User Controls
California to vote on legalizing magic hallucinagenic mushrooms
-
2017-09-06 at 6:32 PM UTCYou're a winner in my book mash. Don't let the bastard grind you down, don't let them grind you dooown
-
2017-09-06 at 6:36 PM UTCMah tigre haz n assoe whut it be doerering' krox wa cught teekin n a cukhoe
-
2017-09-06 at 6:37 PM UTCShut the fuck up, Bill Krozby.
-
2017-09-06 at 6:42 PM UTCAnytime I get ready to make a post I have to go back up and check the thread I'm in because the last few posts in the thread are almost always about something entirely trivial and unrelated and it throws my delicate mind off making me forget what I'm supposed to be reading about.
-
2017-09-06 at 6:45 PM UTCAnytime I get ready to make a post I have to go back up and check the thread I'm in because the last few posts in the thread are almost always about something entirely trivial and unrelated and it throws my delicate mind off making me forget what I'm supposed to be reading about.
-
2017-09-06 at 6:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist you have to take into consideration the difference between heroin users and junkies. two totally different animals. heroin users stick mostly to heroin and use for pleasure. and think about it, heroin addicts have to go out and earn that shit, the idea of a non-function heroin addict is a paradox. if they didn't function then they wouldn't get the heroin to be addicts.
What do you call people like, say, Hydro? She does abuse a number of drugs but, at least from posting, opiates seem to be the primary money sink, addiction, and cause of problems. Tolerance ramps up, a habit that takes X dollars to support today takes X plus some dollars tomorrow. Not saying that's everyone, but are you really saying there are no (primarily) opiate addicts that can't support their habit?
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好
That you would cite this is ridiculously cringeworthy. Also are you HONESTLY saying that people can't learn after highschool? That education after highschool is worthless because 'they know about as much about drugs as drug education is going to give them?"
I swear to fuck Lanny.
I posted a study, cited a specific finding from it, lets review your response:
- emoji
- you find it cringe worthy
- dramatics caps for EMPHASIS
- and misrepresenting what I said
What I'm saying is that when we do a controlled scientific study we doing that we found that drug education after high school has a negligible effect. Would you like to actually contest either the evidence or the conclusions or are you just going to continue to act incredulous?Basic pharmacology and understanding is needed to stay safe. The cocaethylene was an example. People do not learn about serotonin syndrome. They don't learn about MDMA abuse damaging dem axons. They don't learn that smoking anything can cause cancer. The drug education in this country, and most others, is absolute shit. It does not teach people the things they need to know. Basically the only thing people know is not to mix 'downers'
If you think people actually are aware of these things you spend far too much time online.
Again, you thinking that miniscule number of anecdotes you've managed to gather and are now seemingly drawing from is representative or a sane basis for national drug policy is a joke. If you'd like to present evidence that
1. People, at scale, engage in dangerous behaviour with drugs that some set of knowledge would prevent and
2. Public education programs are capable of providing said knowledge
then I'd be happy to discuss it. But I don't really know what you expect me to say when you regale me with stories of the stupidity of people you've associated with.I can count the number of people I've met who know what they're talking about on one hand.
wat?You are biased because you do not use drugs like meth and heroin, and I'd guess you haven't met many who do judging by your views on addicts. Drugs are expensive, Lan-Man. Most addicts are functioning members of society. I honestly can't think of any I've met who aren't. I mean I'm sure there are plenty, but this isn't The Wire. Like, your views on addicts being dysfunctional is objectively wrong.
I'm biased because (you think) I don't use highly addictive psychoactive drugs? Would you admit I'm not biased if I told you I do use these drugs or do I have to be an addict to be unbiased §m£ÂgØL? What do you think the word "bias" means?I didn't say that either. But it's a major frosting cause of overdose, yeah? Don't be pedantic.
I'm not being pedantic, I think you don't understand my position here. I don't deny that the variability of drug purity is a major problem in america today. I grant you this. Will you admit that, even for drugs which are legal (say, alcohol) there are socially harmful patterns of use?People overdose with prescription drugs largely because of COMBINATIONS, not because of the small recreational range. I suggest you look here:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
You will never, ever, ever stop people from not knowing their limits. But you CAN help them find you. I cannot fathom how you think keeping something like heroin can possibly be safer than regulating it so that people know their dose.
Ok, so we've established people don't know their limits. When they have access to drugs that are potentially fatal at high doses or in combinations some people will die. Why do you think this is damaging to my position? Yes, people with access to consistently quality heroin will die less than those taking variable quality heroin. You know who dies from heroin overdose even less than both those groups? People who don't take heroin.
