Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Puke while smoking pot? not-a-chance.
The only time one might get sick with smack is when shooting it. Smoking it won't do it.
Krokodil (flesh eating heroin substitute)
- Thread starter No Joy
- Start date
Puke while smoking pot? not-a-chance.
The only time one might get sick with smack is when shooting it. Smoking it won't do it.
Ok...lol
Fixed
What you think most potheads do?
Most of them that smoke pot straight, say something stupid (think it is profound), get the munchies, then go to sleep.
Laced with H is liable to get similar results, though probably more intense. H is much more addicting, therefore they are much more likely to come back to purchase more.
Let me ask you this, how many times have you started on heavy opioid use?
Hypocrisy. You still haven't answered a lot of questions that have been asked of you.
Just a few::wink2:
How do you know what the current street prices are on marijuana and heroin?
You still haven't supported your claims that there were two hurricanes in Colorado recently.
You still haven't supported your claims that Pacific islands are being abandoned because of global warming.
So the answer is you haven't,
You still haven't supported your claims that Pacific islands are being abandoned because of global warming.
Well, according to Rep Hank Johnson (D), Guam may tip over and sink into the sea if an additional 8000 Marines are going to be stationed there. I am not sure what he was smoking, I just know that I want no piece of that stuff.
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,703
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
I appoint you to the role of junkie rehabilitation program chief.
Let us know how that works out.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Note I said OD, and yes junkies want the stuff that folks OD on because "it must be good (strong) stuff"
EppyGA
Touchdown! Greaser!
This really is a win win. Maybe we can get all the junkies hooked on this stuff.
That would only increase the societal costs.
Free Fentanyl.
EppyGA
Touchdown! Greaser!
Short term pain for long term gain. Big picture Henning.
Be careful what you wish for...
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Here's a solution: Legalize drugs and sell them through licensed pharmacies!
Your ranting in your opening post about how our "law enforcement, judicial system, and penal system should crack down harder, on hard-core drug use and dealers that deal hard-core drugs" makes you almost sound like a Liberal. Only Liberals believe that laws are like magic wands that they can wave to magically make problems go away.
The biggest reason for every bad consequence of drugs is the government and its idiotic "war" on drugs, from the very existence of the entire illegal distribution infrastructure, to the crimes committed by addicts to purchase drugs at prices inflated several hundredfold by the fact that they are illegal, to the innocent victims caught in the crossfire caused by the high stakes the "war on drugs" has attached to the drug trade, to the people with rotted flesh whose pictures appeared on the article you linked.
Legalizing recreational drugs and allowing pharmacists to sell them would almost immediately:
- Eliminate the entire illegal drug distribution empire.
- Eliminate most street crime committed by addicts to get drugs. The actual costs of most recreational drugs are extremely low without the inflation caused by the risk of trafficking in illegal drugs.
- Eliminate violence associated with the drug trade. It's hard to imagine rival pharmacists doing drive-by shootings on each others' shops.
- Eliminate health problems associated with bad batches of drugs, mislabeled drugs, or adulterated drugs.
- Free up untold billions of dollars that could be diverted into treatment for those who want it, or better yet, just returned to the taxpayers.
As for the people in the article who have been affected, it's too bad that the government caused that to happen by refusing to get out of the way and mafe safe recreational drugs available through legal channels. But it's also true that these people did in fact choose to do recreational drugs, and there's not a recreational drug user in the world who doesn't know someone who "caught a bad batch."
So although I feel bad for them, behavior does have consequences, and risky behavior all the more so. I believe in personal freedom. But I also believe in personal responsibility.
-Rich
Last edited:
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Ummm...I don't think so, Rich, you must have missed this post:
And if you don't believe No Joy just ask Palin or Huckabee...they are two of the most honest intellectuals if I've ever run across.
Not chumming. It's the business model for those Big Software Companies.
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,889
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
Dose for dose alcohol is more addictive than heroin. So that's a pretty long lead time for a loss leader ...How do you know how much weed costs?
Don't you think drug addicts would be willing to pay more for weed that gets them higher?
Many people that are not willing to do hard-core drugs, do marijuana. Pushers marketing marijuana without revealing that it is laced, is likely to appeal to a larger market. It's also likely to get more people addicted to harder core drugs, which is going to be more lucrative for dealers.
