Quote from thisnameistaken :

I've taken heroin three times. My girlfriend has never taken heroin.

In the last 20 years I've been to see a doctor on three occasions (an eye infection, swollen wrist tendons, tonsilitis), and have needed no hospital treatment. In the last ten years my girlfriend has had two different types of cancer, broken two bones, and consultations leading to an operation to remove an overactive parathyroid gland.

I also have been donating blood regularly for the last 7 or 8 years and haven't missed a donation.

What's your point anyway?

Do you think heroin should be legal though
I've tried morphine and I had a friend that was very addicted to codiene to the point that he would go from pharmacy to pharmacy buying any over the sheld medication that contained it so he could extract it. I tried it once because he kept asking me to, but I didn't find it that great.

I'm not denying the fact that opiates such as heroin would give you the most ultimate warm fuzzy feeling but I think that problem is that to a lot of people it wouldn't just be an occasional try out.

I'm not advocating recreational use of opiates at all but the fact is there are lots of people already using them, and lots of those people are already addicted.

People don't stop experimenting with drugs just because they're illegal, and those who do become addicted are forced to get their drugs through illegal channels, putting them in dangerous situations and creating more crime. The only reason these people have to become involved with dealers and pimps and other such scum is because of the 'War on Drugs'. Legalise the lot and you take the power away from those people.

We should be concerned with solving the social problems that push people into these dependencies, not criminalising them and penalising them. We can't do that properly while the drugs are illegal and the users are at the mercy of criminal gangs.

why would addicts be any more able to afford their drug if it were legal? It's not like pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of medicines that people need to live. Do you think tax money should be used to buy heroin for junkies if they can't afford it?

It puts the government in a situation it should never be in, both providing hard drugs and discouraging their use. Whether you think it's moral or not it will never happen.

Also what social problems cause drug abuse? Drug abuse is a choice. I knew a girl here in Texas, beautiful, rich family, hopelessly addicted to heroin. She never had any problems except her parents enabled her with a $600 per month allowance.

Quote from flymike91 :

why would addicts be any more able to afford their drug if it were legal? It's not like pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of medicines that people need to live. Do you think tax money should be used to buy heroin for junkies if they can't afford it?

If it saves money in other departments, why not?

Quote from flymike91 :

It puts the government in a situation it should never be in, both providing hard drugs and discouraging their use. Whether you think it's moral or not it will never happen.

Here in the UK we already provide synthetic alternatives (diamorphine mostly I think?) to try to wean addicts off the high. We used to use heroin and I think still do in some cases. I can imagine the US government would be more strongly opposed to this kind of therapy because the US government started the whole 'War on Drugs' nonsense, but it's an eminently sensible thing to do and indeed lots of countries are already doing it.

Quote from flymike91 :

Also what social problems cause drug abuse? Drug abuse is a choice. I knew a girl here in Texas, beautiful, rich family, hopelessly addicted to heroin. She never had any problems except her parents enabled her with a $600 per month allowance.

So based on your sample of one, you've deduced that most heroin addicts are from privileged backgrounds?

just like your sample of you taking heroin a few times and having a sick girlfriend means that heroin doesn't cause illness. I'm saying that no one is forced to take drugs because of their social status, just like no one is forced to commit murder because they were abused as a child. It's a cop-out for lack of responsibility.

Weed is cheaper than any other illegal drug and far safer. I have no desire or curiosity for any other drug because I know what they do to people. So whats the difference between me and you, kev, that makes me satisfied with weed and you want to try heroin? Is it social status? Education? You want to improve your look?

Quote from flymike91 :

just like no one is forced to commit murder because they were abused as a child. It's a cop-out for lack of responsibility.

WOW!
How ignorant are you!

I'm assuming you think mental health disorders are not real illnesses, too?

