On Drug Use

[wickedawesomeful]

Re: On Drug Use

Well, you are wrong. While it's true that people are who have a history of substance abuse are more prone to abuse substances (obviously), Alcohol is a drug and habitual use can lead to addiction....like any drug.

That would be a psychological addiction, though, because by ingesting alcohol, your body doesn't actually develop a physical need for it. I'm convinced that the only way you can become psychologically addicted to something is through lack of self control.

[lord_carbo]

Re: On Drug Use

If a drug user gets thrown in jail then presumably they were doing something else dangerous.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html

"Law officers made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.7 million arrests and 12.5 percent of all arrests) than for any other offense. (See Table 29.)"

Interesting. Now, of course, it doesn't state how many arrests were for drug abuse alone, sadly. Of course, it wouldn't imply that drugs should be illegal if the statistics showed a positive correlation between drug users and people who get arrested for other crimes due to the black market caused by the prohibition of the drug, but it'd be very interesting to see no correlation or even a negative correlation, hmm?

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=7&sortorder=articledate

http://www.alternet.org/rights/47815/

$1.2 billion dollars annually merely from the druggies in jail! That's not even including how much the war on drugs costs us in general, over 6-7 times more than that:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-07-00.html

I'll save you the mumbo-jumbo about how legalizing drugs would allow us to tax drugs and save taxpayers a lot of money and go straight to the moral benefits of the legal sale and distribution of drugs. Guess what: we could possibly keep kids off drugs easier because street dealers don't check for I.D.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/speci...juveniles.html

Already about 12.4% of them are juveniles. Would keeping it out of their hands as youth keep them from doing it as adults, or would it make it allow those of legal age to get their hands on it legally and give it to youth illegally? It's hard to say. If a teenager is willing to do drugs when its illegally passed down from someone who bought it legally, who's to say that person wouldn't be at least decently likely to do drugs as a black market commodity?

Or as aperson said, information is the key.

[wickedawesomeful]

Re: On Drug Use

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

[lord_carbo]

Re: On Drug Use

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

Only if legal distribution was open to minors, which it wouldn't and shouldn't be if ever legalized. Did you even bother reading my post or did you just skim over it?

Of course, you can always look at tobacco: how many kids regularly smoke and have tried smoking and how many adults who regularly smoke and have tried smoking. Same for alcohol, which could give a rough estimate.

The statistics will most likely favor you, but I doubt by an overwhelming amount.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: On Drug Use

stuff

What qualifies as "drug abuse"? Also, how many of those people were arrested for, say, LSD in their own home, and how many people were arrested for going off the deep end with cocaine or heroin or whatever, thereby endangering themselves and possibly others around them?

[aperson]

Re: On Drug Use

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

If I make a phone call I can have weed or acid on my doorstep in less than an hour. If I want alcohol I have to find someone over 21 to do an alcohol run for me. I have news for you: It's easier to get the illegal drugs than the legal ones in many cases when you're under the legal age.

[smartdude1212]

Re: On Drug Use

Anything that's legal under some circumstances is always easier to get than things that are illegal. Legalizing drugs would make it ten times easier for a juvenile to get them.

Legalizing drugs would also allow the government to impose high taxes on them, which will prevent people from buying and they'll continue to act as if it's still illegal by making their own and selling it privately for slightly cheaper than what the government would be having them pay.

[pntballa18]

Re: On Drug Use

Legalizing drugs would also allow the government to impose high taxes on them, which will prevent people from buying

Druggies have an addiction. If they run out of cash, they are gonna get their fix. Imposing a high tax on drugs isn't going to prevent people from buying them, since some people spend all the money they have on drugs anyways.

[smartdude1212]

Re: On Drug Use

Druggies have an addiction. If they run out of cash, they are gonna get their fix. Imposing a high tax on drugs isn't going to prevent people from buying them, since some people spend all the money they have on drugs anyways.

True, but nevertheless there will still be the unlicensed makers and sellers, making a profit so they can buy other drugs for themselves.

[lord_carbo]

Re: On Drug Use

What qualifies as "drug abuse"? Also, how many of those people were arrested for, say, LSD in their own home, and how many people were arrested for going off the deep end with cocaine or heroin or whatever, thereby endangering themselves and possibly others around them?

Here:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf

Scroll down to page 17.

