other things, how much tolerance a person has. Impairment should be measured by tests of reaction time, and perception, not by level of drug in the blood. After all, these harmful effects of the drug are the effects we are concerned about, when people are operating dangerous machinery; it is not the beneficial effects of the drugs, such as relief of pain, or increased alertness, that impair people's ability to operate machinery. And neither the good effects nor the bad effects, have a linear relationship to the dosage level.

methamphetamine in appropriate amounts (generally this means small amounts, used in addition to sufficient sleep, rather than used as a substitute for sufficient sleep) is generally believed to improve things like driving safety. Why do you assume we should want to get people off such things? At certain times, it is, without question, better for some people, to be on them. Maybe we should make sure that people with narcolepsy have taken their meth amphetamine, in the proper amount, at the proper dosing shedule, before they are allowed to drive? And perhaps we should make sure that they have adequate medical insurance, so that they can have a doctor or nurse to discuss their dose and dosage schedule with. Maybe we should make sure that people who can benefit from it, have taken enough dilauded to control their pain, depression, or withdrawal symptons, but not so much that their perception and reaction time is impaired. This can improve their driving.
soilman is offline  
#44 Old 10-07-2010, 04:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Peacebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Posts: 260
There was a program somewhere (Denmark i think) which ended up successful... It was weaning people off heroine, by giving them the drug but slowly decreasing the dosage and also providing good support. I believe that this would be useful in the UK and if this kind of drug were offered to addicts (with programs), there would be far less people turning to crime or sex work to fund their habit...
Peacebone is offline  
#45 Old 10-07-2010, 05:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RBG09's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Why do you assume that people should be "off" of heroin and dilaudid, amphetamines, and cocaine? These substances, used in appropriate amounts, can end up doing more good than harm. The object of public policy should not be to get people off all such drugs. It should be to prevent their being sold to children, without their parents consent, to make sure they are labeled correctly as to drug or drug combination and dosage, and to make sure they meet certain standards of purity, and to make sure people who are impaired as a result of taking too large or too small an amount, do not operate dangerous machinery in places where the machinery could injure others. As to how much people should take, that is a matter between them and their doctor or nurse. Some people should be taking more, some people should be taking less, some people are best off taking little or none. It is hard to say what the exact amount is that causes impairment, as this differs according to, among other things, how much tolerance a person has. Impairment should be measured by tests of reaction time, and perception, not by level of drug in the blood. After all, these harmful effects of the drug are the effects we are concerned about, when people are operating dangerous machinery; it is not the beneficial effects of the drugs, such as relief of pain, or increased alertness, that impair people's ability to operate machinery. And neither the good effects nor the bad effects, have a linear relationship to the dosage level.

methamphetamine in appropriate amounts (generally this means small amounts, used in addition to sufficient sleep, rather than used as a substitute for sufficient sleep) is generally believed to improve things like driving safety. Why do you assume we should want to get people off such things? At certain times, it is, without question, better for some people, to be on them. Maybe we should make sure that people with narcolepsy have taken their meth amphetamine, in the proper amount, at the proper dosing shedule, before they are allowed to drive? And perhaps we should make sure that they have adequate medical insurance, so that they can have a doctor or nurse to discuss their dose and dosage schedule with. Maybe we should make sure that people who can benefit from it, have taken enough dilauded to control their pain, depression, or withdrawal symptons, but not so much that their perception and reaction time is impaired. This can improve their driving.

What you're talking about is a legit medical concern, if I'm not mistaken I think he's talking about recreational use only. There are very few people who actually need most of those drugs, and not allowing anybody to use it without a prescription does make sense. Unfortunately that gets circumvented by illegal drug trafficking, but that doesn't mean there isn't any merit in the idea of trying to restrict people from those drugs.
RBG09 is offline  
#46 Old 10-07-2010, 09:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Josh James xVx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,097
In a system of legalization, taxation and regulation, there would be classes, brochures and counseling available to people who are interested in getting off drugs. Similarly to the people who currently struggle with alcohol or tobacco addiction. This is not a legal issue. It's a health, community, family, church issue. It's something to be resolved in a non legislative way. The amount of adults who smoke has dropped from 40% to 20% in the last 30 years. Not because we made smoking illegal. Because we increased education and support systems. Why wouldn't it be the same with other drugs?

Tam! RUGH!
Josh James xVx is offline  
#47 Old 10-08-2010, 12:21 AM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
tinfoilhat:

the USA uses drug money to pay for secret wars around the world

come on you know the CIA is runnin coke not just these young husters hungry for dough

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
#48 Old 10-08-2010, 05:18 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
papa, in re to decriminalization
Quote:
no, you aren't jailing users. but you aren't making all substances available on demand either.

