Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
Nice idea, but i can't see a problem. (see below )Martz, good points, but here is the problem I think you, Bart and that general camp misses. It seems to me you separate the people in these classes:
1. Addicts (usually unstable, dangerous people, no matter how much they pay for a fill, hope you agree with me here.)
2. Casual users (people that consume it for “fun” every once in a while, low chance they hurt others, but still a lot higher than class 3 below!)
3. Non-consumers.
4. Traders/Sellers (organized crime, profiting on lucrative prices because of very small/tight control on supply).
Now, I agree with your argument that legalizing drugs would reduce negative impact of group 4, which is in fact a good improvement over the current system.
Also, group 1 negative effects would also see some improvement, assuming though that it’s available to these people in a limited, monitored way, similar to what I was referring to in my last post.
Now here’s where the model starts breaking down. We kind of ignore the effect on groups 2 and 3, and also fail to recognize a fifth group, which I would call 5. Suppliers.
Who said that the best way is the dutch-coffeeshop way (Where everyone can go into that shop and by drugs asif they were just cola)?OK, let’s take group 2: Would it be unreasonable to assume that if they could easily buy the drugs for cheap at a drugstore, they would be a lot more likely to consume more? They don’t have to bother anymore with where to find it, high prices, shame or fear. Doesn’t this increase the chance they hurt others while “high”, since they will get high more often, while at the same time increase the chance they end up in group 1 (addicts) ?
That point aint really valid in my eyes.Group 5: I see this one becoming huge at this point, compared to a very limited number now. We’re talking about making this part of the normal pharmaceutical industry, which as you can imagine spreads in a very large scale. Do you feel comfortable with huge humanity effort/resources being spent for producing such things as heroine/cocaine and million other horrible drugs, just to get people high? Don’t you think that could be better spent in a much nobler cause, such as cancer research and so on?
Don't let Locomouse hear thatEverything would be a lot easier/better though if the need for drugs was not there in the first place, I hope you agree with that
By Frosty Wooldridge
March 17, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
After the first seven interviews with my brother Police Officer and Detective Howard Wooldridge of Lansing, Michigan (retired) concerning the “War on Drugs,” hundreds of readers responded. U.S. taxpayers do not understand the incredible deception perpetrated on them by the Drug War. You might even term it a “racket” by those who stand in the power corridors of Washington, DC.
Officer Wooldridge talked with Senator Biden (D-DE) last month. Senator Biden (D-DE) said at a hearing in February 2008 that drug prohibition touches 60 percent of all crime in America. Wooldridge advised to dramatically reduce crime, death, disease and drug use, the U.S. must end the prohibition approach on the 10 most used drugs.
“My experience agrees with the senator’s statement,” Officer Wooldridge said. “As a police officer, my goal was to keep my community safe, once they left their homes. What are the steps to ending this 94 year running failed policy of prohibition?
“Many experts agree that the first drug to become legal and regulated will be marijuana. As DEA law judge Francis Young concluded after an exhaustive study of cannabis: “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” Its use has rarely been a public safety issue. One cannot overdose on it. Moreover, its legalization would be a tremendous boost to improve public safety. Why? Road officers spend million of hours searching cars for a baggie of pot. They could concentrate on the deadly DUI and reckless drivers. They would be re-directed to find and arrest the child predators on line looking for a 13 year old girl. Federal agents could completely focus on Al Qaeda and stop wasting time on medical marijuana gardens in California.”
National marijuana prohibition began in 1937. Since then, local and state police officers spent tens of millions of hours searching for and arresting users and sellers. Did this expenditure improve public safety? No! Has prohibition caused an increase or decrease in use? Can we name any positive returns on the investment of money, prison space and police time? These constitute important questions to ask in the century of 9/11 and a recession.
“Starting my police career in the ‘70s, I quickly learned that alcohol use caused the vast majority of calls for service,” Officer Wooldridge said. “More teens died from alcohol use than all the illegal drugs combined. DUIs causing injury and death, drunks shooting each other, assaults, spouse and child abuse cases, etc., constituted the majority of my police work after sunset. During my 18 years, the use of marijuana never once caused me to be dispatched to handle a problem. Alcohol use generated about 1200 police calls.”