At first glance, it looks pretty much like "oh look that's not much." The stats aren't manipulated (well afaik, it's doubtful anyway >__>) but the way it's presented is. Bust out the calculator and just under 60% of all marijuana related prisoners are in there for marijuana alone. Also, the drug possession offenses accounts for imprisonment and doesn't include arrests, which is why it doesn't match up with the "12.5 percent of all arrests" thing from the FBI's site.

Remember, marijuana also has a black market behind it. It attracts criminal behavior, and from the statistics 60% of those imprisoned because of it didn't do anything else.

As stated above the doesn't say anything about arrests. Also take note that someone imprisoned solely for marijuana are probably going to be in there less than people who are in there for that same offense and more.

[Cavernio]

Re: On Drug Use

from Aperson: "On the other hand, mushrooms and acid have the possibility to destroy a person's perception of themself and emerge a broken shell of a person."

Are you saying that a person who does these drugs and ends up this way is to blame for their state of being? Is it obvious for a first-time user to know how they'll react to these drugs, and should know when to or when not to use them? I've heard that for some people who've done LSD, even as little as once, they may start tripping out randomly even years later; is that true? From what I've learned about LSD from you, it certainly makes sense that this would indeed be possible given that, apparently, the high you get happens after the drug's gone.

That you say some people get effected negatively itself is enough to turn me off from even trying either drug. The only 'drugs' I've done are weed, alcohol and caffeine, but I've definitely heard both good and bad things about drugs, and I resent that it's assumed that because I don't feel inclined to do drugs, I'm stupid. Are you telling me I shouldn't believe what you've told me about possible aversive reactions to shrooms and LSD?

Let's say I do read up about drugs and want to try ones which probably won't cause me problems, how am I supposed to know that what I think I'm getting is what is actually what I'm getting? I don't want to get laced drugs. Am I supposed to run tests on them beforehand; set up a little lab in my house, learn a bunch of chemistry? Now, if the drugs were legal, I wouldn't be concerned about that issue, nor would I be concerned that I might fall into a month long depression after taking them because every 1/500 people have that averse reaction to them. If they were legal, and made for pleasure, (like alcohol) I'd probably try them, and what do you know, I have done legal drugs!

I agree with you that people should be more educated about the effects of drugs, however, how do you educate about all of them? New drugs are constantly entering the market, and unless it's being released by a pharmaceutical company, it's not been methodically tested to see if it harms people. Geez, I'm wary of pharmaceutical drugs enough as it is, because I've experienced side-effects of prescription drugs which didn't officially exist. I read in scientific american or new scientist (forget which one) this past year, an article which was about new drugs, not yet illegal or legal, that had entered the British market. I'd heard of none of them, and the number of them was surprising, and all of them mentioned cases of averse as well as beneficial effects. Now I know you're not saying to go out there and try random drugs, not at all, but I get an impression that you're saying people are stupid if they err on caution and decide not to try any street drugs. I think a good way to put it is that researching drugs and doing safe ones is your hobby.

You've also mentioned you don't think that drugs should be blamed for a person's actions. I'm not sure exactly what you've said to support this from what you've written; it seems to be more of a personal idea of culpability and free will than anything relating to drugs themselves.

I also have an issue with all the people who've easily made a distinction between psychological and physical addiction. They're not really separable to me, and I'd like to know what constitutes physical versus psychological addiction to you.

[Tyren]

Re: On Drug Use

https://www.erowid.org

Enjoy.

[aperson]

Re: On Drug Use

from Aperson: "On the other hand, mushrooms and acid have the possibility to destroy a person's perception of themself and emerge a broken shell of a person."

Are you saying that a person who does these drugs and ends up this way is to blame for their state of being? Is it obvious for a first-time user to know how they'll react to these drugs, and should know when to or when not to use them? I've heard that for some people who've done LSD, even as little as once, they may start tripping out randomly even years later; is that true? From what I've learned about LSD from you, it certainly makes sense that this would indeed be possible given that, apparently, the high you get happens after the drug's gone.

Yes, it is the person's fault for ending up that way. Also, the stories you hear of people 'randomly tripping out' are largely exaggerated, save in cases of people that have done the drug constantly (i.e. 3 or more times a week for extended periods). This can lead to Hallucinogenic Persistent Perceptive Disorder. Because tryptamines like acid and mushrooms amplify neural processes, they also increase the rate at which neurons rewire while you are on the drug. Due to this this, your brain is in a kind of hyper-learning mode while on them. This can cause you to develop an explicitly wired reaction to things that might've been vividly imprinted onto you during a trip. For example, if I spent a large part of a trip looking at a lamp, then when I am not tripping the lamp might incite those same hallucinogenic cues back in my brain. It doesn't mean I'm tripping again, but because I'm in a similar state of mind I can access the same thought patterns and, yes, things can get a little bit trippy (though it is easy to control and doesn't distract me; even with my moderate psychedelic use).

