no Disco not pot, I was quoting Lamby and his references to burglaries & home invasions etc, these & are generally not committed by our dope smoking friends (too busy on the couch ??)
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)
- Thread starter lamb22
- Start date
lamb22 said:
Thanks for the reply Lamby.
Hasn't convinced me in regard to legalising marijuana though. I don't think treatment for addiction or burglaries by dope smokers looking for cash are overly relevant factors, or decent reasons, in regard to legalising dope. I also don't think too many police resources are wasted on dope smokers...no massive savings to be made there I'd be interested to read the research on overseas dope smokers addiction rates that you mention, and what kind of addiction it is. Do you mean addicted similar to cigarette smokers, rather than an addiction like heroin users for example (Something I don't think is a factor with cannabis) ?
I might be wrong but I get the distinct impression your response confuses dope with harder drugs. There's a massive difference.
Back to cannabis though. As I asked Disco how do you envisage it be controlled and managed? Obviously you think it should be taxed to give the Govt money to educate people? Would it be modelled on the tobacco industry?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Yep very interesting Panthera...and nice to have a topical discussion without people resorting to insults and abuse.
I don't really know how to answer your questions sorry. They're a bit out of the blue and have no context for me to understand what and why you ask and I don't know what you refer to by "acceptable".
Anyway not understanding hasn't stopped me from waffling on before so Ill have a crack anyway. ;D
I don't really know about media portrayal. Media is restricted in regard to tobacco advertising so it's hard to gauge. The acceptance or lack thereof of smoking isn't anything I've noticed enough to have an opinion on. I'm not a real media person though. I have a quick squizz through the online newspaper sites, watch very little tv, only listen to abc radio either in bed or in the car cos they're the only options here. I rarely read magazines. Probably not qualified or knowledgeable to answer the question really.
As for smoking being socially acceptable. I detest cigarette smoke but I know a lot of smokers who do too. I didn't marry someone I was engaged to once because he insisted on smoking in the house and I couldn't stand it, and certainly wasn't willing to bring up children in that kind of environemnt.
With hindsight, and knowing the cost both personally and to society, and the addictive nature of tobacco, I wonder if the industry would even be legalised today. It's what makes me wonder about legalising cannabis, especially when people think it should be government run so they can raise taxes to treat and educate people.
I understand, and feel sorry for, those who started smoking tobacco in ignorance of the life threatening side effects and/or it's addictive nature and are paying the price now.
I am really saddened seeing early teenage kids smoking, and there seem to be a lot of 13yo girls doing so, because they are probably quite aware of the potential consequences.
I think it's probably considered acceptable largely because it's legal. I find that is changing though with the new smoking laws. It's not that long ago that you were frowned upon for asking guests to go outside to smoke or it was just tough luck if you were eating your dinner at a restaurant and someone lit up at the table beside you. I think it's more a matter of you are free to do what you like with your life kind of acceptance, but make sure it doesn't impact on me.
The underground element of the industry, and it amuses me people assume legalising drugs will wipe out the crime factor, probably wouldn't be considered acceptable in society and neither would the cost in human lives and resources.
rosy23 said:
Sorry to be a bit vague in my questions. They were in response to you equating legalisation with social acceptance. The reason I asked was that I don't think smoking is considered as socially acceptable in our society as it once was - in response to a better understanding of just how deadly they can be and education and support programs as a result. Just as in the case of illicit drugs, people, including kids, understand the danger of smoking and many people are giving them up as a result. You may say that kids still try cigarettes, and although I agree, I would also say that they try other things too. I guess the legal status of the drug doesn't change the experimentation factor. I would also add that I agree that accessibility to any drugs should be controlled in the case of minors.
My main gripe with this issue comes down to the idea of vice laws. I just don't understand why the government should have any say in what consenting adults do to themselves as long as they aren't impacting on the lives of others. I am no fan of illicit drugs myself and have seen firsthand the damage they do. However, if they were made legal under government control, I still wouldn't be a fan and I would daresay that you wouldn't be either (and users would still use - as they do now).