Granted, there's a balance here right? Like more people using opiates will mean more deaths, but better quality opiates will mean less deaths. All I'm saying is that from a public policy perspective legalization requires we weigh the drawbacks of legalizations (potentially increased prevalence of use, missed opportunities to reduce use by reducing supply) against the advantages (lower burden on the prison system, fewer deaths related to tainted drugs, etc.).Second of all, a lot of the crime relating to addiction RESULTS from its illegality. You never hear about alcoholics stealing to support their habit because it is affordable.
Really? You can't think of any crimes that are a product of alcoholism?I just don't get why you're correlating these things when we know that legalizing heroin and other drugs would solve this issue of petty crime.
Lol, ok, I guess I forgot that I knew that. Good thing you're here to remind me what we do and don't know.No. You are wrong. Lots of them went on to become functioning members of society and went to school and such. I don't know why you think they were all homeless before. Many of them quit using too as the stability helped them get to a place in life where they did not feel they needed to. It overall lowered Denmark's opiate addict population.
And again, I never said that legalization would eliminate overdose. I mean, that program did, because they gave out measured doses to the addicts at a clinic. But legalization wouldn't. It doesn't solve all the problems. It just keeps people safer and improves their quality of life.
I never argued against the program though? I already said I support programs like needle exchanges. What do you think that program proves with regards to legalization?The ratio is different for illegal drugs because illegal drugs are fucking expensive, and they're expensive because they're illegal.
So let me get this straight... you think that because a thing is illegal and expensive to get access to is the reason it seems to be more highly addictive than other things? Yes, of course, this must be why our streets are brimming over with sharkfin soup and tortoise meat addicts. We made eating endangered animals illegal so now all these people have wound up dysfunctionally addicted to them. It's so obvious now...Why do you think legalizing weed or psychedelics or whatever you think should be legalized would be ANY different?
- LD50 is unclear, overdose is extremely difficult in both cases
- Risks in combination with other drugs is far lower
- Very low addiction potential relative to opiates, amphetamines, or even alcohol
- In the case of psychedelics I'd argue there's even a potential for social utility beyond recreation -
2017-09-06 at 7:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What do you call people like, say, Hydro? She does abuse a number of drugs but, at least from posting, opiates seem to be the primary money sink, addiction, and cause of problems. Tolerance ramps up, a habit that takes X dollars to support today takes X plus some dollars tomorrow. Not saying that's everyone, but are you really saying there are no (primarily) opiate addicts that can't support their habit?
I don't know why you keep bringing up this "But there will always be some" thing because nobody said that legalization was perfect and that it would solve all the problems. It's just better than the unregulated wild west shit we've got going on in people's bodies right now.
Also opioids are far from hydro's main problem. She's also got legitimate health problems and kinda needs them. I know lots of people call bullshit on those, but trust me when I say that she has legit pain. If she didn't I'd be the first to call her out on it. Anyway, she's not really a good example here since we'd be bringing medicine into it.What I'm saying is that when we do a controlled scientific study we doing that we found that drug education after high school has a negligible effect. Would you like to actually contest either the evidence or the conclusions or are you just going to continue to act incredulous?
Your study is unworthy as they're most certainly not teaching people anything like what I'm talking about. Your argument is what... that people can't learn? Like, you can't be fucking serious here thinking that your study is the end all to this argument. All drug education in this country is insufficient. There is no drug education program going on in which they teach basic pharmacology. Your studies are not applicable because they are not related to what I'm talking about besides the word 'education.'
It's like I'm talking about how palm trees don't grow in Canada and you come out saying that no trees grow in Canada.Again, you thinking that miniscule number of anecdotes you've managed to gather and are now seemingly drawing from is representative or a sane basis for national drug policy is a joke. If you'd like to present evidence that
1. People, at scale, engage in dangerous behaviour with drugs that some set of knowledge would prevent and
2. Public education programs are capable of providing said knowledge
then I'd be happy to discuss it. But I don't really know what you expect me to say when you regale me with stories of the stupidity of people you've associated with.
1. Education leads to safer decision making. It is true with smoking, teen pregnancy, texting while driving, drunk driving, diet, etc. Find me one study which says otherwise, that this sort of education/these campaigns don't work. That education doesn't lead to safer choices. I'm not even going to bother citing anything because its a waste of my time.
If you want to bring up DARE, DARE doesn't work because DARE is an abstinence program. Abstinence programs do not work.
2. I don't even know what you mean by this. You want me to what, look up budgets?I'm biased because (you think) I don't use highly addictive psychoactive drugs? Would you admit I'm not biased if I told you I do use these drugs or do I have to be an addict to be unbiased §m£ÂgØL? What do you think the word "bias" means?
