We go and legalise there drugs, now suddenly anyone can get these drugs. The first major effect will be a sharp increase in OD's. Both from the previous users suddenly getting their hands on purer stuff, but still using the same amount, and from the new users who try it because it's suddenly legal. Sure, it comes in safe doses, but people are going to take more then one dose at once, quite probably after the first dose has hit and their judgement goes out the window.
Longer term, the people who are lucky enough not to OD will be pretty much useless to society. For a while they will still be able to function as part of society, but these drugs are called "addictive" for a reason. After a while, maybe as long as a few years, people using these drugs will disconnect from reality and start living in their fantasy world 24/7. At this point they become boat anchors on society as they will most likely be frequent visitors, or even permenant residents of a hospital at this point.
Which is why I'm completly against legalising drugs, even if you can get illegal drugs very easily, the very fact that they are illegal ensures that fewer people try them then if they were legal.
Note: I'm talking about "hard" drugs here, not something like weed.
Diazo
edit: I'm talking in general here, I'm sure many people can tell me of a person who is addicted, yet has been a functioning member of society for years. Yet I expect people will agree that such a person is the exception, rather then the rule.
I would be doubtful of the success of a centre where drug users would go to get their 'fix'. To an extent I think this would further alienate users, most users are only comfortable doing their drug in specific surroundings - a government building would likely be a very bad place to take drugs. I have heard of heroin users dying from coming up in unfamiliar surroundings, due to the delicate nature of set and setting with drug use.
Acid being administered in a special building, unless that building were EXTREMELY comfortable and non-threatening (which would be a hell of an achievement to cater to every person), could have a horrible effect on people. Besides which, acid is not a physically addictive drug and not easy to cut with other substances, so I think having a special place for its use is unneccessary.
I'm not extremely knowledgable regarding 'hard' drugs (which I personally consider to be heroin, 'crack' cocaine (not cocaine in its pure form), and I guess others which I know little to nothing about. Re: your idea, it would be interesting to hear the opinions of someone who has used or still uses these drugs, though understandably the chances of that happening on this board are slim to say the least.
It's important to acknowledge that often the use of a drug is not the be-all and end-all of the experience - where it is taken, the situation it's taken in, etc, are all important factors too. The ideal 'safe' use of a drug would be one where the user can take the drug at his/her discretion, eg by ordering safe paraphenalia/drugs to be sent directly to their house (the possibility of abuse with that idea is huge, but it's the concept really that I'm trying to get across- the user would be in control to the larger extent, rather than the government).
Ideally I think drugs like heroin shouldn't exist nor be in circulation, but I can't believe that for sure as I have no personal experience with it and so have no right to dictate what should be done about it. And I guess that's why I think this topic will never come to a resolution here - none of us (I hope) have experience with being a hard drug addict, and so none of us know what would be best for someone who is. DarkATI, I appreciate your moral stance on the issue but the details of your opinions cascade down when you make such a connection between drug users and criminals, as it's very apparent that you really don't know a lot about what is being discussed. Besides, as a Christian, surely you would embrace any attempt to make the lives of others safer? I know many drug users/addicts are criminals, and commit crimes to pay for their habit (in the WORST of cases, I imagine most other cases are hardly a result of the drug at all but rather the result of social situation which likely includes drugs) but they are victims themselves of our society which looks down upon users/addicts and alienates them; they are not victims of the drug itself, which as I have said before is only a tool.
What was my point...whether I had one to start or not, here's one that might make sense: The only situation where such a resolution as TheMuffinMan's would be viable is if those drugs were legalized beforehand or else the concept just seems ridiculous. Assuming that this is the case (that drugs would be legal to consume), then such a system would be good for ensuring the aquisition of clean drugs, but I think the administration of it should be left to the user alone with the exception of cases where the user is slave to the drug and needs help, in which case rehabilitation would be the ideal solution anyway. Otherwise, users should be highly informed on the effects and possible consequences of use of the drug they aquire, instructed on safe usage, and left to their own devices. If they should fall on their faces after that, then there should be a service to overcome any problems they might be having (as there already are).
<edit>
For those who believe that drugs have no good effects, consider that:
Lewis Carroll conceived of the idea of Alice in Wonderland while tripping by the river in Guildford (my home town incidently).
The man who came up with the idea of the microchip did so whilst on LSD.
Most bands people hold in extremely high regard as artists have histories of drug use.
<s>Your brain creates its own form of DMT (a powerful hallucinegen) when born, when you die, and at extremely stressful times in your life. (According to 'DMT - The Spirit Molecule' by Dr. Rick Strassman, interestingly the DMT like substance is released into the brain firstly at around the same time as the gender of the fetus becomes apparent)</s> Striked out as on hindsight there is no actual evidence for this in the book and might just be Strassman's theory. Is anyone happens to know anything about this, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say.
There is a big difference between a drug user and a drug addict - one is a master, the other is a slave. The masters will know when to stop, and will likely use the drug for beneficial uses be they recreational or self-evolutional. The slaves will spiral downwards as they are no longer in control, and rarely anything good will come of it. They are victims, and should recieve help.
There are religeons which incorporate drug use into their culture, and they are not satanic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> If someone can find spiritual enlightenment through the use of a drug then that to me is a huge 'good' consequence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 22 2005, 12:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 22 2005, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Here's a different view on this.
We go and legalise there drugs, now suddenly anyone can get these drugs. The first major effect will be a sharp increase in OD's. Both from the previous users suddenly getting their hands on purer stuff, but still using the same amount, and from the new users who try it because it's suddenly legal. Sure, it comes in safe doses, but people are going to take more then one dose at once, quite probably after the first dose has hit and their judgement goes out the window.
Longer term, the people who are lucky enough not to OD will be pretty much useless to society. For a while they will still be able to function as part of society, but these drugs are called "addictive" for a reason. After a while, maybe as long as a few years, people using these drugs will disconnect from reality and start living in their fantasy world 24/7. At this point they become boat anchors on society as they will most likely be frequent visitors, or even permenant residents of a hospital at this point.
Which is why I'm completly against legalising drugs, even if you can get illegal drugs very easily, the very fact that they are illegal ensures that fewer people try them then if they were legal.
Note: I'm talking about "hard" drugs here, not something like weed.
Diazo
edit: I'm talking in general here, I'm sure many people can tell me of a person who is addicted, yet has been a functioning member of society for years. Yet I expect people will agree that such a person is the exception, rather then the rule. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Netherlands, with legal marijuana, has a lower rate of marijuana use than the US. I don't think you can assume that the legalization of drugs will lead to an increase in drug use.
Incidently, what does it matter if drug use increases? I would not care a jot, SO LONG AS the people using the drugs were <i>responsible and informed</i>. As I've said, doing drugs <b>does not make you a bad person</b>. True an increase in, say, heroin use would be a bad thing, but that's because its a terrible drug.
We're starting to go down two different paths here.
@Theclam: Note in my post I specifically say "hard" drugs, of which I don't include marijuana in that catagory. Do you have any information about the rates of use of harder drugs in the Netherlands?
