Drugs

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by nostatic
If I had been busted however, I would never had made it to the point in life I am now. I got lucky.

Dang it; I need to stop agreeing with you. Next thing you know, Supe will be calling me a "liberal" or something equally ghastly.

Anyway, "+1", to use our 'net vernacular. How many people have never gotten out of that rut becuase our laws slammed them deeper down into it? The doors that close with even one conviction are the true punishment, not the fines and jail time. Our draconian laws add to, or more accurately are the problem, not the solution.

[nostatic]

---

[morganb]

One guy at my uni would not drink, great guy but had come from a difficult situation at home with an alcholic and all the bad things that came with that. Would not smoke pot either. After about one year of being out with us he said can I try some pot. From what he saw bad things happened with Grog, not so with pot. Which is the lesser of 2 evils? Who should make the call? How? Seems like every group modifies stats to suit their own POV. Grog, legal drug, pot illegal drug. From my point of view from damage I have seen done, bann grog, legalize pot.

[alf]

If pot is OK, where will the line be drawn? Crack OK too?

Remember what happend to China in the 1800s when the British smuggled and later tried to legalize opium there. Not good for the host nation. Good for the British though.

I say go the other extreme, punish drug dealing as a capital crime and Drug abuse with detox prison.

[austin552]

Two and a half years ago my twenty five year old stepson Mike was on the way to work at a new job in his brand new Honda Civic. He had been to a party the night before and did a small amount of meth. He was merging onto the interstate to-wards Phoenix AZ when a seventy year old woman was exiting the interstate. They met resulting in her death. Both cars were totaled and Mike was not seriously injured other than a few cuts and bruises.
There were two witnesses that told police she cut him off thus causing the accident. He was tested and showed a slight amount of meth but not to the level of impairment. We hired a good lawyer for $35,000(split with his father) whom swore Mike would not serve time. Things were moving along until our lawyer was promoted to judge and handed the case over to a incompetent fool to put it nicely. After two years of postponements and a series of events(mistakes and mis judgments) The lawyer told us if Mike went before a jury he would probably get seven years. Jury's and drugs don't mix. The womans family was pushing that he was high on meth and road rage/drugs led to their loss. Mike plea bargained and received three years.
After two years in AZ State prison with murderers, rapist, gangs, stabbings, etc, etc, he was moved to a DWI facility and is looking forward to finally getting out this October.
I am proud to say that his fiance has stayed by his side and helped him through all of this.

WE ARE ALL VERY SORRY FOR THE FAMILY'S LOSS.
This is something Mike will have to carry with him every day for the rest of his life.

Whenever there is an accident and the individual involved is tested positive for drugs. Drugs are blamed for the accident.

[livi]

Like many similar issues, there are to sides to the dilemma.

1. The principal opinion of the People. How we as a society look upon a phenomena. Do we believe a certain issue to be good or bad. The general legislation should view that opinion.

2. The action and remedies legislated.

The two do not necessarily have to concur as far as reaction / punishment.

We may look upon drugs as generally bad and so make it prohibited (1). However the action against it may vary according to a more pragmatic view (2). What does actually help to minimize the negative effects of drugs? Punishment as in imprisonment or other actions.

[competentone]

Originally posted by austin552
He had been to a party the night before and did a small amount of meth.

Before he is released back into society -- and I presume, will be interacting with you -- please spend some time learning about drug abuse/abusers (if you haven't already).

Juries have their "reactions" to drug users/abusers for good reasons -- most all who have had interaction with users/abusers know that "deceit" is part of the behavior.

My comments are not an evaluation of the whole extended incident (too many facts I don't know), just a reaction to the "small amount of meth" comment.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by nostatic
jeez, people will think we're an item or something...

At my peak, if I'd gotten pulled over and searched I would have been looking at a minimum 20 year sentence. I got lucky. Instead I just hit rock bottom, OD'd, then got myself clean and never looked back. If I'd gone to jail though? Game over...

Like I said, the problem was with ME, not the drugs. Jail would have removed my ability to deal with it on my terms. Maybe some people need that, but I know an aweful lot of people who did a lot of drugs, then moved on with their lives.