Wow, really?
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
1. Krokodil is not new its ben around for a number of years, at least those pictures and others have been circulating for a number of years.
2. Many illicit drug suppliers are multi product suppliers. You really think they use hoods, gloves, and other things that prevent cross contamination. So weed does not have to be intentionally laced, it can occur inadvertently.
3. Marijuana is in a completely different league from cocaine, heroin, and meth. Remember also all of these illegal drugs have legal equivalents(some by the same name) that are used on a daily basis. However, unlike their illicit cousins the legal equivalents are used in carefully controlled doses for carefully controlled indications.
4. Many chronic drug users have their drug of choice, and prefer to use that. The incidence of fatal overdose is actual quite small compared to the number of users out there. Many of these drugs have their own set of ways of killing the user that has little if anything to do with the mind altering, or addictive effects of the drug. Like tobacco is linked with cancer, cocaine users often have cardiovascular issues, and brain hemorrhages, heroin user get infections, and HIV... Marijuana seems just to make people stupid and lazy, but my guess is some of that is stereotype and preexisting personality more so than cause and effect.
5. Flying is the best (and possibly cheapest) way to get high, and I nothing more to add at this point.
2. Many illicit drug suppliers are multi product suppliers. You really think they use hoods, gloves, and other things that prevent cross contamination. So weed does not have to be intentionally laced, it can occur inadvertently.
3. Marijuana is in a completely different league from cocaine, heroin, and meth. Remember also all of these illegal drugs have legal equivalents(some by the same name) that are used on a daily basis. However, unlike their illicit cousins the legal equivalents are used in carefully controlled doses for carefully controlled indications.
4. Many chronic drug users have their drug of choice, and prefer to use that. The incidence of fatal overdose is actual quite small compared to the number of users out there. Many of these drugs have their own set of ways of killing the user that has little if anything to do with the mind altering, or addictive effects of the drug. Like tobacco is linked with cancer, cocaine users often have cardiovascular issues, and brain hemorrhages, heroin user get infections, and HIV... Marijuana seems just to make people stupid and lazy, but my guess is some of that is stereotype and preexisting personality more so than cause and effect.
5. Flying is the best (and possibly cheapest) way to get high, and I nothing more to add at this point.
The Russians came up with this one because of the scaly gangrenous skin legions it causes.
Not only that, alcohol is far more physiologically damaging.
Actually, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are in a totally different category from meth and alcohol. Meth and Alcohol are by far the most detrimental of recreational drugs. Meth is downright evil, it's the only one I would ban. Tell the tweekers, "Sorry, you'll just have to settle for blow."
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Sometimes some of the stuff you post just really blows my mind. Equating meth and alcohol... I think I see where you are coming from, but it just does not work for me.
Physiological damage from the drug itself.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
That's what I thought you meant but they all except for possibly marijuana cause significant physiological damage. There have been attempts to equate some of the physiological issues that occur with smoking tobacco to marijuana but many of the studies have failed to equivocally show that but there is probably some similar effects certainly in terms of lung issues. The listless chronic marijuana user may be a product of selection as opposed to cause. Cocaine causes in addition to the primary damage to the nasal passages, and cribiform plate, cardiac, and cerebrovascular issues. Heroin is associated with AIDS, and its related house of horrors, endocarditis, and other systemic infections(yes I know this is from dirty needles but it is still an issue), and autoimmune problems. Alcohol causes the well described liver and gastric issues, but also can affect the brain, and other solid organs as well as the hematological systems as well. If you meant psychological instead of physiological, they all have the common problem of addiction. So sorry I still do not agree with you.
Most of the problems with cocaine are re related to the processing
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I agree with you about meth. It's the only drug I'm not in favor of legalizing. There is no "safe" recreational dosage of meth, no amount too small to cause damage, no point at which it stops causing damage, and less-than-wonderful chances for full recovery once the damage is done.
- - -
On a lighter note...
Q: What's the difference between a crackhead and a tweaker?
A: The crackhead will steal your **** and bounce. The tweaker will steal your **** and then help you look for it.