@Merkaba: With the harder drugs I'm talking about here, I do not believe it is possible to simply be a drug user. They simply hit too hard, if you keep taking them you will become a drug addict. And certainly taking drugs does not make one a bad person, but note that my previous post is directed at the terrible drugs, like heroin, not at a mild drug like marijuana.
As for my stance on marijuana, I am in favor of cautious legalisation. For me personally, marijuana is on roughly the same level as cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legal.
This sort of thing has been happening in several countrys - I'm not sure how far the US is in that regard, but I'd be shocked if they've been doing absolutely nothing on the clean and safe front. Most of these programms work rather well in reducing fatalitys, disease and even criminality indirectly related to said substance abuse and dealing. Most of them offer help in overcoming the addiction as well.
To the kneejerk posters here - do you guys really believe drug use is morally detestable (which makes fairly little sense to me anyway) and that justifies turning our backs on the problem?
I could elaborate on the point, but this is really pretty simple. Drugs aren't going anywhere, and just like we all have to deal with and pay the price for our countrys caffeine, nicotine, prescription drug, obesity, alcohol etc. problems, we'll have to do it here too. Banning was a nice try, but its obviously not working.
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Apr 22 2005, 12:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Apr 22 2005, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Acid being administered in a special building, unless that building were EXTREMELY comfortable and non-threatening (which would be a hell of an achievement to cater to every person), could have a horrible effect on people. Besides which, acid is not a physically addictive drug and not easy to cut with other substances, so I think having a special place for its use is unneccessary. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This was probably my biggest concern with the idea. I imagined a comfortable, relaxing place where friends could go and have a great trip, but that would be next to impossible without the government putting vast amounts of money into the centers. A special place is not needed for acid to be taken, but it helps to have proper aid on hand should you need it. This can be the form of experienced friends, or it could be a nurse. This leads me on to one of the best advantages of a legal drug center, however.
Once the centers would start being used by people, the government would make an absolute fortune taxing the drugs. They would easily make enough money to kit out the centers and create a decent environment, while the rest of the money could help the country in different ways. This is about as far as my economic knowledge goes to, so it would be great if someone could point out any problems.
Personally, I believe that most drugs (I hate heroin for private reasons) are great, and if used properly can give the user a great time and feeling. The main problem with the drug industry is the fact that it is illegal, ironically. Due to the criminal element of it, the dealers cut the drugs with horrible stuff in order to make a decent profit, as several other people have said. If the government were to buy it directly from the source, the users would be injecting decent quality drugs in relatively safe doses (Obviously there is no such thing as a 'safe dose', but a computer system could record when you last had your hit, etc, to make it as safe as possible). Of course, some people will OD on drugs. How is that any different to people dying from drinking too much alcohol or getting lung cancer from smoking? Alcohol and cigarettes are every bit as 'evil' as drugs, but unfortunately drugs are seen as morally bad, while alcohol and cigarettes are acceptable. Until this changes, a drug center would be impossible for a government to fund without being voted out by the public.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 22 2005, 09:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 22 2005, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @Theclam: Note in my post I specifically say "hard" drugs, of which I don't include marijuana in that catagory. Do you have any information about the rates of use of harder drugs in the Netherlands? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say that the legalization of hard drugs wouldn't lead to greater use. I said that you can't assume that it would. A similiar product to the ones we're talking about (marijuana) was legalized, yet it has lower rates of use than in a country where it is illegal. Therefore, it's probable that legalizing hard drugs would result in lower rates of use, although we don't know for sure.
<!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 22 2005, 03:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 22 2005, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @Merkaba: With the harder drugs I'm talking about here, I do not believe it is possible to simply be a drug user. They simply hit too hard, if you keep taking them you will become a drug addict. And certainly taking drugs does not make one a bad person, but note that my previous post is directed at the terrible drugs, like heroin, not at a mild drug like marijuana. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good point, but I am sure there are many people who have done heroin and come away without serious harm. Though, as heroin is such a dangerous drug these people probably have a history of experimental and mature drug use and so know what they are doing and the risks they were taking (or were extremely lucky). As it's been said before, heroin is not physically addictive except with frequent use, so trying it once would be a risk but not guarenteed to result in getting hooked. That depends a lot on the mindset of the user, which I guess is where the distinction between user and addict is made with regard to heroin.
Acid is a different story than heroin, coke, crack, PCP, Meth.... it is not easy to od on acid (ie: you would have to eat a few sheets and even then you wouldn't die just have a horrible trip for a few days) and it is in general a much safer and cleaner drug than the other drugs mentioned and the best spot for a comfortable trip would be home with some friends.
One of the first or the first (i forget the name but it was on a documentary called Fix: The Story of An Addicted City) injection centers in Germany hes been open for a few years now and have recorded zero cases of an OD or any other drug related mishap at the center. a park close buy once notorious for being filled with addicts, prostitutes and dealers selling and doing heroin in in the open , is now just an average park without the hordes of heroin addicts.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Apr 23 2005, 01:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Apr 23 2005, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Acid is a different story than heroin, coke, crack, PCP, Meth.... it is not easy to od on acid (ie: you would have to eat a few sheets and even then you wouldn't die just have a horrible trip for a few days) and it is in general a much safer and cleaner drug than the other drugs mentioned and the best spot for a comfortable trip would be home with some friends. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whether this is true or not I don't know but I heard (and they were quite proud of it) that after 7 tabs of acid you are seen as clinically insane. Sounds a bit extreme though.
What I do know is that at least half of the people I know that have seriously got in to acid have been commited at some point or another and they have spent weeks at 'clinics' and similar places trying to sort their heads out. They have also had major changes to their personalities too.
There is also a 'character' in town who, after making himself a massive acid birthday cake then ate the whole thing to himself when noone bothered to show up. He has since then been a complete nutter/village idiot, is famous as the guy you should avoid and has been known to attack people for no reason.
Then again I know plenty of people that have been completely unaffected by any drug, that are incredibly nice and intelligent people and they don't look or act like any of the stereotypical stoners at all.
If he ate a whole cake laced with acid that was intended for many people, by himself, then I think he was already the village idiot.
You cannot physically overdose on LSD, as in, it will do no direct physical damage to you. But as Nineteen said, the more you take the longer it lasts. And it can last a long time.
Kinda offtopic but I feel I should mention this in case there is any confusion, it IS possible to overdose on psilocybin mushrooms, as they are poisonous. It takes 1-2 kilograms for that to happen, mind. Just in case anyone mistakenly thinks LSD is the same as magic mushrooms.
Heh, never said he was the sharpest bloke around no... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Apr 23 2005, 09:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Apr 23 2005, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kinda offtopic but I feel I should mention this in case there is any confusion, it IS possible to overdose on psilocybin mushrooms, as they are poisonous. It takes 1-2 kilograms for that to happen, mind. Just in case anyone mistakenly thinks LSD is the same as magic mushrooms. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
although very unlikley because you would throw up after 1-2 ounces, muchrooms are almost completly dry and 1-2 kilos is ALOT
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Buzzkillers by David Malmo-Levine (26 Apr, 2005) Are anti-drug technologies and mind-control vaccines the future of the drug war?
You may not have heard about it yet – but you will.