"20 years" means sale weight. How many lives did you help to destroy selling your poison.
How many children used your drugs.
Perhaps jail was the right place for you. Obviously jail was a consideration to your choice to quit. I would venture a guess that the chance of jail altered the way you went about doing business.
The prospect of jail always enters into people's decision to commit crimes. One exception, crimes of passion but how many of those a aggravated by mind altering substances?

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by austin552
Two and a half years ago my twenty five year old stepson Mike was on the way to work at a new job in his brand new Honda Civic. He had been to a party the night before and did a small amount of meth. He was merging onto the interstate to-wards Phoenix AZ when a seventy year old woman was exiting the interstate. They met resulting in her death. Both cars were totaled and Mike was not seriously injured other than a few cuts and bruises.
There were two witnesses that told police she cut him off thus causing the accident. He was tested and showed a slight amount of meth but not to the level of impairment. We hired a good lawyer for $35,000(split with his father) whom swore Mike would not serve time. Things were moving along until our lawyer was promoted to judge and handed the case over to a incompetent fool to put it nicely. After two years of postponements and a series of events(mistakes and mis judgments) The lawyer told us if Mike went before a jury he would probably get seven years. Jury's and drugs don't mix. The womans family was pushing that he was high on meth and road rage/drugs led to their loss. Mike plea bargained and received three years.
After two years in AZ State prison with murderers, rapist, gangs, stabbings, etc, etc, he was moved to a DWI facility and is looking forward to finally getting out this October.
I am proud to say that his fiance has stayed by his side and helped him through all of this.

WE ARE ALL VERY SORRY FOR THE FAMILY'S LOSS.
This is something Mike will have to carry with him every day for the rest of his life.

Whenever there is an accident and the individual involved is tested positive for drugs. Drugs are blamed for the accident.

Meth is a stimulant. If taken at night it will at the very least impair your ability to sleep.
Poor sleep equals poor reflexes and the end result , dead person.
End of story.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by livi
Like many similar issues, there are to sides to the dilemma.

1. The principal opinion of the People. How we as a society look upon a phenomena. Do we believe a certain issue to be good or bad. The general legislation should view that opinion.

2. The action and remedies legislated.

The two do not necessarily have to concur as far as reaction / punishment.

We may look upon drugs as generally bad and so make it prohibited (1). However the action against it may vary according to a more pragmatic view (2). What does actually help to minimize the negative effects of drugs? Punishment as in imprisonment or other actions.

Most drug user convicted in California courts get drug deversion and no jail time.
For sale weight you go to jail. The message "use it = OK sale =not OK.

Perhaps society should push it's member towards the greater good not mind numbing Jell-O head behavior.

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by Lothar
Once again, the "War on Drugs" must be judged by its results rather than its intent. The intent might be to keep people from harming themselves by the use of drugs. While well-meaning, the result has been to waste an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars, needlessly imprison a lot of people for possession, and creating a criminal culture around the distribution of drugs.

Forget the taxing. Rather than adding one more form of government thievery, why not eliminate ten others. Legalize drugs for the simple reason that criminalizing them has been a disaster.

Here's a discussion of U.S. drug policy where Pete Wilson gets his ass handed to him by Milton Friedman.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8056316969143175615&q=Milton+Friedman+Pete+Wilson&hl=en

Sir, you may have just changed my position. Laws must change to accomodate society. Our culture, be that as it may, is dynamic. Perhaps we should look to legalize drugs and treat for addiction.

I am still hung up on what to legalize and what not to legalize. Heroin and other opiates are devastating drugs that are very additive. What about all the cocaine analogues? Methamphedamines? LSD et al?

Lets say you make driving while under any influence a severe crimminal offense, will that influence behaviour?

What about the cost of treatment? Taxation? No, no one wants that buracracy.

So the real question is not to legalize it or not but to understand the reason to use. I smoke cigars and drink a little from time to time because I enjoy the feeling of a good warm buzz. I have not and will not get a drunk on again becasue I really do not like the feeling nor the memory loss and I am strong enough in character to hold back. I don't think some folks are as fortunate.