What the naysayers on this thread seem to ignore is that the problems that they claim will occur if drugs are legalised, ie. deaths, crime, addicts etc are already a reality and in some case are exacerbated by the criminal nature and source of the drugs.
rosy23 said:Thanks for the reply Lamby.
Hasn't convinced me in regard to legalising marijuana though. I don't think treatment for addiction or burglaries by dope smokers looking for cash are overly relevant factors, or decent reasons, in regard to legalising dope. I also don't think too many police resources are wasted on dope smokers...no massive savings to be made there I'd be interested to read the research on overseas dope smokers addiction rates that you mention, and what kind of addiction it is. Do you mean addicted similar to cigarette smokers, rather than an addiction like heroin users for example (Something I don't think is a factor with cannabis) ?
I might be wrong but I get the distinct impression your response confuses dope with harder drugs. There's a massive difference.
Back to cannabis though. As I asked Disco how do you envisage it be controlled and managed? Obviously you think it should be taxed to give the Govt money to educate people? Would it be modelled on the tobacco industry?
Some interesting artcles here Rosy referencing the US and dutch studies about addiction rates
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/
The various authors are health, social policy and police experts. I think the most prevalant point is that addiction rates are higher in the US than in the Netherlands which allows a form of legal pot buying through the coffee shops and non enforcement (even though its technically on the books).
Another intresting pont is that tobacco smoking (a legal drug) is declning through education but dope smoking (illegal drug) is increasing.
Full legalisation would need to be handed carefully but if you make sure you restrict access to minors, the consensus expert opinion is that addiction rates wont change or possibly decrease.
And I've got to disagree with you on the links to crime. I get really hot under the collar knowing that many elderly and vulnerable people suffer assaults in their homes by druggies looking for cash (and here I'm not referring solely to dope) and all governments do is run this phoney war on drugs campaign which actually feeds into and enables organised crime. In the 'war on drugs' everyone loses. There is more crime, more criminals, police resources are wasted, funds are directed out of hands of governments and users and into the hands of crooks , health outcomes are worse, users are demonised rather than treated and on all the evidence making drugs illegal makes no difference to addiction rates or possibly increases the number of users.
Prohibition is a failed policy in that it fails to meet any of the tests for success. It just causes pain to users and their friends and families and innocent bystanders and benefits criminals.
PS Califiornia (indeed Arnie himself) is considering legalisation and taxation. Sounds good to me. The articles quoted also go into other issues of regulation, quality control and of course prohibiting access to kids. Studies indicate that its the developing brain that dope can affect adversely the most. At the moment kids can get access to dope easy and they dont know how potent it is. If you legalise it, regulate it and protect kids at the same time, logic says you must end up with better health outcomes.
Quality posting, lamb.
The fact of the matter is, at bottom, government needs battles like the 'war on drugs'. If they ever came to their senses and gave it up, they would still have to develop other 'wars' on abstract nouns. It is what makes them most relevant; their raison de'rtre. The message always is: "Be afraid of 'them', and empower us to protect you". It doesn't natter who or what you should be afraid of, just be afraid.
If it wasn't the war on drugs, it would be the war on terrorism, or the war on the internet, or the war on other nations, etc.
The fact of the matter is, at bottom, government needs battles like the 'war on drugs'. If they ever came to their senses and gave it up, they would still have to develop other 'wars' on abstract nouns. It is what makes them most relevant; their raison de'rtre. The message always is: "Be afraid of 'them', and empower us to protect you". It doesn't natter who or what you should be afraid of, just be afraid.
If it wasn't the war on drugs, it would be the war on terrorism, or the war on the internet, or the war on other nations, etc.
lamb22 said:
Maybe if you laid off the Cheech&Chongs (thanks Ox) for 5 minutes you would get motivated to do so......
:hihi
evo said:
Apparently? Maybe so but Glucosomine (& chondrotin) certainly helped my recovery after I was prescribed it for a joint injury. Made the world of difference in a short space of time.