The first mainstream media report was in a British newspaper report dated July 25, 2004. The headline read, Children to Get Jabs Against Drug Addiction. In it, we learn that a "radical scheme to vaccinate children against future drug addiction" is being considered by the British Government.1
Under the plan, doctors would "immunize children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection."
The article claimed the scheme would function "similarly to the current nationwide Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination program. Childhood immunization would protect adults from the euphoria experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take."
Is this the future of the drug war? A nightmare dystopia where children are inoculated against feeling forbidden euphoria?
Drugs as a disease
To much of the anti-drug crowd, drug use is a "cancer" – an analogy used by Clinton's Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey back in 1997.2 The view that use of illegal herbs and drugs is a "disease" is the basis for a great deal of drug war propaganda. Take, for example, this 2003 statement from the White House:
"[Drug Use] spreads because the vectors of contagion are not addicts in the street, but users who do not yet show the consequences of their drug habit. Last year, some 16 million Americans used an illegal drug on at least on a monthly basis, while 6.1 million Americans were in need of treatment. The rest, still in the 'honeymoon' phase of their drug-using careers, are 'carriers' who transmit the disease to others who see only the surface of the fraud."3
To these anti-drug warriors, all use is abuse, and all euphoria that comes from plants is unnecessary. To them, any medicating against stress, depression or fatigue requires a doctor and carefully measured doses of synthetics, not self-measured doses of botanicals.
If drug use is not a choice but a "disease," then it becomes frighteningly logical to use the standard treatments for a contagion, including "medications" and "immunizations" to protect against these illegal substances.
Compassionate coercion
Using surgery and chemistry to treat "deviant" people for their private, non-harmful behaviors is nothing new. From 1907-1978 over 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized under state sterilization laws. These laws targeted criminals as well as the mentally handicapped, people with low IQ's and the mentally ill.4
Also, up until the mid-1970's, many **** people in North America were "treated" for their "condition" with the "compassionate coercion" of drugs, and even sterilization.5
Today, people who have been arrested for drug offenses, people serving time behind bars or people who rely on public assistance – disproportionately black or brown folk6 – are likely to be the first targets of the neurocops.
Already, some courts in the US have conditioned a grant of probation for alcohol-related offenses on the probationer using the alcohol blocker Antabuse.7 With the prevalence of "drug courts" which make users choose between forced treatment and prison, how long will it be until we see pot smokers and cocaine snorters forced to take an anti-drug pills and vaccinations as a condition of their release?
Next, they'll come for the kids. 97% of American school kids are already vaccinated as a precondition to attending school.8 Many people question the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, yet parents who refuse to allow their children to be stuck with needles have been charged with neglect and even child abuse.9
And it's not just the "hard drugs" they want to inoculate your children against. The US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is currently offering up $3 million in grant money to encourage "development of safe and effective pharmacological treatments for cannabis-related disorders (CRDs)..." They claim that "targeting adolescents and young adults is particularly relevant in view of their disproportionate use patterns."10
Already, reps for companies like DrugAbuse Sciences (DAS) salivate openly at the potential profits in the buzzkill market. DAS exists only to make pharmaceutical drugs which block the effects of banned herbs and drugs – they make "anti-drug drugs."
In an April 2001 interview with the Wall Street Reporter, DrugAbuse Sciences CEO Elizabeth Greetham was blunt in her assessment of the huge profits they expected from the anti-drug market.
"If we treat 300,000 patients for six months and charge typical daily therapy of around four dollars per day, which is the usual charge for new medications today, we can generate $250 million worth of revenues to DrugAbuse Sciences... We believe that addiction will be a multi-billion dollar market. DAS will only have to scratch the surface to be very successful for our investment group."11
It's easy to see their reason for confidence – Clinton's old Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey is now on their Board of Directors.12
Overlooked problems
As with most prohibitionist projects, this one has yet to be thought all the way through, as there may be unwanted side effects resulting from vaccinating or medicating the whole human race from birth against the so-called scourge of plant-based euphoria.
First, these banned herbs and drugs are not inherently harmful, so we're throwing our most important mind-tools away because of their potential for misuse. It's like tossing out your hammer because someone else hit their thumb with it.
Secondly, what if these vaccines and medications interfere with the body's ability to feel pain and pleasure naturally? Are we risking becoming a species of emotionless droids? The possible unforeseen negative effects on our psychological make-up is limitless.
Cannabis, for example, activates receptors in areas of the brain which regulate body movements, learning, memory, appetite, nausea, pain, sexual behavior, emotion and integration of sensory information.13 What if the anti-cannabis medicine kills more than just the munchies?
The researchers at the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics argue there is good reason to be concerned:
"In 2003, Roxane Laboratories discontinued the sale and distribution of the opioid agonist ORLAAM, as a result of 'increasing reports of severe cardiac-related adverse events.' Given that CB1 (cannabis) receptors are 10 times more abundant in the brain than opioid receptors, the possibilities for adverse effects from blocking CB1 are clearly substantial."14
A third issue is that blocking the effects of a given drug will not stop someone who wants to get high. If the effects of their favored substance are blocked, the user is more than likely to simply switch to another, potentially more harmful option.
Meet the Buzzkillers
There are three basic types of "Buzzkill" technology currently out there. Each acts in a different way to stop your brain from feeling the effects of a given substance.
Receptor Blockers: There are three sub-types of these. "Agonists" are compounds that enter and activate the receptor sites on brain cells, acting as a synthetic substitute. "Partial agonists" are a weak synthetic substitute that blocks part of the drug's effect. The "antagonists" are those that block the receptor site without activating it at all – "total buzzkill."
Molecule Binders: These bind to the drug molecules in your bloodstream, stopping them from reaching your brain by making them to big to pass the blood-brain barrier.
Many of the "anti-drug vaccines" which are being studied work in this way. They stimulate your body to make antibodies which latch onto the drug molecules, thereby enlarging them so they can't reach the brain.
Metabolism Modifiers: These react negatively with the substance in question, making you sick if you consume it. An example is Antabuse (disulfiram) which makes you vomit should you swallow alcohol.
Buzzkill tech in development
A recent report by the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics outlined many of the new anti-drugs and vaccines in production.18 Here's some of the most interesting:
Xenova, the British biotechnology firm, is working on the anti-cocaine molecule binder vaccine, "TA-CD." In 1999, a study with human volunteers showed that injecting TA-CD created "antibody responses" which lasted almost three months. In 2003, Xenova began testing TA-CD in a clinical trial involving 132 human subjects. They expect to complete this study in 2005 and move into Phase III studies.
DrugAbuse Sciences is racing to develop DAS-431, a "cocaine vaccine" that the company aims to release in both an injectable form as well as an inhalable aerosol. DrugAbuse Sciences have brought us Buprenophine Depot – a long-lasting injectable opioid receptor blocker (partial agonist).
The Scripps Research Institute in San Diego has developed a "super-virus," tested on rats and reportedly "harmless to humans," which produces proteins that can reduce or block the effects of cocaine. The medication is expected to be available within in the next two years in the form of a nasal spray.
Pliva and Odyssey pharmaceuticals have teemed up to bring us "Antabuse" – a "metabolism modifier" against alcohol and cocaine-induced euphoria. Death is also a possible reaction (and has occurred) from using alcohol after taking this drug. Users must be careful, as many foods and medications contain alcohol. Even the alcohol in aftershave, shampoo and perfume – absorbed through the skin – can trigger a reaction.