-Rich
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Cocaine is a cardiac stimulant via its action on the release of powerful vasoconstrictors that result in increasing heart rate, and blood pressure. This causes both acute problems such as fatal myocardial infarctions, intracranial hemorrhages, etc, and chronic problems such as cardiomyopathy, etc. In addition the direct effects on the nasal mucosa causes destruction of the nasal mucosa and the septum among other things. This has absolutely nothing to do with processing, and everything to do with what cocaine does pharmacological and biochemically. But if it makes you happy stay in your fantasy land with your fantasy thoughts.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
Usually Rich your opinions are quite good. On this one I cannot disagree with you more. Spend an evening in an emergency room in an inner city, and you will see the ravages of heroin abuse, cocaine abuse, and some of the new synthetic drugs? You think LSD should be legalized? How about PCP? What about GHB? I know you are smarter than that.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Except when Airforce pilots use meth to get through long flights, then it is OK.
I'm not convinced that that use is safe, either, nor most of its other legal uses (ADHD, narcolepsy, obesity, etc.). There does seem to be some threshold before permanent damage to dopamine receptors occurs, but no one seems to know exactly where that threshold is.
Wherever it is, it's well below the common recreational use dosages, judging by the near-universal evidence of damage to dopaminergic pathways in recreational meth users.
-Rich
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I was a paramedic for several years when I got out of the service, and I spent many years doing volunteer work in New York City with, among others, all manner of drug users. I also have an ex-wife who was a recovering alcoholic and coke addict, but who relapsed with gusto during our time together (which is why she's now my ex). So believe me, I've seen enough of the ravages.
But guess what: All the ravages occur DESPITE the stuff being illegal.
For some reason, people in America gasp when they hear suggestions that legalizing drugs can help prevent most of the undesirable consequences. I might be able to understand their objections if the prohibition-based policies that are in place here were actually working, but it's pretty clear to anyone who spends an evening working in an emergency room or on an ambulance in an inner city that our enforcement-driven drug policies simply do not work.
So I point people who believe that legalization would be tantamount to the Apocalypse itself to Portugal, where decriminalization has been a resounding success.
Frankly, Douglas, I'm rather surprised that you, as a doctor, don't share my point of view. We're talking about taking control of drug policy out of the hands of cops and prosecutors, and putting it in the hands of doctors, pharmacists, and drug addiction counselors. We're also talking about putting a huge criminal enterprise out of business overnight, putting an immediate end to much of the violence that keeps your E.R. in business.
So yes. I favor legalization of pretty much everything -- except meth. It will put the syndicate out of business, help assure that drugs are unadulterated, provide billions upon billions of dollars for treatment for those who want it, and prevent innocent third parties from getting caught up in the crossfire of the immensely violent illegal drug trade.
Finally, as for those addicts who do decide to keep using drugs until they finally kill themselves in the process, if legalization means that they can do so without dragging others down with them, then so be it.
-Rich
Last edited:
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
And as a physician I know there are certain substances that just have no medical usage. I see no rational reason that because people want to get high, stoned, go on chemically altered trips the medical community should be party to it. I also think that the belief that by legalizing these substances will put the drug cartels out of business, and stop the violence is somewhat naïve. The people that are involved in these enterprises will just find other illegal ways to continue to make their money, and inflict their violent ways on society. Lastly, what I have seen with the federal government calling pain the 5th vital sign, and promoting pain management to the point that they basically told patients that if your doctor did not adequately treat your pain they were committing malpractice, thus leading to the high volumes of narcotic prescribing and then the government seeing this was not good and swing the pendulum to the point that doctors are now afraid they will lose their license if they prescribe narcotics, tells me that the government does not have the intellect to legalize these substances, and stand by their decisions.
I understand your rationale behind not wanting to legalize meth, but if your reason is that by legalizing everything else is going to decrease violence, and illegal activity, then why not legalize meth as well. Meth houses probably are more of a public danger, than the typical marijuana grow house, or crack house. So if your reason is to make it a safer world then legalizing meth and having meth made in a safe environment I think would be very important to your goals.
So I do not see the legalization of these substances as solving anything, and in fact may just cause a whole new set of new problems.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Maybe, but again, it's not like the system we have now is working very well, is it?