Actually, in the US, decriminalization means making certain offenses that were formerly misdemeanors or felonies, into a "violation." A violation is a "minor" offense where...
  1. the accused does not have any guarantee of lawyer. In contrast to a midemeanor or felony, if he is too poor to afford a lawyer, too bad.
  2. a person convicted of a violation can get up to a $1000 fine or a year in jail

In short, decriminalization means (1) the accused can be thrown in jail for a year, and-or fined $1000, without ever having access to, or representation by, a lawyer. (2) If the person is fined $1000 and doesn't pay, he can be thrown in jail for a year, instead, or kept in jail for up to a year, until he pays.

No-one knows how decriminalization would work out in actual practice. Very likely, we would see an extension of the current practice of people being told that if they get "medical" help, they can avoid jail time. However as it stands, this medical help is now largely a ploy for certain psychologists and social workers to get large salaries, doing busy-work, supposedly helping people "get off drugs," but in reality, and as shown by their own statistics, not really offering much real help to the person who wants to get off drugs. Even the best "rehabilitation" programs have very low success rates, despite their having very low standards for "demonstrating" success. The "cost-effective" programs that government is more likely to pay for, or help you pay for, if you don't have enough financial resources to afford such services by yourself - are even worse.

I also wanted to let everyone know that when I applied for a job as a customer service telephone representative, at a computer help desk, I had to pass a drug test before I could be allowed to do the work. When I applied for a job driving a taxi, I got the job without ever having to pass a drug test. Had to pass a vision test though.

It seems to me, you can be reasonably assured, that the person you speak to on the phone, to get help with your computer problem, is not on drugs. On the other hand, the person that drives you home from the bar, when you feel that perhaps you may be too drunk to drive yourself, is likely to be driving while under the influence of heroin, cannibis, or pcp's.

Personally, I think we should make possession of most of the currently illegal drugs, entirely legal, similar to the way caustic drain cleaners and septic tank treatments, are legal. Lye is a major ingredient in many drain cleaners. Like some drugs, too much lye, an "overdose" of lye, if you will, will cause nasty injuries, or death. Yet a single retail unit of drain cleaner, as commonly sold in supermarket household product shelves, contains enough lye to kill several people. We are trusted to use it safely. And again, like some drugs, despite the fact that too much lye can harm you, there is, at the same time, a safe dose, that can help you. For example, the same lye used in drain cleaners, is commonly added to pharmaceutical products (eye drops, for example) to adjust the pH and make them less irritating. Put the right amount of lye in your eye, and it is soothing. Put the wrong amount of lye in your eye - it will be excrutiatingly painful and will blind you.

In addition to making these drugs legal, I would also suggest, that at the same time, we work on research into ways we can help people, who use them regularly, and who either want to (1) stop, (2) increase or reduce their dose, (3) continue taking a drug they are in the habit of taking, but do so with least harm (and perhaps most benefit) to themselves, and others, as a result. I am not talking about simply giving money to "professionals" who claim they can help. I am talking about doing research to see what helps, whom it helps, and how much, whether it is a form of self-help, or one form of professional help or another. And people need to be able to choose for themselves, the kind of help they believe is best for them - if any. This "get medical help or we will throw you in jail" thing, is a lot of baloney.
soilman is offline  
#49 Old 10-08-2010, 06:46 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacebone View Post

There was a program somewhere (Denmark i think) which ended up successful... It was weaning people off heroine, by giving them the drug but slowly decreasing the dosage and also providing good support. I believe that this would be useful in the UK and if this kind of drug were offered to addicts (with programs), there would be far less people turning to crime or sex work to fund their habit...

Any change is preferable to continuing to have people resorting to crime, to pay for a drug they are dependent on. The simplest, cheapest way to prevent people from resorting to crime, in order to be able pay for their drugs, is to simply make the drug legally available to them at its true, competetive, market value, instead of allowing it to continue to only be available to them at its vastly over-inflated price on the illegal market. Protecting innocent bystanders from crime should have priority over protecting drug abusers from themselves, and is easier than protecting drug users from themselves. So why focus first on trying to get people off of the drug, or on getting the drug away from them, instead of focusing first on preventing their problem from spilling beyond their own lives, and affecting innocent bystanders? Protecting the drug abuser from him-herself is not only more expensive and more time-consuming, than simply allowing the drug abusers to spend their own money on competively-priced legal drugs, but it is also more expensive, and more time-consuming, than buying the drug abusers' drugs, for them, using taxpayer's money instead of the drug abuser's money.

Even if keeping drugs away from the drug abuser were beneficial for the drug abuser, shouldn't prevention of burglaries have a higher priorty than prevention of any harm that drug users are doing to themselves? So why should we continue to focus more on stopping this harm, than on stopping the harm to the innocent bystanders being burglarized? Well, this is exactly what the "war" on drugs is doing: focusing effort on stopping drug users from harming themselves, rather than focusing effort on stopping them from harming others. It is a short-sighted, obsessive activity.
soilman is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off