Roxane Laboratory still has Methadone on tap. Methadone is the first and oldest synthetic opioid blocker (agonist), and was invented by German company IG Farben. Roxane also used to have ORLAAM – another opioid blocker (mild agonist), but it was withdrawn from the market last year after being linked to heart attacks and other health problems.
Dupont Pharma has come out with "naltrexone" or "Trexan" or "Revia" – a heroin antagonist that, unlike methadone, produces no pleasurable effects. It is also being used for alcohol attraction, and is being tested for use against cocaine attraction. People taking this drug are advised to carry a card advising emergency medical personnel that most pain medications will be useless for them. There also is some indication that people on this drug get "higher" on marijuana – but we sure don't advise anyone to risk taking it to find out.
Catalist Pharmaceutical Partners has Vigabatrin to save us from cocaine and nicotine attraction.
GlaxoSmithKline have Nicorette, a nicotine-filled chewing gum that some people use to stop smoking, and others use to replace smoking. They also produce Zyban, an anti-depressant used to treat nicotine dependence, and which is currently being tested as an anti-meth drug.
Nabi pharmaceuticals is about to come out with NicVax – the nicotine molecule binder vaccine. This would be used to inoculate children against ever being able to enjoy a tobacco cigarette.
Sanofi-Synthelabo is putting the final touches on Rimonabant, a cannabinoid antagonist which will be used to treat overeaters by blocking their innate cannabis receptors and killing their natural munchies. Rimonabant is also being looked at as a potential treatment for "marijuana dependence."
One more bit of info to add is that Sanofi-Synthelabo, the maker of Rimonabant, is now known as "Sanofi Aventis."19 Aventis merged with Bayer in 2001.20 Bayer is also marketing Sativex (a cannabis-based proprietary medicine) for GW Pharmaceuticals, and has ties to Solvay Pharma, the current makers of a synthetic THC pill called Nabalone.21 Bayer also has one of the worst records of crimes against humanity of any corporation on earth,22 and is a major donor to the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
Involuntary treatment = mistreatment
As past Mayor of Vancouver Phillip Owen recently pointed out, most of those in "drug treatment" are there "because of the system" – because they were forced to choose between treatment and jail.15
This is backed up by research from the US Department of Health and Human Services, which states that 57% of those in drug treatment "were referred to treatment through the criminal justice system."16
Many of the rest were coerced into treatment by their family or employer. The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics estimates that "less than three percent of marijuana smokers voluntarily seek treatment."14
Of course the White House argues we're all "in denial" and in need of "compassionate coercion," taking the form of "innovative techniques" using "specialized pharmaceuticals."17
It's one thing for an adult to voluntarily choose a particular treatment, but to subject infants to anti-euphoria vaccines or to medicate anyone against their will is an affront to human autonomy and a threat to every kind of human freedom. If buzzkill tech is accepted into common use, humans can officially stop considering themselves as "intelligent life" and place themselves in the category of "livestock."
All human beings need to have the ability to feel good and the right to feel good, and, within limits involving harm to others, we have the right to feel good whenever and however we want to. Autonomy is an essential part of health.
We do not want to live in a world where our diet and medicine is dictated to us by the state – a dark and horrible future if ever there was one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Apr 26 2005, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Apr 26 2005, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Under the plan, doctors would "immunize children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection."
The article claimed the scheme would function "similarly to the current nationwide Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination program. Childhood immunization would protect adults from the euphoria experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take."
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Holy **** does this scare me.......
Hopefuly this won't ever pan out, but this reminds me of Brave New World, Welcome to the Monkey House, and 1984 for some reason.
Of course this is from an unrepentant drug user, but i'd hope my childern would at least have the option to experiment around with them, if they choose too.
Messing around with pleasure sensors...yeah that won't have any side effects. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Apr 27 2005, 10:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Apr 27 2005, 10:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh this thread is just <b>precious</b>.
I'll try to post a proper response that addresses some of the more specific naivety and retardness that abounds here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gollum... The ring is an addiction... remember that..... you dont need the precious....
<!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Apr 23 2005, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Apr 23 2005, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Acid is a different story than heroin, coke, crack, PCP, Meth.... it is not easy to od on acid (ie: you would have to eat a few sheets and even then you wouldn't die just have a horrible trip for a few days) and it is in general a much safer and cleaner drug than the other drugs mentioned and the best spot for a comfortable trip would be home with some friends. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You do know people who use acid quite often have flashbacks/relaspes years down the line even if they haven't taken it since, right? It really isn't all that innocent a drug as you make it out to be.
<!--QuoteBegin-Seph Kimara+Apr 27 2005, 01:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Seph Kimara @ Apr 27 2005, 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Apr 23 2005, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Apr 23 2005, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Acid is a different story than heroin, coke, crack, PCP, Meth.... it is not easy to od on acid (ie: you would have to eat a few sheets and even then you wouldn't die just have a horrible trip for a few days) and it is in general a much safer and cleaner drug than the other drugs mentioned and the best spot for a comfortable trip would be home with some friends. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do know people who use acid quite often have flashbacks/relaspes years down the line even if they haven't taken it since, right? It really isn't all that innocent a drug as you make it out to be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Acid Scares the Everloving **** out of me.........
It never leaves ur system.... EVER
U can have relapse trip's like 10 years down the road...... just cause....
Also someone told me that if uve done acid 10 times... ur legally insane.... i dunno if thats true... but it scares me!!
BreakthroughTexture Artist (ns_prometheus)Join Date: 2005-03-27Member: 46620Members, Constellation
This is a good idea, but much later. It's not a good idea to introduce and legalize all forms of drugs at the same time. I think first, marijuana and acid should be legalized, <i>then</i> move on to different ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When is the last time u met ANYONE who diddnt do drugs simply because they are illegal... never<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have just met me. Cody Miller, pleasure to meet you, sir.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 27 2005, 02:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 27 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When is the last time u met ANYONE who diddnt do drugs simply because they are illegal... never<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have just met me. Cody Miller, pleasure to meet you, sir.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come on. You don't do drugs because they're bad for you, not because the government tells you to not do them. I speed when I drive in places I know, but I actually follow the speed limit if I don't know where I am or if the weather conditions are poor, because I *gasp* would like to live past age 21. I don't care about the government's rules when I know I'm safe, but if something has a chance of being harmful, that's another story. I'm rather inclined to think most people don't really care what the government thinks; the primary motivation to stay in line is self-preservation.
BreakthroughTexture Artist (ns_prometheus)Join Date: 2005-03-27Member: 46620Members, Constellation
edited April 2005
DarkATi, do you look down upon all drugs, or only some? Please tell me which ones, because I know you've been against this idea throughout the whole thread. Even though this is my first year in high school, many bad things have happened to me. I've started smoking and doing drugs, but I don't care - the temporary effects of even cigarettes outweigh the fatal death awating me...