Marijuana remains an intoxicating and potentially psychologically addictive drug. Millions use it to cop a buzz. Because it can be destructive, Officer Wooldridge supports it being regulated, controlled and taxed by the government. Currently, criminals control all aspects of production, distribution and use – not good! We must maintain the same restrictions and regulations as the two deadliest drugs in America: alcohol and tobacco.
“In a legal environment, marijuana would lose its glamour and rebellion elements,” Officer Wooldridge said. “According to doctors certified in addiction psychology, at least as many teens try marijuana because it is illegal as are deterred by its illegality. The Dutch demonstrated the validity of this expert opinion. Thirty-two years after they legalized and regulated sales to adults, their 15-29 year-olds smoke half as much as American youth. Even better, Dutch youth no longer come in contact with pot dealers who also offer heroin for sale. Thus, far fewer Dutch teens try heroin for the first time; a win-win situation.”
Will underage youth obtain legalized and regulated marijuana? Yes, the same as they now obtain alcohol and tobacco before they reach the legal age! No one expects perfection.
Public safety will be dramatically improved as law enforcement again concentrates on crimes involving victims. Detectives will spend more time arresting child predators on-line and rapists. Road officers will promptly answer your 911 calls, instead of spending an hour on a marijuana possession case. The courts will run smoother without the thousands of possession and sale cases clogging the docket. Prison space will not be wasted on someone selling pot to an adult.
“Marijuana users would like the government to tax them!” Officer Wooldridge said. “Dr. Miron of Harvard University studied the topic. Taxing pot like whiskey would generate some $6.4 billion: not chump change! Better, governments waste $10 billion chasing Willie Nelson and his friends and putting them in jail. As the US slides into a recession or worse, that money will become even more important.”
But what about the ‘Gateway’ theory? Don’t all heroin and meth users start with marijuana? Actually no, they don’t. Federal studies show tobacco as the first illegal drug teens use. Alcohol comes second with marijuana third! The Institute of Medicine in 1999 conducted that study. Less than two percent of marijuana users move on to an abusive relationship with hard drugs.
“After 37 years of ‘Drug War’ and the arrest of 38 million Americans, the majority for marijuana possession, we must accept the reality that the state, through its police department, cannot fix personal stupidity and personal self-destructive behavior,” Officer Wooldridge said. “Only family and friends can help in such a situation.”
Today, my brother Howard Wooldridge heads up a task force in Washington, DC to educate and enlighten congressmen at the highest levels. He works for a better future for all Americans. He can be reached at: Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, www.leap.cc, Washington, DC. He speaks at colleges, political clubs, Rotary, Kiwanis and Lions Clubs across America. LEAP speakers in 36 states address this issue to citizens around the country to bring an end to the Drug War. Check out the web site and join. Book a speaker in your state! Wooldridge also presents at political conferences in Washington. [email protected]
The mission of LEAP is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime, and addiction by ultimately ending drug prohibition.
“Envision a country which employs the principles of personal responsibility, personal freedom and limited/effective government toward marijuana,” Officer Wooldridge said. “I see a growing respect for the police, as they stop intruding into the decisions of adults, made in the privacy of their castles. Teens find it as hard to buy pot as beer. Fewer teens use it because it lost its glamour. Imagine a land where the deadly DUI and reckless drivers kill far fewer, as officers focus on them, not the next pot bust. Envision detectives arresting more child predators as they abandon the time spent arresting someone selling pot to an adult. All this becomes possible, when America becomes wiser and abandons the prohibition approach to marijuana.”
Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Tuesdays and Thursdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show “Connecting the Dots” at republicbroadcasting.org at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.
© 2008 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
I think the first step would be to decriminalise the cultivation of the canna species.
Daily Mail
10th April 2008
For those who warmly applaud Gordon Brown's declared desire to toughen up the law on cannabis, raising it from a Class C to Class B drug, there is always a simple question.
How would you react if your son, or perhaps your grandchild - otherwise law-abiding and blameless citizens - were caught with that drug and at once thrown in a cell and charged with a serious offence which resulted, if not in prison, at least in a criminal record which endangered future employment?