To be honest i think alot of the issues are about the quality of whats available, its all about the purity, relatively pure substance = nice clean high with not too much of the nasty after effects.

i dont do much, never have, although this year i have gone a bit more into it and have done MDMA bombs 4 times, (the only 4 times in my life i have ever done it in fact) nitrous baloons more times than i care to remember and have had quite a few spliffs too, and guess what, im still here and absolutely fine in myself just like usual, in fact, due to my job taking a bit of a change in direction recently i was actually praised for hard work dedication and productivity only today, when 24 little hours before i was so unvelievebly off my face it was unreal, yesterday daytime was pretty much a write off due to the comedown, head fuzzy and feeling like your in some kind of trance, but woke up this morning bang on and ready to get to work, but by common stereotypes i should be falling apart, when in fact im better than ever!

Quote from flymike91 :

why would addicts be any more able to afford their drug if it were legal? It's not like pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of medicines that people need to live.

Much of the reason pharmaceuticals are expensive is because their supply is protected by patents. Not sure about in the US, but over here legal party pills and synthetic weed have been fairly cheap (and not manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies). Without the cost of the risks associated with operating in a largely gang controlled black market, manufacturing expenses will decrease, supply will likely increase, resulting in a cheaper retail price for the consumer.

Addicts not having to commit as much crime in order to fund their habit is a large benefit to axing prohibition.

Quote from FPVaaron :

I'm not denying the fact that opiates such as heroin would give you the most ultimate warm fuzzy feeling but I think that problem is that to a lot of people it wouldn't just be an occasional try out.

I have no interest in trying heroin, but I'm not convinced that just because some people will abuse it, the rest of the responsible adults sharing the planet with them, who may want to use it, should do so under the threat of armed kidnapping. Alcohol and tobacco destroy far more lives than heroin, many currently illegal drugs are safer to use, where/how should we draw the line at where the state will decrease freedoms for the purposes of protecting irresponsible people from themselves? I want the state to extract revenge from me only if I harm others, is that too much to ask?

Quote from AndreNZ :

I want the state to extract revenge from me only if I harm others, is that too much to ask?

No it isn't, but neither should the government reward you with taxpayer money if you decide to use hard drugs. The main reason the single-payer healthcare system is so reviled in the US is because the majority here doesn't want to pay for the poor decisions of others (or really be forced to pay for anything for strangers.) The difference between suspending free medical services for junkies and not fat people is that heroin and meth addiction can only be harmful, while cheeseburgers can be eaten in moderation and when no other food is available. It takes 4-5 times taking heroin to become addicted within a month or so and no longer have the choice of when and how to take it.

you're seeing increased supply and availability of deadly and highly addictive drugs as a benefit. Any experiment to legalize hard drugs should be mainly focused on making it impossible to create new addicts, which across the board legalization does not do. Why would the government pay junkies by giving them their fix, when they could pay to force them into rehabilitation so they can potentially become productive citizens? When has a junkie become clean in a government institution and said they were better off before?

Every child in the US goes through a police-sponsored drug education program. Every US citizen knows that hard drugs are bad for you and illegal to use because of this education program. The 'armed kidnapping' analogy implies that people are unaware that you can be arrested and incarcerated for having hard drugs. If they have the brain cells left to remember 5th grade then it shouldn't be a surprise.

Quote from flymike91 :

snip

You should be in politics, you sound just about right.

PS: Remind me never to move in next door to you, you sound like a bad neighbor too...

I don't believe the government should be providing drugs for anyone, espeically if they are legal.

The whole idea is to give people more responsibility over there own choices and to deal with them accordingly.

Quote from flymike91 :

Every child in the US goes through a police-sponsored drug education program. Every US citizen knows that hard drugs are bad for you and illegal to use because of this education program.

Is there any actual truth taught during that education program? Most smart kids can smell bullshit from a mile away and that's why they're interested in trying drugs - because they can tell the government's line is a crock of shit and they're curious as to why they're being told not to do them.