Edit: I thought this was a cool site, lol <a href='http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/' target='_blank'>http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Breakthrough+Apr 27 2005, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Breakthrough @ Apr 27 2005, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> DarkATi, do you look down upon all drugs, or only some? Please tell me which ones, because I know you've been against this idea throughout the whole thread. Even though this is my first year in high school, many bad things have happened to me. I've started smoking and doing drugs, but I don't care - the temporary effects of even cigarettes outweigh the fatal death awating me... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bad bad idea. Unless you have no wish to be active later in life (or right now, for that matter), don't start smoking. I don't know where you go to school, but take it from a senior: no one really cares if you smoke or not. You hear this from smoke prevention groups all the time, so it sounds a little cheesy, but it's true. Oh, and drugging yourself up doesn't make your problems go away, it makes them worse. Divorce, moving during school, financial troubles, I've been through 'em. I can tell you, being high really would not have helped me get through those situations at all.
Also...cigarettes don't exactly have "temporary" effects. Continuing with my "self-preservation" thing, the reasons why I don't do 'popular' drugs:
Cigs - Kills endurance. I'm a hockey player, I don't need that. Furthermore, I'm horribly allergic to the smoke. And call me crazy, but those Truth commercials scared the crap outta me. Alcohol - I didn't get a 1600 SAT score by systematically killing my braincells. Besides, the hockey pounds my head enough; I don't need more headaches. Pot/Acid/hallucinogens in general - I'm loopy enough in real life without these drugs. Plus, I have a horrible memory as is; no need to make that any worse. Let's see....speed? Yeah....no. Hyper = bad. Ecstacy? I prefer to be in full control of my actions at all times, thank you. What other drugs....well, my brother huffed. That went well. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah, I really had to write this post. I see enough high schoolers on drugs as it is, and it's sad, because I know a lot of my classmates have no futures because they've focused on drugs and parties for the last 4 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh come on. You don't do drugs because they're bad for you, not because the government tells you to not do them. I speed when I drive in places I know, but I actually follow the speed limit if I don't know where I am or if the weather conditions are poor, because I *gasp* would like to live past age 21. I don't care about the government's rules when I know I'm safe, but if something has a chance of being harmful, that's another story. I'm rather inclined to think most people don't really care what the government thinks; the primary motivation to stay in line is self-preservation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Remind your people to obey the government and its officers, and always to be obedient and ready for any honest work."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
We go and legalise there drugs, now suddenly anyone can get these drugs. The first major effect will be a sharp increase in OD's. Both from the previous users suddenly getting their hands on purer stuff, but still using the same amount, and from the new users who try it because it's suddenly legal. Sure, it comes in safe doses, but people are going to take more then one dose at once, quite probably after the first dose has hit and their judgement goes out the window.
Longer term, the people who are lucky enough not to OD will be pretty much useless to society. For a while they will still be able to function as part of society, but these drugs are called "addictive" for a reason. After a while, maybe as long as a few years, people using these drugs will disconnect from reality and start living in their fantasy world 24/7. At this point they become boat anchors on society as they will most likely be frequent visitors, or even permenant residents of a hospital at this point.
Which is why I'm completly against legalising drugs, even if you can get illegal drugs very easily, the very fact that they are illegal ensures that fewer people try them then if they were legal.
Note: I'm talking about "hard" drugs here, not something like weed.
Diazo
edit: I'm talking in general here, I'm sure many people can tell me of a person who is addicted, yet has been a functioning member of society for years. Yet I expect people will agree that such a person is the exception, rather then the rule.
Acid being administered in a special building, unless that building were EXTREMELY comfortable and non-threatening (which would be a hell of an achievement to cater to every person), could have a horrible effect on people. Besides which, acid is not a physically addictive drug and not easy to cut with other substances, so I think having a special place for its use is unneccessary.
I'm not extremely knowledgable regarding 'hard' drugs (which I personally consider to be heroin, 'crack' cocaine (not cocaine in its pure form), and I guess others which I know little to nothing about. Re: your idea, it would be interesting to hear the opinions of someone who has used or still uses these drugs, though understandably the chances of that happening on this board are slim to say the least.
It's important to acknowledge that often the use of a drug is not the be-all and end-all of the experience - where it is taken, the situation it's taken in, etc, are all important factors too. The ideal 'safe' use of a drug would be one where the user can take the drug at his/her discretion, eg by ordering safe paraphenalia/drugs to be sent directly to their house (the possibility of abuse with that idea is huge, but it's the concept really that I'm trying to get across- the user would be in control to the larger extent, rather than the government).
Ideally I think drugs like heroin shouldn't exist nor be in circulation, but I can't believe that for sure as I have no personal experience with it and so have no right to dictate what should be done about it. And I guess that's why I think this topic will never come to a resolution here - none of us (I hope) have experience with being a hard drug addict, and so none of us know what would be best for someone who is. DarkATI, I appreciate your moral stance on the issue but the details of your opinions cascade down when you make such a connection between drug users and criminals, as it's very apparent that you really don't know a lot about what is being discussed. Besides, as a Christian, surely you would embrace any attempt to make the lives of others safer? I know many drug users/addicts are criminals, and commit crimes to pay for their habit (in the WORST of cases, I imagine most other cases are hardly a result of the drug at all but rather the result of social situation which likely includes drugs) but they are victims themselves of our society which looks down upon users/addicts and alienates them; they are not victims of the drug itself, which as I have said before is only a tool.
What was my point...whether I had one to start or not, here's one that might make sense:
The only situation where such a resolution as TheMuffinMan's would be viable is if those drugs were legalized beforehand or else the concept just seems ridiculous. Assuming that this is the case (that drugs would be legal to consume), then such a system would be good for ensuring the aquisition of clean drugs, but I think the administration of it should be left to the user alone with the exception of cases where the user is slave to the drug and needs help, in which case rehabilitation would be the ideal solution anyway. Otherwise, users should be highly informed on the effects and possible consequences of use of the drug they aquire, instructed on safe usage, and left to their own devices. If they should fall on their faces after that, then there should be a service to overcome any problems they might be having (as there already are).
<edit>
For those who believe that drugs have no good effects, consider that:
Lewis Carroll conceived of the idea of Alice in Wonderland while tripping by the river in Guildford (my home town incidently).
The man who came up with the idea of the microchip did so whilst on LSD.
Most bands people hold in extremely high regard as artists have histories of drug use.
<s>Your brain creates its own form of DMT (a powerful hallucinegen) when born, when you die, and at extremely stressful times in your life. (According to 'DMT - The Spirit Molecule' by Dr. Rick Strassman, interestingly the DMT like substance is released into the brain firstly at around the same time as the gender of the fetus becomes apparent)</s> Striked out as on hindsight there is no actual evidence for this in the book and might just be Strassman's theory. Is anyone happens to know anything about this, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say.
There is a big difference between a drug user and a drug addict - one is a master, the other is a slave. The masters will know when to stop, and will likely use the drug for beneficial uses be they recreational or self-evolutional. The slaves will spiral downwards as they are no longer in control, and rarely anything good will come of it. They are victims, and should recieve help.
There are religeons which incorporate drug use into their culture, and they are not satanic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> If someone can find spiritual enlightenment through the use of a drug then that to me is a huge 'good' consequence.