Perhaps you would protest in your grief that you did not believe the sterner law would affect your own family.
What you would certainly not do is praise the tougher regime, declaring how glad you are that your offspring now faces up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine, or both. That'll learn them!
Such a maximum penalty, by the way, would be just for possession. To deal in a Class B drug, which might mean no more than selling some of your cannabis to a friend, could mean up to 14 years in prison.
These are the sort of penalties we normally associate with conspiring to cause an explosion, violent bank robberies, armed assaults and so on.
If you say that such savage sentences would not be imposed then why are they so recently endorsed by the Home Office? This merely makes the law look an ass.
The full absurdity of the drug laws does not end there. Ecstasy is ranked as a Class A drug.
Mere possession can mean seven years in prison or an unlimited fine.
Which means that nightclubs are packed with serious criminals. My own experience of ecstasy is very modest.
I was unknowingly fed a tablet once. It left me full of beans for most of the night but the comedown the next day was tiresome.
On the other hand, it really was not as bad as a hangover. Which brings us to the next absurdity.
There is no evidence that taking drugs such as cannabis or ecstasy is any more addictive or damaging than constant and heavy drinking.
Many of us have witnessed the unattractive phenomenon of indignant - usually elderly - individuals denouncing drugs as they down their third double scotches.
Heavy drinking is at least as harmful to the health of mind and body as drug-taking. Which of us does not know of some tragic case of an addiction to the bottle destroying a marriage, a career or a life?
But no one suggests this makes the case for prohibition. Soft drugs lead on to hard drugs, some claim.
They might or they might not. Wine may also start the downward path to alcoholism.
Moreover, heavy drinking can unleash savagery in some, especially in the home; cannabis is more likely to make the drug-taker silly.
Of course, any drug-taker who drives must be punished - as in the case of a drinker who gets behind the wheel when over the limit. But that is not under debate at the moment.
About half of the young admit to using, or having used, cannabis and/or ecstasy. About half the Cabinet admit to having been users when young.
The other half may deny it but some of us have our doubts - though not in the case of Gordon Brown. He is too joyless by nature to have even tried.
However, crucially, applause by the zealous and high-minded for a drugs crackdown is quite drowned out by the noisy cheers from another quarter - the drugs suppliers; in particular, the obscenely wealthy drugs barons of South America.
Their wealth and power is wholly dependent on drugs being illegal.
This is why drugs will have to be legalised at some time - but controlled like tobacco and appropriately taxed.
Prohibition was the biggest single boost to gangsterism the U.S. ever experienced.
With huge sums at their disposal, the bootleggers corrupted the police, the courts, the judiciary and politicians.
No one was keener on Prohibition then, or the criminalisation of drugs now, than the mafia.
BELLINGHAM — Despite more than a trillion dollars spent, drugs are more available today at lower prices and higher potency than at the beginning of America’s “war on drugs,” the former chief of the Seattle Police Department argued Thursday.
Norm Stamper, chief of the department from 1994 to 2000, spoke at Western Washington University in an event organized by the school’s Drug Information Center.
Speaking for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Stamper called the drug war an “abject failure” that has led to the unjust incarceration of millions and created a system that promotes a violent drug trade that has ravaged Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
“The incineration of human beings … decapitation … this is the kind of violence that a multibillion-dollar drug trafficking industry creates,” Stamper told a crowd of approximately 150 students and community members.
Stamper said the prohibition of drugs is partially responsible for that violence, since it creates a market that dealers exploit.
“The demand has always been greater than the supply, which is why the suppliers make so much on these drugs,” he said.
Stamper outlined some of the “collateral damage” of the drug war, including:
Students who have lost out on financial aid because of misdemeanor drug convictions.
Individuals living in poverty who have been denied federal public housing because of drug convictions. Stamper noted that neither rape nor murder convictions prevent someone from receiving public housing.
Nearly 2.3 million Americans jailed on drug charges, with nearly 90 percent of those convictions being simple possession. Stamper also argued that the drug war has disproportionately affected African Americans, leading to between seven and 10 times more black people being charged with drug crimes than white people.