We recently had a group of scientists who advise the UK government on drug legislation decide that most of the illegal drugs in the UK should be downgraded and some were no more harmful than alcohol. The government ignored this professional advice that they had solicited themselves because it didn't fit with policy.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Is there any actual truth taught during that education program?

in a country where preaching abstinence is considered sex education? unlikely

I can imagine a drug education program run by you two.

"weed is okay, heroin is okay sometimes, meth gives you bad teeth, and X is fun at parties. Good luck!"

Not "You could end up spending all of your money and energy trying to get a drug that no longer gives you satisfaction just to avoid the crushing pain of detoxification or possible death. You will lose your friends, family, job, and the ability to hold a normal conversation. You will rely on others to deliver food and goods to you when you can no longer go outside because strangers cringe at your ruined body and mothers pull their children away from you. The police will arrest you for passing out in a puddle of your vomit in the kid's play structure at McDonald's and you will go to jail. You will forced to quit cold turkey until you are released. When you go home you will use again to stop the pain, but it will be too much and you will overdose. Since no one knows you and you never go outside, the police will only find your decomposing body after the landlord comes to collect the rent. No one will react to news of your death because essentially you died years ago."

Quote from flymike91 :

No it isn't, but neither should the government reward you with taxpayer money if you decide to use hard drugs.

Great, sign me up for that system. I'll take care of my own healthcare expenses and in return waive the government's obligation to protect me from myself.

Quote :

The main reason the single-payer healthcare system is so reviled in the US is because the majority here doesn't want to pay for the poor decisions of others (or really be forced to pay for anything for strangers.) The difference between suspending free medical services for junkies and not fat people is that heroin and meth addiction can only be harmful, while cheeseburgers can be eaten in moderation and when no other food is available.

In 1998 alcohol abuse and addiction cost US taxpayers $148 billion (much more than all other hard drugs put together). You can only (logically) use this argument to support prohibition if you also support alcohol prohibition.

I'm all for less government involvement, but since the majority of the population are not, I'm sure the $42 billion per year cannabis prohibition costs US taxpayers would go a long way towards helping addicts with physicians rather than prison guards.

Quote :

you're seeing increased supply and availability of deadly and highly addictive drugs as a benefit.

It is a benefit - decreased price means addicts must commit less crime to fund their habit. As I pointed out with the Netherlands/USA comparison, legal status makes very little difference to demand. Another benefit is that it gives people who may otherwise abuse hard drugs a readily available and cheap supply of safer alternatives.

Also don't forget, we already have a massive supply of the deadliest (and nearly most addictive) drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Safer alternatives will benefit the abusers of these substances also, and relieve the healthcare costs.

Quote :

Any experiment to legalize hard drugs should be mainly focused on making it impossible to create new addicts, which across the board legalization does not do.

Why should it be any different to allowing alcohol and nicotine addicts? Why should responsible adults live in a bubble-wrapped world so that the irresponsible don't hurt themselves? Why don't we just make everything that can be abused illegal?

Quote :

The 'armed kidnapping' analogy implies that people are unaware that you can be arrested and incarcerated for having hard drugs.

Knowledge of their unjust laws doesn't make it any less of a kidnapping. Anyone who believes all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher.

War on drugs ..........

In the US prisons are run as a business, therefore you need inmates to create a profit, also, by the way, to provide the sort of low paid worker pool that normally third world countries provide.

How do you get such a pool of inmates, look at the US system as a great business model, seriously, it's included in university studies here !!!

The war on drugs is one of the biggest farces going, who is supplying most of the worlds hard drugs, let's try the Cocaine Importing Agency.

Check out the increase in poppy production in Afghanistan since the 'Forces for Good' took over.

Check Fast and Furious where the US is arming drug gangs, check Air America etc, etc, etc and so on.

Should all drugs be legal, I don't know. My opinion is that if they occur naturally, and don't require refining then they should be legalized but that is a vague description.