We go and legalise there drugs, now suddenly anyone can get these drugs. The first major effect will be a sharp increase in OD's. Both from the previous users suddenly getting their hands on purer stuff, but still using the same amount, and from the new users who try it because it's suddenly legal. Sure, it comes in safe doses, but people are going to take more then one dose at once, quite probably after the first dose has hit and their judgement goes out the window.
Longer term, the people who are lucky enough not to OD will be pretty much useless to society. For a while they will still be able to function as part of society, but these drugs are called "addictive" for a reason. After a while, maybe as long as a few years, people using these drugs will disconnect from reality and start living in their fantasy world 24/7. At this point they become boat anchors on society as they will most likely be frequent visitors, or even permenant residents of a hospital at this point.
Which is why I'm completly against legalising drugs, even if you can get illegal drugs very easily, the very fact that they are illegal ensures that fewer people try them then if they were legal.
Note: I'm talking about "hard" drugs here, not something like weed.
Diazo
edit: I'm talking in general here, I'm sure many people can tell me of a person who is addicted, yet has been a functioning member of society for years. Yet I expect people will agree that such a person is the exception, rather then the rule. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Netherlands, with legal marijuana, has a lower rate of marijuana use than the US. I don't think you can assume that the legalization of drugs will lead to an increase in drug use.
We're starting to go down two different paths here.
@Theclam: Note in my post I specifically say "hard" drugs, of which I don't include marijuana in that catagory. Do you have any information about the rates of use of harder drugs in the Netherlands?
@Merkaba: With the harder drugs I'm talking about here, I do not believe it is possible to simply be a drug user. They simply hit too hard, if you keep taking them you will become a drug addict. And certainly taking drugs does not make one a bad person, but note that my previous post is directed at the terrible drugs, like heroin, not at a mild drug like marijuana.
As for my stance on marijuana, I am in favor of cautious legalisation. For me personally, marijuana is on roughly the same level as cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legal.
To the kneejerk posters here - do you guys really believe drug use is morally detestable (which makes fairly little sense to me anyway) and that justifies turning our backs on the problem?
I could elaborate on the point, but this is really pretty simple. Drugs aren't going anywhere, and just like we all have to deal with and pay the price for our countrys caffeine, nicotine, prescription drug, obesity, alcohol etc. problems, we'll have to do it here too. Banning was a nice try, but its obviously not working.
This was probably my biggest concern with the idea. I imagined a comfortable, relaxing place where friends could go and have a great trip, but that would be next to impossible without the government putting vast amounts of money into the centers. A special place is not needed for acid to be taken, but it helps to have proper aid on hand should you need it. This can be the form of experienced friends, or it could be a nurse. This leads me on to one of the best advantages of a legal drug center, however.
Once the centers would start being used by people, the government would make an absolute fortune taxing the drugs. They would easily make enough money to kit out the centers and create a decent environment, while the rest of the money could help the country in different ways. This is about as far as my economic knowledge goes to, so it would be great if someone could point out any problems.
Personally, I believe that most drugs (I hate heroin for private reasons) are great, and if used properly can give the user a great time and feeling. The main problem with the drug industry is the fact that it is illegal, ironically. Due to the criminal element of it, the dealers cut the drugs with horrible stuff in order to make a decent profit, as several other people have said. If the government were to buy it directly from the source, the users would be injecting decent quality drugs in relatively safe doses (Obviously there is no such thing as a 'safe dose', but a computer system could record when you last had your hit, etc, to make it as safe as possible). Of course, some people will OD on drugs. How is that any different to people dying from drinking too much alcohol or getting lung cancer from smoking? Alcohol and cigarettes are every bit as 'evil' as drugs, but unfortunately drugs are seen as morally bad, while alcohol and cigarettes are acceptable. Until this changes, a drug center would be impossible for a government to fund without being voted out by the public.
I didn't say that the legalization of hard drugs wouldn't lead to greater use. I said that you can't assume that it would. A similiar product to the ones we're talking about (marijuana) was legalized, yet it has lower rates of use than in a country where it is illegal. Therefore, it's probable that legalizing hard drugs would result in lower rates of use, although we don't know for sure.
Good point, but I am sure there are many people who have done heroin and come away without serious harm. Though, as heroin is such a dangerous drug these people probably have a history of experimental and mature drug use and so know what they are doing and the risks they were taking (or were extremely lucky). As it's been said before, heroin is not physically addictive except with frequent use, so trying it once would be a risk but not guarenteed to result in getting hooked. That depends a lot on the mindset of the user, which I guess is where the distinction between user and addict is made with regard to heroin.
One of the first or the first (i forget the name but it was on a documentary called Fix: The Story of An Addicted City) injection centers in Germany hes been open for a few years now and have recorded zero cases of an OD or any other drug related mishap at the center. a park close buy once notorious for being filled with addicts, prostitutes and dealers selling and doing heroin in in the open , is now just an average park without the hordes of heroin addicts.
Whether this is true or not I don't know but I heard (and they were quite proud of it) that after 7 tabs of acid you are seen as clinically insane. Sounds a bit extreme though.
What I do know is that at least half of the people I know that have seriously got in to acid have been commited at some point or another and they have spent weeks at 'clinics' and similar places trying to sort their heads out. They have also had major changes to their personalities too.
There is also a 'character' in town who, after making himself a massive acid birthday cake then ate the whole thing to himself when noone bothered to show up. He has since then been a complete nutter/village idiot, is famous as the guy you should avoid and has been known to attack people for no reason.
Then again I know plenty of people that have been completely unaffected by any drug, that are incredibly nice and intelligent people and they don't look or act like any of the stereotypical stoners at all.
You cannot physically overdose on LSD, as in, it will do no direct physical damage to you. But as Nineteen said, the more you take the longer it lasts. And it can last a long time.
Kinda offtopic but I feel I should mention this in case there is any confusion, it IS possible to overdose on psilocybin mushrooms, as they are poisonous. It takes 1-2 kilograms for that to happen, mind. Just in case anyone mistakenly thinks LSD is the same as magic mushrooms.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
although very unlikley because you would throw up after 1-2 ounces, muchrooms are almost completly dry and 1-2 kilos is ALOT
I wrote a paper on this a year ago, and i did extensive research using government reports, expert reports, synopsis, ect..
I diddnt find a single paper which described the drug ban as even remotely effective....
Quite honestly.. drugs are both more available AND cost less ( even negating inflation) than they did before the ban...
ANd we spend a billion dollars in money and countless lives every year in the drug ban....
TBH its a waste of time and resources for absolutely no effect...
When is the last time u met ANYONE who diddnt do drugs simply because they are illegal... never
U either do them cuz u want to.. or dont because u dont like them the fact that they are illegal stops/prevents/influences nothing in the decision...
With that said.. the ban is ****... legalize them and watch organized crime disappear overnight...
Tax them.. and balance the budget (go carlin)
Take that billion a year and **** around with iraq some more (go bush)
~Jason
should something like this ever be implimented? I think you know my opinion....
<a href='http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4191.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4191.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Buzzkillers
by David Malmo-Levine (26 Apr, 2005) Are anti-drug technologies and mind-control vaccines the future of the drug war?
You may not have heard about it yet – but you will.
