For once we agree on something within the issue of drug use and abuse. The single most important thing is keeping it away from kids. Unfortunately, prohibition has proven to be one of the least effective ways of doing that. I have not "minimize[d]" the impact of meth use, despite your repeated bleatings to the contrary. Nor would I ever "encourage" the use of meth or any other drug. But that is evident in this thread if one has the ability to comprehend the written word. I am pretty tired of people claiming that they want to "send the right message" when the policy we have sends the wrong message (the drugs that the government says are bad are bad PERIOD), puts drugs directly in the hands of children, and encourages young people to experiment when the penalties are lightest (when they are young). I am sick and tired of "sending messages," I would prefer a policy that demands and achieves results.
METH should not be legal, but if pharmaceutical grade stimulants were available to adults, meth would virtually disappear overnight.
I misspoke. According to SAMHSA: "The number of new users of stimulants generally increased during the 1990s, but there has been little change since 2000. Incidence of methamphetamine use generally rose between 1992 and 1998. Since then, there have been no statistically significant changes." Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2004). Results from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-25, DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3964). Rockville, MD, p. 46. Also available on the web at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3nsduh/2k3Results.htm#ch5, last accessed Aug. 31, 2005.
FYI: "Although research on the medical and developmental effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure is still in its early stages, our experience with almost 20 years of research on the chemically related drug, cocaine, has not identified a recognizable condition, syndrome or disorder that should be termed 'crack baby' nor found the degree of harm reported in the media and then used to justify numerous punitive legislative proposals. "The term 'meth addicted baby' is no less defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be 'addicted' to methamphetamines or anything else. The news media continues to ignore this fact. "In utero physiologic dependence on opiates (not addiction), known as Neonatal Narcotic Abstinence Syndrome, is readily diagnosable and treatable, but no such symptoms have been found to occur following prenatal cocaine or methamphetamine exposure." Source: Open letter to the press and the public signed by 93 medical and psychological researchers, from the web at http://www.csdp.org/news/news/Meth_Letter.pdf, last accessed Jan. 9, 2006.
Insensitivity towards the death of another poster's friends, followed by an insult, followed by a lie. This is what the pro-meth crowd is reduced to in an effort to make their point. Sad, really.
So you support being pregnant and using cocaine and meth? I'll give you that mar1juana probably should be legal, but you'll never convince me that the making all drugs legal is a good idea.
For those here who must interested in stopping the sale of beer & alcohol along with the other widely used drugs, here is a link to the Prohibition Party website: http://www.prohibition.org. Prohibition is the only way.
Who in the hell here has ever been in favor of the prohibition of alcohol? Certain things should be legal, while others shouldn't. I'm on the fence with the legalization of certain drugs. I, personally, think Ecstacy should be made legal again, as well as mar1juana. Everything else should remain illegal.
Riiight. I pointed out the specious reasoning (accurate), and made an inaccurate statement that I corrected in the very next post. I have empathy for the friends he lost just as I have empathy for the thousands of other drug addicts I have come into contact with. However, I can have empathy and still identify specious reasoning. Talk about lies. Yes, you really are a sad, sad individual. I mean, to have to lie like that to put down someone else on an internet message board. You must be the most pathetic excuse for a human being I have ever come into contact with. As I have statedd several times in this thread alone, I would not legalize "meth" as it exists on the street. Just for you, t_j, I will use small words. I am as "anti-meth" as you are.
Um, no, where did I ever say that? I merely pointed out that "crack babies" and "meth babies" are a myth. Both crack and meth can cause a host of problems with fetal development, but addiction is not one of those problems. Honestly, if I had all the power in the country, that is the only thing that I would make legal in the short term. Our society is nowhere near ready for the kinds of changes entailed by legalization of all drugs. Never say never. As an example, in Switzerland, they have been doing prescription heroin for junkies for nearly a decade and a half. The participants have seen higher rates of recovery from their addictions, almost zero criminality, and have been productive members of society. There is ample proof out there that even heroin junkies can be responsible members of the community when they are not criminalized.