However, drugs like mushrooms and acid depend on the set and setting of a user. Because of my psyche that I've crafted over my lifetime, I feel that I would be comfortable with about anything that these drugs could present to me. I have definitely experienced some ego shattering trips that I could see negatively affecting someone who is not adequately mentally prepared. But the neat thing with these drugs is that when you truly know that you're prepared for them, you can handle the gamut of what they can dish out. I do not know of anyone who has proper respect for the drug and mental setting for acid and mushrooms that have had trips which have had lasting negative effects on them. I have, however, seen people who like to do drugs to get fucked up become a bit shattered by their experience. That's their fault for not preparing, not the drug's fault, and I don't see why their ignorance should strip the right to the experience away from prepared users such as myself.

That you say some people get effected negatively itself is enough to turn me off from even trying either drug. The only 'drugs' I've done are weed, alcohol and caffeine, but I've definitely heard both good and bad things about drugs, and I resent that it's assumed that because I don't feel inclined to do drugs, I'm stupid. Are you telling me I shouldn't believe what you've told me about possible aversive reactions to shrooms and LSD?

I don't know what kind of assumptions you are making from my post, but I have no problem with people who choose not to do drugs. I do have problems with people who choose to ignorantly demonize drugs, much like I have problems with users who abuse drugs without understanding their nature. You are assuming that I assume non drug users are stupid, this is not an assumption I make. Some of the people I respect most, such as the Dalai Lama, art strictly against doing drugs.

I think it is important that you properly educate yourself so you understand what the nature of the adverse reactions to mushrooms and LSD are. The content of a trip is largely controlled by the mindstate of the user and the environment the user is in. A user with a proper mindstate and environment will not have a negative trip. They might have a difficult trip (I've had several), but certainly not a negative one.

Let's say I do read up about drugs and want to try ones which probably won't cause me problems, how am I supposed to know that what I think I'm getting is what is actually what I'm getting? I don't want to get laced drugs. Am I supposed to run tests on them beforehand; set up a little lab in my house, learn a bunch of chemistry? Now, if the drugs were legal, I wouldn't be concerned about that issue, nor would I be concerned that I might fall into a month long depression after taking them because every 1/500 people have that averse reaction to them. If they were legal, and made for pleasure, (like alcohol) I'd probably try them, and what do you know, I have done legal drugs!

Uhh, exactly. I agree with you 100%. This is one of the pivotal arguments I use to argue for drug legalization. By legalizing drugs we'd get rid of the risk of impure or laced drugs. However, most illegal drugs have easy ways to check. For example, your weed isn't laced. It's simple supply and demand; a dealer isn't going to stuff a $20 bag of weed with $100 drugs. Even if they are, any adulterant on something like weed is going to be very visible or odorous. Any kind of invisible drug like acid would simply melt off when combusted and you wouldn't get anything from it. For mushrooms, I'd say it's pretty plainly obvious: Is it a mushroom with a gold cap that bruises blue? Yep, probably a good mushroom. Granted, this isn't a good rule of thumb if you're picking them yourself, but since almost all mushrooms you take are going to be grown in sterilized cultures, I'd say your pretty incredibly sure of what you're getting. LSD? The only other drugs active in ranges small enough to work on blotter paper are the DO* family (DOI, DOB, DOM), and these don't glow under blacklight. That's why I always check my sheets of acid to make sure they glow. Aside from these, though, you're right, there are many drugs which pose a danger of being laced or impure (such as coke or ecstasy). That's one of the reasons I choose not to do those, and I believe it is a perfectly respectable reason to choose not to do a drug.

I agree with you that people should be more educated about the effects of drugs, however, how do you educate about all of them? New drugs are constantly entering the market, and unless it's being released by a pharmaceutical company, it's not been methodically tested to see if it harms people. Geez, I'm wary of pharmaceutical drugs enough as it is, because I've experienced side-effects of prescription drugs which didn't officially exist. I read in scientific american or new scientist (forget which one) this past year, an article which was about new drugs, not yet illegal or legal, that had entered the British market. I'd heard of none of them, and the number of them was surprising, and all of them mentioned cases of averse as well as beneficial effects. Now I know you're not saying to go out there and try random drugs, not at all, but I get an impression that you're saying people are stupid if they err on caution and decide not to try any street drugs. I think a good way to put it is that researching drugs and doing safe ones is your hobby.