I've lost several friends though smack od's and do have a personal issue with that and meth but I really don't believe that prohibition works.

It's interesting seeing the Australasian input to this thread !

You eurotypes ought to pay attention to what happens in our country in the next five to ten years - if y'alls countries don't collapse first.
See the drug war was created by our government as a way to get rid of it's undesirables. Then they realized that with the proper spins, supporting this dirty war on it's own people would be great vote getter. And all the little scumbags figured out they could rake it in big moneywise. After that, the scumbags realized that they could use this drug war they started to bully other, smaller nations into following U.S. policy. They would basically blackmail these nations into entering this drug war - or withhold aid (money from the local scumbag leaders). And all that did for those countries was to give rise to organized crime syndicates on levels no one had ever imagined.
Mexican cartels used to be simple smugglers and not much else. But with money earned from the illegal drug industry - again that our government helped create - they gradually took over almost every single form of organized crime in Mexico and are now not just a criminal threat but a threat to national security there as well.
As of now Mexican cartels are mainly happy to blow each other away in Mexico, but that's changing fast. Once the next Mexican President takes over from Calderon, I don't see the military actions happening as much and it will free the cartels to take over American and Canadian criminal operations. And that will be all inclusive. They will attempt to control everything from illegal grow houses to child sex rings. And on the government side of things?
Well let's just look at what they want to do. Right off the bat they think that by dis-arming the American citizen, it will weaken the cartels' ability to get weapons (forget the fact that these guys rake in so much that the real fire power they have comes from legitimate foreign governments and international arms dealers) Another thing on table - at least here in Texas - is setting up checkpoints. Any idiot can work around those. It will just affect honest citizens. in fact everything that the government proposes to fight this war they started does nothing but make things harder on the Average citizen.
Also, more and more people are fed up with this stupid drug war policy our government continues to go by. Even in the face of massive public disapproval, they continue on. That should tell you something right there.
I'm afraid that little drug war those scumbags started to look good on election day will evolve into the United States second civil war. And any nation stupid enough to keep going along with this nonsensical war will find themselves in the same situation.

I had a fentanyl lolipop tonight, first real opiate experience.

Not bad, definitely nice when laying around watching movies all wrapped up in blankets :3

Quote from flymike91 :

I can imagine a drug education program run by you two.

"weed is okay, heroin is okay sometimes, meth gives you bad teeth, and X is fun at parties. Good luck!"

What would be so bad about telling kids the truth?

Tell kids the truth and they will be able to judge the risks. Tell them lies and they'll have to either abstain completely or experiment to find out the truth. Kids are naturally curious (and that is a GOOD thing), by lying to them you're putting them in more danger.

The truth is that weed isn't particularly bad for you, certainly not in moderation, it's considerably better for you than tobacco and it's safer than alcohol. LSD is not addictive. Mushrooms are not addictive. Ecstasy is not addictive. All of them might cause you to behave in unusual ways and so you'd be well advised to take them in a safe environment, but they do not cause any long-term ill effects. At all. Amphetamines are habit-forming when used regularly and can cause minor problems in your life because they mess up your daily routine. Heroin and other opiates are habit-forming when used regularly and withdrawal is extremely unpleasant and physically painful, so it's best to avoid heroin.

Of course you'd want to give more detailed information than that, but I don't see why it would be wrong to tell kids this stuff. It's all true. What's wrong with telling the truth?

Quote from Klutch :

I had a fentanyl lolipop tonight, first real opiate experience.

Not bad, definitely nice when laying around watching movies all wrapped up in blankets :3

How was it specifically? From all the info i've read, opiates doesn't seem nice at all for me.

opiates aren't my cup of tea, but it was certainly enjoyable

felt warm, slight euphoric feel, felt EXTREMELY relaxed, could lay/sit in the most uncomfortable position and it'd feel great haha, my vision went a bit weird, hard to focus at times