I'd back it.
evo said:fair enough. Maybe it was the chondrotin. Or maybe something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398798
Pantera will be pleased to know it is peer reviewed!!
Voltaren againt a variety of inflamations and muscle/joint stiifness- is a miracle drug. I start off creaking and limping and an hour later am playing futsal (with real running and stuff!) at 50.
Dont know if glocosomine regrows cartilage or whether it is a placebo, but my left knee stopped buckling on me a week or so after beginning use and the constant twinges are gone and going up stairs is a lot easier.
Fish oil tablets are hard work though! Should stick to the caviar and cheech&chong!
evo said:fair enough. Maybe it was the chondrotin. Or maybe something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398798
Pantera will be pleased to know it is peer reviewed!!
Most of the evidence has shown that there is absolutely no benefit of chondrotin over placebo. The picture with glucosamine is not quite as clear with some studies (many funded by the manufacturer of glucosamine supplements) showing some benefits. There have been some large scale clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy of glucosamine, which have suggested little benefit. There is a nice summary of the current research on the quackwatch website. There was also a nice entry and subsequent discussion on the Science-Based Medicine blog.
lamb22 said:
Considering cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption is accessible for, and partaking not uncommon in, minors how do you propose to restrict access of legalised drugs to them?
Wouldn't it be fun to watch our young kids shooting up heroin, requiring more each time to get the hit they want, sinking lower into the mire of self loathing in between hits and risking life threatening addiction.
I wonder if those advocating it's legalisation have ever watched heroin take over the life of someone they know? How they increasingly need more regular and stronger doses? How low they sink in between? How they hate what they've become and are powerless to stop it. I have with too many people I've known and it's not pretty.
Have they ever watched someone suffer extreme paranoia while on drugs? Have you ever had any experience with someone on hallucinogenic drugs? Both very dangerous conditions to have people running around in public putting their lives, and others, at risk.
It's been an interesting discussion but nobody has managed to convince me of the benefits and need to legalise drugs in any way. There is no way a smorgasbord of mind altering and highly addictive drugs will be legalised and made readily available to the general public so it's pretty futile to discuss it as though it's likely to happen. I'm still not convinced the advocates aren't just pulling my leg.
So moving right along.
I've had multiple knee operations. I've had very little success/relief from things like Voltaren, cortisone and glucosamine. Does anybody know where I can buy a packet of placebos. Seems they might be the way to go. :hihi
Panthera tigris FC said:
Hardly conclusive then is it.
When it comes to the V&M industry I am as sceptical as anyone Panthera.
All l I know is after I was prescribed Glucosomine (and chondrotin) by a highly qualified physio on the back of a chronic year long arthritic injury, it literally started working for me in a matter of days. Admittedly I was also given some acupuncture (another prior scepticism) which may have also assisted.
Tigers of Old said:
Of course it is not conclusive. Scientists rarely use absolute language but if you look at the evidence in this case it seems clear that benefits from chondrotin are due to placebo effects and glucosamine are largely as well (although the evidence is not quite as strong on this and some studies suggest that there may be some benefits). It's great that your symptoms have been alleviated, but it is impossible to determine whether you are experiencing natural alleviation, the placebo effect or the effect of the medication. Studies that have given a large number of individuals placebos showed little to no difference from those receiving the glucosamine. Take from that what you will.
As for acupuncture, well, let's leave that for another thread as I have managed to hijack this one for long enough.
rosy23 said:
Yes, yes and yes. I have seen the very worst that drugs can cause to an individual and to a family. That ranges from alcohol, to hallucinogens (including marijuana), to heroin. You seem to be conflating the desire to make this a medical problem, not a criminal problem with the approval or condoning of such use.
No one is discussing it thinking that is about to happen as far as I can tell. We are discussing the morality and ethics of the current system, which many of us consider is flawed.
:hihi
<
Australian Economics
|
Brexited
>