As for meth, it's the only drug from whose abuse I have never seen anyone fully recover. That's the difference, since you asked. I've known people who recovered from literally anything else out there, certainly every drug you mentioned, and many that you didn't. But never meth. I have not seen one person fully recover from meth.
There are scores of common substances, plant parts, molds, mushrooms, fungi, and even amphibian secretions and slime, that people use to tinker with their neurophysiology. Most of these "drugs" are legal, simply because no one in Congress has gotten around outlawing the milking of toads for their bufotoxins, or harvesting morning glory or Hawaiian woodrose seeds for their LSA. People simply have more ways of messing with their heads than Congress has time to outlaw.
I've known people who have used all of the above for years, with no perceptible effect on their ability to live normal lives. Same for marihuana, and even some narcotics. I know one guy who's been on methadone for almost 25 years. He's addicted to methadone. Somehow being addicted to methadone is considered better than being addicted to heroin, because methadone doesn't bring about euphoria.
Or in other words, heroin is bad because it makes you feel good. Methadone is just as addictive, but is acceptable because it doesn't make you feel good.
In fact, look down the list of drugs that are specifically outlawed, and the one thing all of them have in common is that they can bring about euphoria. You want to get something outlawed? Just make sure it makes people feel good. That'll get it outlawed for sure.
The problem is that outlawing a drug has little impact other than to raise its price. No one in the drug-using world gives a rat's ass about laws. Young kids who experiment with drugs are rebellious, so outlawing the behavior only encourages them. Post-adolescent drug users are mainly apathetic toward law, so outlawing substances has no influence on them.
What does have influence is the desire to feel good -- to get a little of that euphoria that the government has outlawed in their attempts to prevent people from feeling too good. Hell, even dogs, wolves, and foxes have been documented licking toads for the bufos. They don't eat the toads themselves, making me wonder if that's because they want to insure a steady supply of bufotoxins. They want to feel good, too.
So yeah, I admit that I'm cynical about drug laws. I don't see where they've done any good whatsoever. But I definitely see the harm that they've done -- on many, many levels.
You are certainly entitled to believe that recreational drugs should be outlawed, based on your professional opinion that these drugs have no legitimate medical purpose. But guess what? Drug users don't give a rat's ass about your professional opinion, any more than they care about the law. So you can believe what you want, justify it, rationalize it, get it published in JAMA, or whatever. But down on the street level, none of it will make a damn bit of difference. All those people cluttering up your E.R. prove it.
So I say let's try another way. Let's allow doctors who are willing to do so prescribe recreational drugs. If you're not comfortable with that, fine. No one would force you to. But let those who are willing prescribe heroin to an addict, so she doesn't have to whore herself to the tune of hundreds of dollars a day to buy a drug that costs maybe $3.00 to manufacture.
And yes, let's offer her treatment for her addiction while we're at it. We'll be able to afford plenty of treatment once we get all those cops and DEA agents off the payroll, and spring all those dudes who are in jail for non-violent drugs charges. If she decides to accept the treatment, great! If not, well, at least she's not out there whoring herself and dispensing STDs in the process.
-Rich
Last edited:
The ER visits you see from heroin are the result of wide variability in street drug potency and infections caused by contaminated stock.
If you could buy 20% heroin USP at the dispensary for $5.50 and a 5-pack of syringes for another 5, few if any ER visits would happen from that particular drug.
I dont think there is a safe use for meth. But then again, as long as every pediatrician and family practice nurse practicioner is allowed to shower the growing kids with amphetamine/methamphetamine (Adderall), giving methamphetamine to those adults who desire it shouldn't be a problem. Many of the ill societal effects of meth revolve around how the stuff is cooked and distributed. Without the drano and biker gangs, the stuff wouldn't be much different from Ritalin.
You are ranting with your ludicrous assertions.
Do you think Mayor Barry is a Republican? After being convicted of smoking crack, he was elected to D.C. City Council. He is still holding a political office. I think convicted felons, should be barred from public office.
CNN Praises Marion Barry's 'Resilience,' 'Incredible Tenure'; Asks If He's 'Bothered' By Association With Drug Bust
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-h...esilience-incredible-tenure-asks-if-hes-bothe
I think "liberals" are schizophrenic and hypocritical. They make laws and legislation restricting opiates that cause pain patients to suffer more pain, have more illness and are more likely to die. Their policies prevent pain patients from getting proper medical care. Thereby increasing illness and deaths. Under "liberalism" innocent people must suffer and die, because some people become addicted and some people use those drugs illegally.