The first mainstream media report was in a British newspaper report dated July 25, 2004. The headline read, Children to Get Jabs Against Drug Addiction. In it, we learn that a "radical scheme to vaccinate children against future drug addiction" is being considered by the British Government.1
Under the plan, doctors would "immunize children at risk of becoming smokers or drug users with an injection."
The article claimed the scheme would function "similarly to the current nationwide Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination program. Childhood immunization would protect adults from the euphoria experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take."
Is this the future of the drug war? A nightmare dystopia where children are inoculated against feeling forbidden euphoria?
Drugs as a disease
To much of the anti-drug crowd, drug use is a "cancer" – an analogy used by Clinton's Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey back in 1997.2 The view that use of illegal herbs and drugs is a "disease" is the basis for a great deal of drug war propaganda. Take, for example, this 2003 statement from the White House:
"[Drug Use] spreads because the vectors of contagion are not addicts in the street, but users who do not yet show the consequences of their drug habit. Last year, some 16 million Americans used an illegal drug on at least on a monthly basis, while 6.1 million Americans were in need of treatment. The rest, still in the 'honeymoon' phase of their drug-using careers, are 'carriers' who transmit the disease to others who see only the surface of the fraud."3
To these anti-drug warriors, all use is abuse, and all euphoria that comes from plants is unnecessary. To them, any medicating against stress, depression or fatigue requires a doctor and carefully measured doses of synthetics, not self-measured doses of botanicals.
If drug use is not a choice but a "disease," then it becomes frighteningly logical to use the standard treatments for a contagion, including "medications" and "immunizations" to protect against these illegal substances.
Compassionate coercion
Using surgery and chemistry to treat "deviant" people for their private, non-harmful behaviors is nothing new. From 1907-1978 over 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized under state sterilization laws. These laws targeted criminals as well as the mentally handicapped, people with low IQ's and the mentally ill.4
Also, up until the mid-1970's, many **** people in North America were "treated" for their "condition" with the "compassionate coercion" of drugs, and even sterilization.5
Today, people who have been arrested for drug offenses, people serving time behind bars or people who rely on public assistance – disproportionately black or brown folk6 – are likely to be the first targets of the neurocops.
Already, some courts in the US have conditioned a grant of probation for alcohol-related offenses on the probationer using the alcohol blocker Antabuse.7 With the prevalence of "drug courts" which make users choose between forced treatment and prison, how long will it be until we see pot smokers and cocaine snorters forced to take an anti-drug pills and vaccinations as a condition of their release?
Next, they'll come for the kids. 97% of American school kids are already vaccinated as a precondition to attending school.8 Many people question the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, yet parents who refuse to allow their children to be stuck with needles have been charged with neglect and even child abuse.9
And it's not just the "hard drugs" they want to inoculate your children against. The US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is currently offering up $3 million in grant money to encourage "development of safe and effective pharmacological treatments for cannabis-related disorders (CRDs)..." They claim that "targeting adolescents and young adults is particularly relevant in view of their disproportionate use patterns."10
Already, reps for companies like DrugAbuse Sciences (DAS) salivate openly at the potential profits in the buzzkill market. DAS exists only to make pharmaceutical drugs which block the effects of banned herbs and drugs – they make "anti-drug drugs."
In an April 2001 interview with the Wall Street Reporter, DrugAbuse Sciences CEO Elizabeth Greetham was blunt in her assessment of the huge profits they expected from the anti-drug market.
"If we treat 300,000 patients for six months and charge typical daily therapy of around four dollars per day, which is the usual charge for new medications today, we can generate $250 million worth of revenues to DrugAbuse Sciences... We believe that addiction will be a multi-billion dollar market. DAS will only have to scratch the surface to be very successful for our investment group."11
It's easy to see their reason for confidence – Clinton's old Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey is now on their Board of Directors.12
Overlooked problems
As with most prohibitionist projects, this one has yet to be thought all the way through, as there may be unwanted side effects resulting from vaccinating or medicating the whole human race from birth against the so-called scourge of plant-based euphoria.
First, these banned herbs and drugs are not inherently harmful, so we're throwing our most important mind-tools away because of their potential for misuse. It's like tossing out your hammer because someone else hit their thumb with it.
Secondly, what if these vaccines and medications interfere with the body's ability to feel pain and pleasure naturally? Are we risking becoming a species of emotionless droids? The possible unforeseen negative effects on our psychological make-up is limitless.
Cannabis, for example, activates receptors in areas of the brain which regulate body movements, learning, memory, appetite, nausea, pain, sexual behavior, emotion and integration of sensory information.13 What if the anti-cannabis medicine kills more than just the munchies?
The researchers at the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics argue there is good reason to be concerned:
"In 2003, Roxane Laboratories discontinued the sale and distribution of the opioid agonist ORLAAM, as a result of 'increasing reports of severe cardiac-related adverse events.' Given that CB1 (cannabis) receptors are 10 times more abundant in the brain than opioid receptors, the possibilities for adverse effects from blocking CB1 are clearly substantial."14
A third issue is that blocking the effects of a given drug will not stop someone who wants to get high. If the effects of their favored substance are blocked, the user is more than likely to simply switch to another, potentially more harmful option.
Meet the Buzzkillers
There are three basic types of "Buzzkill" technology currently out there. Each acts in a different way to stop your brain from feeling the effects of a given substance.
Receptor Blockers: There are three sub-types of these. "Agonists" are compounds that enter and activate the receptor sites on brain cells, acting as a synthetic substitute. "Partial agonists" are a weak synthetic substitute that blocks part of the drug's effect. The "antagonists" are those that block the receptor site without activating it at all – "total buzzkill."
Molecule Binders: These bind to the drug molecules in your bloodstream, stopping them from reaching your brain by making them to big to pass the blood-brain barrier.
Many of the "anti-drug vaccines" which are being studied work in this way. They stimulate your body to make antibodies which latch onto the drug molecules, thereby enlarging them so they can't reach the brain.
Metabolism Modifiers: These react negatively with the substance in question, making you sick if you consume it. An example is Antabuse (disulfiram) which makes you vomit should you swallow alcohol.
Buzzkill tech in development
A recent report by the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics outlined many of the new anti-drugs and vaccines in production.18 Here's some of the most interesting:
Xenova, the British biotechnology firm, is working on the anti-cocaine molecule binder vaccine, "TA-CD." In 1999, a study with human volunteers showed that injecting TA-CD created "antibody responses" which lasted almost three months. In 2003, Xenova began testing TA-CD in a clinical trial involving 132 human subjects. They expect to complete this study in 2005 and move into Phase III studies.
DrugAbuse Sciences is racing to develop DAS-431, a "cocaine vaccine" that the company aims to release in both an injectable form as well as an inhalable aerosol. DrugAbuse Sciences have brought us Buprenophine Depot – a long-lasting injectable opioid receptor blocker (partial agonist).
The Scripps Research Institute in San Diego has developed a "super-virus," tested on rats and reportedly "harmless to humans," which produces proteins that can reduce or block the effects of cocaine. The medication is expected to be available within in the next two years in the form of a nasal spray.