You do not have experience with people Lanny. It is blatantly clear by your perception of addicts being dysfunctional, and believing that addiction is a detriment to society because of that. Because of this, you do not have a reasonable pool to draw from when it comes to your own personal opinions about what is and isn't harmful to society. It's pretty fucking puritan and it just seems like you're saying addicts = bad.I'm not being pedantic, I think you don't understand my position here. I don't deny that the variability of drug purity is a major problem in america today. I grant you this. Will you admit that, even for drugs which are legal (say, alcohol) there are socially harmful patterns of use?
I don't think you understand my position and I just addressed this too. I feel like you aren't actually reading anything because you're repeating the same points over and over again without actually addressing what I'm saying. Legalization is not perfect. Yes there are socially harmful patterns of use. But social =/= society. What do you think is harmful to society? As far as I'm concerned, you're a functioning member of society as long as you are active/contributing to the economy, and not harming others.
It doesn't matter if you just stay home and drink and cry as long as you get to work on time and put in your hours and don't drive drunk or come into work hungover.Ok, so we've established people don't know their limits. When they have access to drugs that are potentially fatal at high doses or in combinations some people will die. Why do you think this is damaging to my position? Yes, people with access to consistently quality heroin will die less than those taking variable quality heroin. You know who dies from heroin overdose even less than both those groups? People who don't take heroin.
Granted, there's a balance here right? Like more people using opiates will mean more deaths, but better quality opiates will mean less deaths. All I'm saying is that from a public policy perspective legalization requires we weigh the drawbacks of legalizations (potentially increased prevalence of use, missed opportunities to reduce use by reducing supply) against the advantages (lower burden on the prison system, fewer deaths related to tainted drugs, etc.).
OK, but abstinence doesn't work. See: rising opioid problem. I also don't know why you think legalization would lead to more addicts, or why you think you can actually reduce use by reducing supply. The drug war does not work, blah blah blah. The addicts are here to stay, blah blah blah.
We know by looking drug decriminalization in Portugal and places where marijuana is legal that reduced legal penalties do not result in higher drug use. In Portugal, decriminalization dropped drug use by as much as 3% in some groups over the last 15 years. In legal states, Marijuana use typically rises right around legalization and then shortly drops. There are less teens who use too and are thus prevented from using during some of the more vulnerable stages of an addict's life.Really? You can't think of any crimes that are a product of alcoholism?
Blaming alcohol or drugs for these problems is absolutely retarded. Some mental gymnastics right here. You agree that poverty is a big factor in crime rate, yes? Do you see how drugs being illegal keeps them expensive, and therefore keeps people poor?I never argued against the program though? I already said I support programs like needle exchanges. What do you think that program proves with regards to legalization
It proves that when you make it easy for addicts to get their drugs they no longer have to worry about drugs. Crime drops. Addiction rates drop, even in those who were not a part of the program. The program literally had no downsides other than there still being addicts. Obviously legalization in itself would be different, a little bit more freeing and probably less beneficial, but it's still better than the current system.So let me get this straight… you think that because a thing is illegal and expensive to get access to is the reason it seems to be more highly addictive than other things? Yes, of course, this must be why our streets are brimming over with sharkfin soup and tortoise meat addicts. We made eating endangered animals illegal so now all these people have wound up dysfunctionally addicted to them. It's so obvious now…
Again, you lack some serious athletic abilities. Let me repeat it for you. Drugs are illegal. They are expensive. They are expensive because they are illegal. What you quoted says NOTHING about addiction.
When you make drugs legal, they are no longer so expensive. When drugs are not expensive, addicts can afford them. When addicts can afford them, they are not so poor. When they are not so poor, they don't need to commit crimes to support their habit. When they don't need to commit crimes to support their habit, society benefits. I mean, you don't think people commit crimes because the drugs make them do it, do you?- In the case of psychedelics I'd argue there's even a potential for social utility beyond recreation
Confirmed Californian. Holy shit. I should have read this before I typed any of the rest of this. Fucking LOL. God I did not realize I was talking to one of *those* Christ. -
2017-09-06 at 7:46 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 9:58 PM UTC
-
2017-09-13 at 8:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 I don't know why you keep bringing up this "But there will always be some" thing because nobody said that legalization was perfect and that it would solve all the problems. It's just better than the unregulated wild west shit we've got going on in people's bodies right now.