Not to repeat myself.... 1. Meth Mania - Methamphetamine (known as ‘meth’) was the King Kong of the drug war in 2005 - decried on the nightly news, the newsweekly covers, and the morning news programs . Newsweek called it “America’s Most Dangerous Drug” (and showed gruesome photos of “meth mouth.”). The New York Times reported that it was more difficult to beat than crack. But academic research tells a different story. According to the University of Michigan, meth use among high school students has actually declined 28% in the last five years. And the current number of meth users (583,000) is only slightly greater than the number of crack users (450,000), although the “crack epidemic” is portrayed as a thing of the past. As for the claim that relapse rates are worse among meth addicts than other drug abusers, it’s simply not true. Only six percent of those who have tried methamphetamine also reported using it in the last month. Studies find that methamphetamine addicts recover at the same rate as other drug addicts. What is more important, truth or the messages we send? Reefer Madness is a perfect example of building a house of cards on "sending messages" and what happens when the well-meaning lies are discovered.
Though not particularly vocal on this subject, I've always been on the side of the *conservatives* when it comes to drugs. Save perhaps for mar1juana, I don't see medical benefits with recreational drugs. Drugs have the potential to destroy a whole society. They don't do any good to you. Wake up and quit for good, *libs*.
As a general aside, the more I see in terms of statistics from Switzerland, the more I believe that it is very problematic to Swiss cultural results as the basis for making rational decisions about the rest of the world. I am not specifically calling out this usage, or taking umbrage with you andymoon. I'm just making an observation. We also ran into the same problems when it came to discussions on firearms. Switzerland is just a bizarrely orderly and socially homogenous place. Things that happen in Swiss society don't happen elsewhere. In general I tend to agree that managed opiate programs can return people to society. As I've said before, however, I don't believe that you have an appreciation for stimulant induced psychosis which would make easy stimulant access a reality. The use patterns for tweakers involves continuous consumption until the supply runs out, staying awake for several days on end. Often this results in paranoid psychosis which can result in aggressive behavior. Amphetamines stimulate fight or flight responses. Opiates stimulate reactions involving lying in one place and not moving. As such one can not make cross-substance generalizations, even though I agree with you that opiates are more pernicious than amphetamines. Primate studies have shown a tendency towards excesses in stimulant use (i.e. ignoring anything but self-administration to the point of death) not as pronounced for opiates. Read my sig. The same applies to liberties. Your argument taken to the logical conclusion results in the government outlawing McDonalds, and regulating our intake of coffee. It may make the society more efficent and healthy, but I sure don't want to live there.
Dude, did you actually watch that movie? It was based on true events that could happen to you... or you... or YOU!
I agree...there's too much repression and judging going around. I think amnesty with rehab and a 3 year window would be a start, if it's not in place already. Unfortunately, public pressure would require jailtime for repeat non-violent offenders. But by then, most of the remaining junkies would probably be too cooked to care.
I've seen them out at Soco They're pounding sixteen penny nails The truckers on the interstate Have been known to ride the rails The sweat is beating on the brow Can't keep these fellas down 'Cause those damned blue-collared tweekers Are runnin' this here town I knew a man who hung drywall He hung it mighty quick A trip or two to the blue room Would help him do the trick His foreman would pat him on the back Whenever he would come around 'Cause these dammed blue-collar tweekers Are beloved in this here town Now the union boys are there To protect us from all the corporate types While curious George's drug patrol Is out here hunting snipe Now they try to tell me different But you know I ain't no clown 'Cause those damned blue-collar tweekers Are the backbone of this town Now the flame that burns twice as bright Burns only half as long My eyes are growing weary As I finalize this song So sit back and have a cup o' joe And watch the wheels go round 'Cause those damned blue-collar tweekers Have always run this town
You can download it (perfectly legaly) from archive.org This is the full text of the introduction [rquoter] The motion picture you are about to watch may startle you. It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly increasing numbers. Marihuana is that drug -- a violent narcotic -- an unspeakable scourge -- The Real Public Enemy Number One! It's first effect is sudden, violent, uncontrollable laughter; then come dangerous halucinations -- space expands -- time slows down, almost stands still....fixed ideas come next conjuring up monsterous extravagances -- folowed by emotional disturbances, the inability to direct thoughts, the loss of all power to resist physical emotions... leading finally to acts of shocking violence....ending often in incurable insanity. In picturing it's soul destroying effects no attempt was made to equivocate. The scenes, while fictionalized for the purposes of this story, are based upon actual research into the results of Marihuana addiction. If their stark reality will make you think, make you aware, that something must be done to wipe out this ghastly menace then the picture will not have failed in its purpose... Because the dread Marihuana may be reaching forth next for your son or daughter ...or yours ...or YOURS! [/rquoter]