As a solution, Stamper proposed legalizing all drugs and having the government regulate them — similar to the current system for alcohol and tobacco. Stamper argued that since decades of government intervention has done little to stem the flow of drugs into the country, the government may as well try to cut down on the violence inherent in the drug trade.
Several audience members questioned the morality and practicality of having the government sell drugs that could kill people and lead to addiction.
Stamper was not completely sure of the logistics, but countered by saying that drug addiction would be a reality whether users were getting their substance from the government or a drug dealer on the street.
Why not ensure that people were getting clean needles for intravenous drugs and using proper strength drugs that would limit overdoses, Stamper argued, pointing to the success of rehabilitation programs for addicts in Europe.
Either way, Stamper said America has erred in treating drugs as a criminal-justice issue instead of a publichealth issue.
“We spend seven times more on enforcement than we do on prevention and treatment,” he said. “Think about all the good that would be caused if we reversed that number.”
Laid-back approach is best for cannabis
RESEARCH: Cannabis
Gordon Brown wants to take a tough stand on drugs, starting with the regrading of marijuana as a class B drug. But, as Chris Marshall discovers, there are many doubts about his approach.
ALMOST as if it was imitating the effects of the drug itself, the debate surrounding the reclassification of cannabis has become increasingly hazy of late. The Government's drug advisory body is expected to recommend it keeps its current class C status, ranking it alongside painkillers and stress medication, rather than return it to class B with the likes of amphetamines.
That would once again require police to arrest anyone found in possession of the drug rather than simply caution them.
Gordon Brown, though, wants to upgrade it – a move he believes would send out a clear message that smoking dope is damaging to health and socially unacceptable.
Opinions on the matter are deeply divided, even among the agencies working with drug users, and mental health charities.
It takes time to cut through the haze, but after a careful study of the facts, a clearer picture does emerge.
The new report – commissioned amid fears about the growing availability of stronger "skunk" strains of cannabis – cites one important piece of evidence.
Significant new research from Keele University has severely dented the theory that cannabis use can cause schizophrenia. It has found that far from cases of the illness increasing in line with growing cannabis use in the UK in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, they have actually fallen. The same goes for incidences of psychosis.
Concerns of a link, however, remain, with a growing consensus that the drug seems to trigger or exacerbate the condition in a relatively small number of cases. There is also no doubt that its long-term usage increases the risk of lung cancer, high blood pressure and infertility.
The other great fear about former home secretary David Blunkett's downgrading of the drug in 2004, that it would lead to an explosion in use, also appears to have been unfounded.
Official research suggests cannabis use has actually fallen slightly over the last four years. Although that is probably unrelated to Mr Blunkett's decision, the reclassification has certainly not led to increased problems.
John Arthur, of Crew 2000, an advice and support group for Edinburgh's young drug users, is convinced that keeping cannabis class C is the right decision.
"Cannabis must be the most researched drug in terms of mental health problems," he said.
"There're around three million regular users of cannabis in the UK and if there were associated mental health problems you would think it would come through a lot more.
"There's absolutely no doubt that it can make existing problems worse, but it's completely dose dependent and will pass when the drug is out of the system. There's no evidence that's been produced to show it actually causes mental illness.
"Cannabis is like any other drug, including nicotine, alcohol and caffeine. All of them have an impact on mental health.
"There's always been strong cannabis around, but people don't tend to use the same amount, in the same way they don't use the same amounts of stronger types of alcohol. They only use the amount it takes to get them where they want to go."
Others working in the field remain concerned about the growing perception of cannabis as a "soft drug", an idea clearly reinforced by the C grading.
Chris Denmark, a research officer at Action on Alcohol and Drug Edinburgh, said many younger users were ignorant of the drug's dangers.
"A lot of people don't even view cannabis as a drug – it's become almost accepted," he said. "We've got really quite a young population smoking hash and that's been going on for a few years now. There has been two recent surveys of Scottish schools and there are kids under the age of 16 smoking it. I do think it's a dangerous drug. Calling it a 'soft drug' is a bit of a misnomer. Over the last few years there has been more and more evidence of a lot of potential problems being stored up by using cannabis."