Yet much of the the "liberal" movement is advocating legalizing illicit drugs for recreational use. Marijuana, cocaine, heroine, PCP, LSD, crack, methamphetamine, etc.
At a party, I've seen LEOs standing and sitting around white powdery lines on a table (allegedly cocaine), bragging about how they were getting high off of drugs they shook down from a mule.
That's a few of many reasons I am cynical of our government.
Last edited:
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Not as cynical as I am, because you still advocate government-enforced prohibition as a solution, despite a century's worth of evidence that it doesn't work.
The Harrison Act of 1914 (which has an interesting history in its own right) didn't directly outlaw opium (nor other substances it incorrectly classified as narcotics, such as coca), but in the best spirit of American progressivism, it taxed them. It also, in effect, made it illegal for doctors to prescribe these substances purely for the maintenance of addiction, thus ushering in the era of Big Brother's presence in the consultation room between a doctor and his or her patient.
The Harrison Act also marked the birth of organized crime in America, a fact that the government acknowledged as early as 1919 in the Rainey Committee report. In fact, the total importation of opium increased steadily and dramatically in the years following passage of the Harrison Act, with proportionately less of it being used for legitimate medical reasons, and proportionately more for recreational purposes.
The government's response was, as one would expect, to "toughen" the Harrison Act, compounding failure upon failure rather than recognizing an essential detail about the realities of drug distribution that people like yourself still fail to grasp, almost a hundred years later. It's that detail that is the missing piece of the puzzle that makes drug laws actually harmful, rather than being simply useless.
That detail that people like yourself miss is this: Doctors and pharmacists are extremely unlikely to deliberately get someone addicted to drugs. Members of the illegal drug distribution network, on the other hand, have no such ethical constraints.
Doctors may prescribe addictive drugs to treat other medical problems, knowing that dependency is possible or even likely; but they're not going to prescribe those drugs for recreational use by people who are not already users / addicts. That would be unethical.
Drug pushers, on the other hand, routinely get people, often including children, hooked on drugs, as a marketing and growth strategy. They give away free samples of illegal drugs as if they were selling laundry soap or underarm deodorant, not potentially deadly, highly-addictive, mind-altering substances.
It would be nice if all of you "get tough" types would ponder the fact that the very existence of the profession of "Drug Pusher" is an invention of the government, specifically, of "get tough" types like yourselves. For the last century, you've continually strengthened the illegal drug distribution network by continually applying the same "get tough" strategies, despite repeated evidence that that approach simply doesn't work.
The "get tough" types not being the sort to let facts get in the way of their ideology, in 1965, they gave the FDA the authority to effectively outlaw certain substances, thus ushering in the golden age of the illegal drug distribution empire, an era marked by growth that exceeded even the drug kingpins' hopes and dreams.
The "get tough" types then solidified their failure by codifying it into the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, and shortly thereafter, declaring a "war on drugs," thus guaranteeing that the illegal drug distribution empire will continue to exist and thrive, and that your friendly neighborhood drug pusher will continue to offer freebies to your children to get them hooked.
How much failure will it take to get "get tough" types to grasp this basic fact?
How long will it take for you to understand that the criminal enterprise that encourages and advances addiction for profit is your own creation, and that its continued existence is dependent on its continued illegality?
How long will it take for you to realize that you could make that whole illegal drug distribution syndicate go away overnight, if that's what you really wanted to do?
This whole issue is another reason why I'm no longer a Republican. Republicans claim to want small government, and yet they support a massive anti-drug bureaucracy whose only achievement (other than being a sinkhole for untold billions of dollars) has been to strengthen and incentivize the illegal drug industry and its network of pushers. For what? What else has your "war" accomplished other than making the drug pusher a permanent fixture of urban society?
Again, if there were the least evidence I could grasp upon that the approach you favor actually worked, I might feel differently. I'm very much against drug use, actually. I'm just honest enough and have seen enough to realize that your approach to the problem isn't just useless: It actually makes the problem worse.
-Rich
Last edited: