Drug Legalization - Page 20 - Political Forum

Bradgriff · #**191** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Do you think it is NECESSARY for people to have a genetic predisposition to drugs? I have never done any drugs in my life (pain killers after surgery don't count). So let's say that I am one of the many 90-93% who are not addicted. Now I will argue with you that I can still become addicted to a drug, not only chemically but also psychologically. If I started taking drugs, I believe that my body would adapt to the drugs and then expect the drugs to be there and I would go through withdrawal without it.

No, it is not neccessary for someone to have the addict gene to become addicted, maybe if they were to be tied down for days and forced to become physiologically addicted. But as per my earlier example....of the (90-93%), of which YOU are Du Bois, they are too smart to start, or are averted by the effects of intoxicants, or they like it and can moderate usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Are you saying that withdrawal is something that only 10% of the population can experience? I don't believe that.

The (90-93%) don't usually abuse a drug to the point of experiencing withdrawls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Also there is psychological addiction. I would become pyschologically addicted to the sheer pleasure and euphoria the drug gives me. Regardless who MUST become addicted, I believe everyone CAN become addicted.

People experience the exact same drug in different ways, thus the term "reaction". Anyone can experience sheer joy if they take a drug, but addicts (7-10%) lack the ability to consider the harm that could possibly come to them if they continue usage and focus singularly on abtaining that feeling again at all costs. The (90-93%) will think....I've seen lot's junkies before and that must be what happens if I continue to do that and they quit, or they say that's too good of a feeling to be true, and I kinda feel out of control, and what are all these low lifes doing hanging around me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Drinking after Prohibition reached levels twice as popular as before Prohibition. So, try to explain that one with the 10% addiction theory.

Just because a statistic says more people are drinking, it doesn't mean they're all addicted, probably about 10% of them are.

Ireally wished you lived in Northern California, if you ever make it this way I'll give you a tour of a mental hospital that lot's of druggies wind up in. The Drs and Psychaitrists are great there, they could give you quite an eye opening education Du Bois, my offer is a genuine one. I'll even buy dinner.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #**192** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 02:09 PM

Libertarian replies to this: Drug Legalization

with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

You are clearly confused here.

Libertarian replies to this: Drug Legalization

with this

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

That doesn't even make any sense. "Heroin and cocaine are addictive that's why their harm is disproportionate."

Pretty low quality to offer a 1-2 line response to posts that are several paragraphs long. There's no need to reply at all if you have no rebuttal or meaningful statement to add.

WEB

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #**193** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

No, it is not neccessary for someone to have the addict gene to become addicted, maybe if they were to be tied down for days and forced to become physiologically addicted. But as per my earlier example....of the (90-93%), of which YOU are Du Bois, they are too smart to start, or are averted by the effects of intoxicants, or they like it and can moderate usage.

The (90-93%) don't usually abuse a drug to the point of experiencing withdrawls.

People experience the exact same drug in different ways, thus the term "reaction". Anyone can experience sheer joy if they take a drug, but addicts (7-10%) lack the ability to consider the harm that could possibly come to them if they continue usage and focus singularly on abtaining that feeling again at all costs. The (90-93%) will think....I've seen lot's junkies before and that must be what happens if I continue to do that and they quit, or they say that's too good of a feeling to be true, and I kinda feel out of control, and what are all these low lifes doing hanging around me.

OK, so just to be clear, you are saying that about 10% of people will NECESSARILY become addicted to some sort of substance. I maintain that anyone CAN become addicted.

From an online drug counseling group:

eGetGoing Online Addiction Treatment Alcohol and Drug Rehab Counseling

Quote:

When is a person cured of chemical dependency?

No known cure is available for chemical dependency. The person with the illness can never safely return to using addictive substances. In the chemically dependent brain, alcohol and drugs increase the level of dopamine, causing the addicted person to feel euphoric or "high." The brain adapts to this condition and undergoes a chemical change, so that when the drug or alcohol isn't present, the brain demands more. This is experienced as a "craving" by the addicted person. As the addicted person uses more and more, the brain changes become permanent.

The brain, when exposed to narcotic pain meds or small amounts of addictive substances, is reminded of the lack of the addictive substance. This can then set off intense cravings that trigger compulsive use of the substance. People, places, memories, painful feelings and stressful events can also set off intense cravings.

Most chemically dependent people believe that recovery includes other indicators of a return to health, such as reunification with their family, gaining employment, returning to school, living a more fulfilling and spiritual life. The terms "recovering" and "recovered" are used to indicate that recovery is an ongoing process since there is no known "cure" for chemical dependency. Many in recovery understand they have "recovered" from the devastating effects of active use, however believe their ongoing recovery is contingent on support to aide in keeping a daily focus to abstinence and recovery maintenance.

There's no choice involved here. It's bio-chemistry. You take the drug, you get increasingly more addicted.

P.S. Thank you for the offer. I live on the East Coast and I will probably not be going out that way for a long time.

WEB

Alun · #**194** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Pretty low quality to offer a 1-2 line response to posts that are several paragraphs long. There's no need to reply at all if you have no rebuttal or meaningful statement to add.

The Libertarian is posting mostly within the quotes when he replies.

Bradgriff, I had thought that alcohol only caused physical symptoms of addiction in a minority of users, but that some controlled substances, especially opiates, are almost always addictive after a few days of use. Is this incorrect? Can you point to studies that show it, or is it only in your personal experience?