A lot of the new drugs slipping in the market are known as Research Chemicals (commonly abbreviated RCs). These are phenethylamines and tryptamines like DO*, 2c-*, amt, 5-meo-amt, 5-meo-dipt, etc.... You won't be running into these unless you are already into the drug scene, and if you're that far into the scene then you are aware of resources like http://www.erowid.org which can give anyone all the research they need. I think that proper drug education over all of the basic common drugs in high school would be perfectly sufficient. Not that laughably horrible DARE program that we have now.

You've also mentioned you don't think that drugs should be blamed for a person's actions. I'm not sure exactly what you've said to support this from what you've written; it seems to be more of a personal idea of culpability and free will than anything relating to drugs themselves.

The outcome of any drug is based upon the mind of the user. As I stated above, shrooms are largely based on the mind-set that the user is in. A smart, informed drug user is going to properly respect the substances they use and stay out of harms way. It is only the ignorant users, you will find, that are infringing on others when they do their drugs.

I also have an issue with all the people who've easily made a distinction between psychological and physical addiction. They're not really separable to me, and I'd like to know what constitutes physical versus psychological addiction to you.

Physical addiction means that there is a physical mechanism inside of your body which causes a dependence on the drug. Alcohol and benzodiazepines are good examples of drugs that are physically addictive. Anyone who has used these drugs sufficiently heavily and then immediately stops will die from their withdrawal. This is because they are active at GABA sites on the body, and after using these drugs heavily, the brain stops producing its own GABA agonizers because the alcohol or benzos are maintaining equilibrium on their own. Once the supply has been cut off, the brain does not make up for it and the individual can die. This is why there is a careful method of slowly weaning heavy users off from either of these drugs (in the case of benzodiazepines, this process can take months or more).

Psychological addiction is only addiction which stems from some kind of reward-system mechanism the user has created. This means that the individual only has cravings for it, and doesn't exhibit actual physical symptoms like tremors or convulsions. Cocaine would be a great example of a drug that is fantastically psychologically addictive because it plays with your dopamine receptors so heavily.

[talisman]

Re: On Drug Use

Although, interestingly enough, mice without dopamine receptors will still self-administer cocaine.

To further expound upon the difference between physical and psychological addiction, psychological works on basically the ventral tegmental area - nucleus accumbens pathway (for most addictive drugs, sex, and food) while physical actually messes up stuff in the brain stem (medulla) that specifically control breathing and heartbeat and fairly critical stuff like that.

[ToshX]

Re: On Drug Use

That's your choice; I respect that, and I think all people should.

If someone offers you a drink or a drug, it doesn't mean that they're pressuring you into being a drug user. I offer people my weed or drugs from my stash because I like to share and have company. I'm doing it out of politeness, and if you decline or show that you don't do drugs then I won't bother you with it again. Maybe you should view other peoples' offers as more along this nature rather than as a pressure to do drugs.

Yeah, I know not everyone is like that, of course not. I'm just saying I've run into a lot of people who are.

It's true that some people will pressure you into doing drugs. Those people are pricks; you should probably avoid them. But you're generalizing about all drug users, and by doing this you've created quite a similar high-and-mighty attitude for yourself that is quite similar to the attitude you categorize onto drug users as well.

I know what it's doing, and I know that not everyone acts that way, but it's just that a literal 90% of more who have spoken to me about it at all ended up having "that personality", you know? I mean, I know I probably won't be that way, but that doesn't change my opinion of having no desire to do them.

It seems that all of your problems stem from the drug users you know, not the drugs. Don't bash the drugs for the people; using that logic got us in much the same scheduling predicament we're in today

I know, I'm sorry for generalizing about them so much, but it's just that I keep finding these same people saying the exact same kinds of things. It's kind of like how stereotypes are made. Although they are, well, not correct for a large amount of people, it starts to get stuck in our heads and we can't really change our minds after that.

But even so, I'm not going to start.

Anyway, I think one of the major reasons that this is illegal is simply because some drugs are so addictive. Do we really want people to depend on something THAT much? I mean, I know you could say the same for alcohol, but it WAS illegal at some points in time, and even now, it still ruins tons of people. It should probably be illegal as well, and I'm saying that even though I kind of support it. It's one of those "I know this is wrong, but it won't change my decision" things.