Pliva and Odyssey pharmaceuticals have teemed up to bring us "Antabuse" – a "metabolism modifier" against alcohol and cocaine-induced euphoria. Death is also a possible reaction (and has occurred) from using alcohol after taking this drug. Users must be careful, as many foods and medications contain alcohol. Even the alcohol in aftershave, shampoo and perfume – absorbed through the skin – can trigger a reaction.
Roxane Laboratory still has Methadone on tap. Methadone is the first and oldest synthetic opioid blocker (agonist), and was invented by German company IG Farben. Roxane also used to have ORLAAM – another opioid blocker (mild agonist), but it was withdrawn from the market last year after being linked to heart attacks and other health problems.
Dupont Pharma has come out with "naltrexone" or "Trexan" or "Revia" – a heroin antagonist that, unlike methadone, produces no pleasurable effects. It is also being used for alcohol attraction, and is being tested for use against cocaine attraction. People taking this drug are advised to carry a card advising emergency medical personnel that most pain medications will be useless for them. There also is some indication that people on this drug get "higher" on marijuana – but we sure don't advise anyone to risk taking it to find out.
Catalist Pharmaceutical Partners has Vigabatrin to save us from cocaine and nicotine attraction.
GlaxoSmithKline have Nicorette, a nicotine-filled chewing gum that some people use to stop smoking, and others use to replace smoking. They also produce Zyban, an anti-depressant used to treat nicotine dependence, and which is currently being tested as an anti-meth drug.
Nabi pharmaceuticals is about to come out with NicVax – the nicotine molecule binder vaccine. This would be used to inoculate children against ever being able to enjoy a tobacco cigarette.
Sanofi-Synthelabo is putting the final touches on Rimonabant, a cannabinoid antagonist which will be used to treat overeaters by blocking their innate cannabis receptors and killing their natural munchies. Rimonabant is also being looked at as a potential treatment for "marijuana dependence."
One more bit of info to add is that Sanofi-Synthelabo, the maker of Rimonabant, is now known as "Sanofi Aventis."19 Aventis merged with Bayer in 2001.20 Bayer is also marketing Sativex (a cannabis-based proprietary medicine) for GW Pharmaceuticals, and has ties to Solvay Pharma, the current makers of a synthetic THC pill called Nabalone.21 Bayer also has one of the worst records of crimes against humanity of any corporation on earth,22 and is a major donor to the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
Involuntary treatment = mistreatment
As past Mayor of Vancouver Phillip Owen recently pointed out, most of those in "drug treatment" are there "because of the system" – because they were forced to choose between treatment and jail.15
This is backed up by research from the US Department of Health and Human Services, which states that 57% of those in drug treatment "were referred to treatment through the criminal justice system."16
Many of the rest were coerced into treatment by their family or employer. The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics estimates that "less than three percent of marijuana smokers voluntarily seek treatment."14
Of course the White House argues we're all "in denial" and in need of "compassionate coercion," taking the form of "innovative techniques" using "specialized pharmaceuticals."17
It's one thing for an adult to voluntarily choose a particular treatment, but to subject infants to anti-euphoria vaccines or to medicate anyone against their will is an affront to human autonomy and a threat to every kind of human freedom. If buzzkill tech is accepted into common use, humans can officially stop considering themselves as "intelligent life" and place themselves in the category of "livestock."
All human beings need to have the ability to feel good and the right to feel good, and, within limits involving harm to others, we have the right to feel good whenever and however we want to. Autonomy is an essential part of health.
We do not want to live in a world where our diet and medicine is dictated to us by the state – a dark and horrible future if ever there was one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article claimed the scheme would function "similarly to the current nationwide Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccination program. Childhood immunization would protect adults from the euphoria experienced by users, making drugs such as heroin and cocaine pointless to take."
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy **** does this scare me.......
Hopefuly this won't ever pan out, but this reminds me of Brave New World, Welcome to the Monkey House, and 1984 for some reason.
Of course this is from an unrepentant drug user, but i'd hope my childern would at least have the option to experiment around with them, if they choose too.
For anyone who diddnt get the above reference, Read Brave New World..
I also Recommend 1984 because both are pertinant to this discussion :-P
~Jason
I'll try to post a proper response that addresses some of the more specific naivety and retardness that abounds here.
I'll try to post a proper response that addresses some of the more specific naivety and retardness that abounds here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gollum... The ring is an addiction... remember that..... you dont need the precious....
Time to go to detox...
~Jason
You do know people who use acid quite often have flashbacks/relaspes years down the line even if they haven't taken it since, right? It really isn't all that innocent a drug as you make it out to be.
You do know people who use acid quite often have flashbacks/relaspes years down the line even if they haven't taken it since, right? It really isn't all that innocent a drug as you make it out to be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Acid Scares the Everloving **** out of me.........
It never leaves ur system.... EVER
U can have relapse trip's like 10 years down the road...... just cause....
Also someone told me that if uve done acid 10 times... ur legally insane.... i dunno if thats true... but it scares me!!
~Jason
You have just met me. Cody Miller, pleasure to meet you, sir.
~ DarkATi
You have just met me. Cody Miller, pleasure to meet you, sir.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh come on. You don't do drugs because they're bad for you, not because the government tells you to not do them. I speed when I drive in places I know, but I actually follow the speed limit if I don't know where I am or if the weather conditions are poor, because I *gasp* would like to live past age 21. I don't care about the government's rules when I know I'm safe, but if something has a chance of being harmful, that's another story. I'm rather inclined to think most people don't really care what the government thinks; the primary motivation to stay in line is self-preservation.
Edit: I thought this was a cool site, lol
<a href='http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/' target='_blank'>http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/</a>
Bad bad idea. Unless you have no wish to be active later in life (or right now, for that matter), don't start smoking.
I don't know where you go to school, but take it from a senior: no one really cares if you smoke or not. You hear this from smoke prevention groups all the time, so it sounds a little cheesy, but it's true. Oh, and drugging yourself up doesn't make your problems go away, it makes them worse. Divorce, moving during school, financial troubles, I've been through 'em. I can tell you, being high really would not have helped me get through those situations at all.
Also...cigarettes don't exactly have "temporary" effects.
Continuing with my "self-preservation" thing, the reasons why I don't do 'popular' drugs:
Cigs - Kills endurance. I'm a hockey player, I don't need that. Furthermore, I'm horribly allergic to the smoke. And call me crazy, but those Truth commercials scared the crap outta me.
Alcohol - I didn't get a 1600 SAT score by systematically killing my braincells. Besides, the hockey pounds my head enough; I don't need more headaches.
Pot/Acid/hallucinogens in general - I'm loopy enough in real life without these drugs. Plus, I have a horrible memory as is; no need to make that any worse.
Let's see....speed? Yeah....no. Hyper = bad. Ecstacy? I prefer to be in full control of my actions at all times, thank you. What other drugs....well, my brother huffed. That went well. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah, I really had to write this post. I see enough high schoolers on drugs as it is, and it's sad, because I know a lot of my classmates have no futures because they've focused on drugs and parties for the last 4 years.
It is a combination, really.
BUT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Titus 3:1
"Remind your people to obey the government and its officers, and always to be obedient and ready for any honest work."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, I am required BY GOD to obey the government.
~ DarkATi