The Libertarian, you are saying that availability of drugs would not increase if the Controlled Substances Act were repealed. You are saying that punishment does not deter drug usage. You are saying that social pressure does not deter drug usage. These ideas are counterintuitive, to say the least, yet the only thing you've referenced to substantiate them is the abrupt, absolute, and badly enforced prohibition of alcohol nearly a century ago.

As to your Constitutional argument, I think you're wrong. The Congress can limit most any trade so long as it doesn't bias against States, and at any rate drug usage has many effects that are detrimental to free society. First and foremost among these is addiction, which I'm inclined to compare to slavery. I'd say the fact that drugs make people do things they don't want to do is good enough reason to ban their use for recreation.

Bradgriff · #**195** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

OK, so just to be clear, you are saying that about 10% of people will NECESSARILY become addicted to some sort of substance. I maintain that anyone CAN become addicted.

Yes, 10% of people will NECCESSARILY become addicted to some sort of substance or behavior at some point in thier lives, sevarities will vary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

From an online drug counseling group:
eGetGoing Online Addiction Treatment Alcohol and Drug Rehab Counseling
There's no choice involved here. It's bio-chemistry. You take the drug, you get increasingly more addicted.

Yes, if you're among the 7-10%......... If you are part of the 90-93% you won't continue to take the drug till you look up one day and realize you're a scuzzy junkie with teeth falling out and sores all over your body.

dellgines · #**196** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 04:20 PM

Legalize drugs, tax them, and insure that the companies that sell them are putting a percentage into treatment and rehab centers.

Violence spiked around prohibition because illegal elements sought to control the trade.

The majority of criminals are now in prison due to non-violent drug offenses.

You eliminate the criminality and the potential net benefit to society increases. This is not to say that you won't see more addicts, but the NET benefit in my estimation outweighs the cost.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #**197** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradgriff

Yes, if you're among the 7-10%......... If you are part of the 90-93% you won't continue to take the drug till you look up one day and realize you're a scuzzy junkie with teeth falling out and sores all over your body.

When you're addicted, you're addicted, your body doesn't give you a choice about it.

An study on cocaine says:

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagenam...caineAddiction

Quote:

People who try this drug often want to try it again. And again. With continued use they may become addicted. By definition, addicts have lost control of their drug use even in the face of negative physical, personal or social consequences. They devote every ounce of their being to finding and doing cocaine. Friends, family, work and school are no longer important.

The article does not say 7-10% of people, it just says people.

WEB

The Libertarian · #**198** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Sounds like something from experience rather then a study. Nope, it's simple common sense I'm not sure if you have heard of it. Demand = supply. When you shut out the LEGAL supply, the demand is still there. People don't just magically obey your every command because you think it would be useful for them to do so. Saying they do is a ridiculous claim.

You are the one that lacks proof not me. *Sigh* Do you know anything about gang violence? It seems like you are still trying to associate the selling of drugs with them a little to closely. I NEVER ASSOCIATED GANGS WITH DRUGS!!!!!!!! I said that when you give them a multi-billion dollar industry, they are going to take that business. When they do, they get rich and more powerful, corrupting politicians and law enforcement. I just came from a bad neighborhood where there are plenty of drug dealers, but I haven't seen a single blood or crip (and yes I would notice them if I saw one) or a single gang territory marker. Yes, maybe because drugs are.......ILLEGAL! Of course they aren't going to walk around with "markers" and just "mark territory", rather it is done by eliminating the competition in the area(ex. drive-bys, shootouts). They don't go around telling people what they are doing.

My half-brother is a drug dealer and is part of no gang. Gangs would exist whether drugs were legal or not. I agree, but how could the problem possibly get worse? Clear proof shows it will only reduce the size and power of gangs and criminals. That is a simple matter of fact and even if they didn't that doesn't garauntee that the lives saved would outpace the drug addiction rate because there is no way you can prove more people will get addictive. Yes, maybe there will be a few more addicts, but so what? This is not a valid reason for supporting prohibition simply because the taking of drugs is a VOLUNTARY action.

You are the one making ridiculous claims not me. I say legalizing them will ruin lives because more people will get addicted. Completely irrelevant. Drug use is a VOLUNTARY action. Alcohol is legal and it ruins plenty of lives. No, alcohol is an inanimate object. Irresponsibility ruins lives. See, you are trying to imply that alcohol is acting on it's own killing people, even though you denounced it about guns.And you know full well cocaine and herione are more addictive I can't believe you even asking for proof if you know as much about the issue as you claim then you surely know their more addictive. I won't waste my time with that. Never asked for proof that cocaine and heroin were addictive. What's with prohibitionists and using ridiculous claims to try and prove an illegitimate point?

You are putting the burden of proof on those who want to enforce the law, but the issue is the reverse. Dictatorial way of thinking. You have the burden of proof to prove that drug legalization isn't going to be disasterous.

It is because common sense shows the contrary.

The Libertarian · #**199** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

When you're addicted, you're addicted, your body doesn't give you a choice about it.
An study on cocaine says:

http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagenam...caineAddiction

The article does not say 7-10% of people, it just says people.

WEB

Yes, but you choose to put the substance in your body. Drug use and addiction are purely VOLUNTARY actions, and DO NOT MORALLY JUSTIFY CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #**200** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Libertarian

Yes, but you choose to put the substance in your body. Drug use and addiction are purely VOLUNTARY actions, and DO NOT MORALLY JUSTIFY CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

OK, let's try to get a handle on this debate. What are you in favor of legalizing? Just pot or all drugs?

WEB