I'm glad you agree "there will always be some". Some portion of opiate users will develop destructive habits, so use of opiates always carries some risk. I'm saying we need to consider the risk of potentially increased use due to legalization and weigh that against the advantages of legalization. You seem to miss that I'm not denying most of the advantages of legalization you're talking about, but you do seem to be ignoring the very possible disadvantages.Also opioids are far from hydro's main problem. She's also got legitimate health problems and kinda needs them. I know lots of people call bullshit on those, but trust me when I say that she has legit pain. If she didn't I'd be the first to call her out on it. Anyway, she's not really a good example here since we'd be bringing medicine into it.
Did you mean that like "trust me when I say I have direct access to the qualia of other people" or more like "trust me, I questionably impregnated this woman and therefore am able to provide a medical diagnosis and that diagnosis is she needs heroin"?Your study is unworthy as they're most certainly not teaching people anything like what I'm talking about.
Lol, OK, so legalization is only good if you get to be the czar of drug education and dictate what is and isn't true about drugs? Did you even read the paper?Your argument is what… that people can't learn
No, as I've said multiple times, my argument is drug education in adults is of limited efficacy. As a corollary I offer that most destructive patterns of drug use arise from negligence rather than ignorance.1. Education leads to safer decision making. It is true with smoking, teen pregnancy, texting while driving, drunk driving, diet, etc. Find me one study which says otherwise… I'm not even going to bother citing anything because its a waste of my time.
lol, that's not how this works bud.2. I don't even know what you mean by this. You want me to what, look up budgets?
Non-anecdotal evidence that education campaigns lead to measurably safer decision making (like your whole claim here) would be a good startYou do not have experience with people Lanny. It is blatantly clear by your perception of addicts being dysfunctional, and believing that addiction is a detriment to society because of that. Because of this, you do not have a reasonable pool to draw from when it comes to your own personal opinions about what is and isn't harmful to society. It's pretty fucking puritan and it just seems like you're saying addicts = bad.
Lol, ok §m£ÂgØL, clearly your vast intrapersonal knowledge is so comprehensive my meager peer reviewed journal article or my own human experience can't hold a flame to it. Clearly you have all kinds of life experience and are reaping the tremendous benefits of having such keen insight into the human condition at the ripe old age of, uhh, how old are you, are you 20 yet? 25?
That said, I'd ask you turn some of your insight into the minds and hearts of men towards me in order to pull your head out of your ass and realize it's possible for people to be opposed to blanket drug legalization without fitting your comic mental image of the "puritan" (nice buzzword bud) middle american conservative.OK, but abstinence doesn't work.
nice slogan broI also don't know why you think legalization would lead to more addicts
We agree that use will always entail some addicts. Does it not seem reasonable that higher use would lead to more addicts? And that legal drugs tend to be used more than illegal ones?why you think you can actually reduce use by reducing supply.
Well one reason might be because we find very low incidence of illegal drug use in countries where illegal drugs are highly non-available.In legal states, Marijuana use typically rises right around legalization and then shortly drops. There are less teens who use too and are thus prevented from using during some of the more vulnerable stages of an addict's life.
You want to give me a source there bud?Blaming alcohol or drugs for these problems is absolutely retarded.
Clearly, but since you didn't actually answer my question do you want to give a clear yes or no to the question:Really? You can't think of any crimes that are a product of alcoholism?
?Obviously legalization in itself would be different, a little bit more freeing and probably less beneficial, but it's still better than the current system.
Oh ok, well if something might be "probably less beneficial" according to §m£ÂgØL than a public program that "literally has no downsides" well then that's enough to convince me.Again, you lack some serious athletic abilities. Let me repeat it for you. Drugs are illegal. They are expensive. They are expensive because they are illegal. What you quoted says NOTHING about addiction.
The quote I replied to for your refrence:I'm not saying it's impossible to have a sustainable opiate habit, but I'm saying the chances of regular opiate use turning unsustainable, the ratio of junkies to functional users, is a lot different than other drugs and legislation ought to take this difference into account.
So let me get this straight… you think that because a thing is illegal and expensive to get access to is the reason it seems to be more highly addictive than other things? Yes, of course, this must be why our streets are brimming over with sharkfin soup and tortoise meat addicts. We made eating endangered animals illegal so now all these people have wound up dysfunctionally addicted to them. It's so obvious now…
We're talking about the ratio of junkies to functional users (presumably you agree if you have a non-functional drug addiction then you're a junkie for the purposes of this discussion at least), so are you saying being a junkie doesn't have anything to do with addiction or what?Confirmed Californian. Holy shit. I should have read this before I typed any of the rest of this. Fucking LOL. God I did not realize I was talking to one of *those* Christ.
You seem upset. That's OK
Post last edited by Lanny at 2017-09-13T19:39:55.081740+00:00The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