One of the ironies of the debate is that it will have no impact on the approach of police in Scotland.
Gordon Meldrum, deputy director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, said: "When cannabis was reclassified, the Scottish Police Service effectively made no change and the day-to-day reality is that there has been no change in policing style or stance.
"We still treat people found on the street with cannabis in exactly the same way. We still see cannabis as a dangerous drug and a number of recent studies have confirmed that. Cannabis is still viewed very much as a gateway drug – it's still the first drug that children and young people will try. We've a focus on cocaine and heroin, but we've never taken our eye off the ball as far as cannabis is concerned."
Given the latest medical research and drug use studies, it is hard to resist the logic that cannabis should be graded class C. Smoking dope is certainly a lot less dangerous than taking amphetamines, so from a clinical point of view C does make sense. The argument, though, is also about the broader message, as the Prime Minister points out, sending out signals to young people at some level about the dangers and acceptability of drugs.
But is there not as much danger of sending out confused signals about other drugs if we are to artificially raise the status of cannabis? Should drug laws encourage people to think amphetamines are no more dangerous than cannabis when they clearly are?
Our approach to drugs as a nation needs to be based on honesty and facts if the important warnings about their inherent dangers are to carry any weight with an increasingly savvy generation of drug users.
MP calls for rethink on 'failing' drugs laws
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Friday, 11 April 2008
A Labour MP in one of Britain's drug abuse capitals has called for the decriminalisation of drugs in an attempt to reduce the harm they cause and wipe out the dealing trade.
Des Turner, MP for Brighton, said the zero tolerance policy on drugs was not working and a fresh approach is needed.
"I want to make drugs available through safely controlled sources such as pharmacies. Brighton has a serious drug problem with 60 drug-related deaths a year because of the variability of the strength of heroin on the streets."
"I would like to decriminalise drugs for personal use but I am not advocating the legalisation of heroin. By making drugs available through pharmacies it would take away the incentive to push drugs, if the dealers couldn't make any money out of them. It is what I have been thinking for a long time and it is what the professionals are thinking."
Mr Turner said that current arrangements under which registered addicts can get heroin from pharmacies on prescription were "too restrictive". On soft drugs, such as marijuana, he said he had "some sympathy" with the practice in the Netherlands of allowing customers in licensed coffee shops to buy small amounts of cannabis for their personal use on the premises.
A spokesman for the charity Drugscope said Mr Turner appeared confused about the law. "You don't need to change the law to make drugs available through pharmacies because they already are. In the Netherlands, the government has taken an administrative decision not to prosecute [drugs offences] in some cases. Exactly what Mr Turner is proposing is a bit unclear."
GERMAN DEALERS 'ADD LEAD TO MARIJUANA'
Drug dealers looking for extra profits apparently added lead flakes to packets of marijuana, inflating their value while causing dozens of cases of serious poisoning, doctors in Germany reported today.
The lead made up, on average, 10 per cent of the material in the marijuana packets, boosting profits by about $US1,500 ( $A1,613 ) per kilogram, Franzika Busse of University Hospital Leipzig reported.
"One package contained obvious lead particles; this strongly indicated that the lead was deliberately added to the package rather than inadvertently incorporated into the marijuana plants from contaminated soil," the researchers wrote in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
The problem was discovered last year when the first of 29 patients, aged 16 to 33, started showing up in four Leipzig hospitals with abdominal cramps, fatigue, nausea and varying degrees of anemia. One was ill enough to be suffering from hallucinations.
It took eight weeks to uncover a common pattern: all were young, smoked, had body piercings and were either students or unemployed. All regularly used marijuana.
Three patients brought in their stashes. All samples tested positive for lead contamination, with one having lead flakes that were obvious under a microscope.
After two more weeks, an anonymous screening program for marijuana users uncovered 95 other people who needed treatment.
Busse's colleague, Dr Michael Stumvoll, said in an email that about 200 people had now been identified. The screening was continuing, he said, although it did not appear that the practice was continuing among dealers.
"The medical community, including pediatricians, should consider adulterated marijuana as a potential source of lead intoxication," the German team wrote.