[Turbo_pro]

It seems that drug use, meth amphetamine is on the rise among the 12 and under crowd.
Evidence shows that the drug traffickers, being the great humanitarians that they are, have seen a decline in their sales of meth and have unveiled a new strategy.
Candy flavored meth, "Strawberry Quick" to bolster their sales. They are targeting the most impressionable of our society. Gee, I wonder if telling them pot is OK will help them understand the dangers of all drugs. Prevention before the need for treatment is the key. The question is how? I truly wish I knew.
Legalizing this crap only makes the problem worse. How do we save your 12 year old once he travels down that path? Society must point the direction. Mind altering drugs are "bad" period.
What's next, meth enriched formula ? PLEEEEEEZE

Earlier some one said "If I'd gone to jail though? Game over..." Well, market candy flavored meth to kids and a bullet in the head (IMHO) is getting off easy.

[scottmandue]

Most twelve year olds start experimenting with sex/alcohol/drugs is because they are starting to rebel... We tell little Timmy pot is bad for him... he gets curious and trys some...ooooh that felt good. We tell little Timmy that sex is bad... he sneeks into the bushes with little Sally, you get the idea.

You are also ignoring the fact that having drugs illegal didn't stop you or your friends from doing them. Why is it suddenly going to make future generations stop?

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Most twelve year olds start experimenting with sex/alcohol/drugs is because they are starting to rebel... We tell little Timmy pot is bad for him... he gets curious and trys some...ooooh that felt good. We tell little Timmy that sex is bad... he sneeks into the bushes with little Sally, you get the idea.

You are also ignoring the fact that having drugs illegal didn't stop you or your friends from doing them. Why is it suddenly going to make future generations stop?

Non sense, I'm ignoring nothing.
Tell Timmy don't and he might try it anyway.
Tell rebel Timmy that it's ok and little Timmy still does it but now he has Johnny, Billy, Teddy, Jimmy, Suzy, Jill and so on........joining in. Add a drug dealers motivation and manipulation to the mix and they are all lost.
Your logic is fried.

Believe it or not, most citizens are law abiding. Some like myself push the limits. If there are no limits there is only chaos.

Society must point in an acceptable direction. It's OK to fry your brain is not a socially beneficial direction.

[scottmandue]

Tell me Jim, honestly how many times were you coerced by a drug dealer to buy or do drugs? Or did you have to find the person selling, arrange a meeting, and pay them... all on your own?

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Tell me Jim, honestly how many times were you coerced by a drug dealer to buy or do drugs? Or did you have to find the person selling, arrange a meeting, and pay them... all on your own?

You are so naive.
Drug sales are like every other business. Good salesman use sales techniques.
Here try this, the first ones free.
Here take this and pay me later.
If you like the pot you should try some Valium or even the ludes.
Don't worry, cocaine is not additive. Life magazine told us that in the 80s.
And my all time favorite "the keeper of the bag"
It go like this. ring ring ring. Hello** What the "f*ck, it's 3 in the morning. Jim hey, it's Frank, man we've been up all night with the bag and if we don't get it out of here we'll do it all. So what can I do?
Hey Jim, maybe you can come over and hold on to it until we mellow out.
But Frank, I don't know, it's pretty late. Come on help me out.
OK. You pick up the bag and Frank says hey for helping me out, go ahead a use some. 4 days later Frank wants the bag back. OOPs it seems it's all gone . No worries just pay me for it.
No manipulation there and it works, trust me I've seen it.
It's easy to play on another person weakness once you've spotted it. It happens in business, at the poker table and in he drug world.

Hey just got out of rehab, let's party.

Coercion takes all forms and if you add an altered state of mind, all things are possible.

[alf]

There is one country that has done a great job in controlling drugs. Singapore HANGS drug dealers.

Capital punishment for drug dealing will take care of the problem quickly and society will be better for it.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
You are so naive.
all things are possible.

Naive? I was a user for ten years... and yes I wish I could have all that wasted time and money back.

You did a great job of quoting you high school health teachers drug lecture in your post but as for me and all my friends I don't know of anyone ever having drugs forced on them. The only times I scored was when I called (usually multiple times) and set up a meeting... and the deal usually went down in someones living room not a dark ally.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Dottore
This is not borne out by any statistics. If you want it you will get it - whether it is illegal or not. And just because it's legal doesn't increase demand. There have been many studies on this, and the results are very, very clear. Legalization will not increase use.

I say BS...and I did a lot of pot smoking, all in the 70's when it was dangerous. Our numbers were few because of the risk.

Please show your work.

[john70t]

(Just wondering how many riots would happen if cigarettes were banned tomorrow, and then the bars and Starbucks shut down).