New Information Regarding Police Seizures of Overgrow.com

Belfast

Overgrow.com, Cannabisworld.com, Heaven's Stairway Seed Company and Eurohemp.com Owners Apprehended

Overgrow.com unavailable
Overgrow.com unavailable
Cannabis Culture has developed a timeline of events we believe accurately account for the disappearance of Overgrow.com, Cannabisworld.com, Heaven's Stairway Seeds (hempqc.com), and Eurohemp.

On Monday evening, resident of Montreal Richard Calrisian, the owner of the four websites, was contacted by his web service providers in Vancouver where his servers were situated. They told him that there may be a problem, regarding a police investigation. RC told his provider to shut down the websites immediately.

Within hours, the police (it's unknown what kind of police) apparently entered the server site in Vancouver with a warrant and apprehended the hardware that housed the four web sites.

In the early morning of Tuesday, police in Montreal moved in and arrested RC, his wife, family members and an unknown number of employees.

It is alleged that RC, a pseudonym, is being held at Riviere-des-Prairie (RDP) jail in Montreal, and his wife in is Tanguay jail, across the river from RDP. Cannabis Culture called the prison and found no one there under the name Richard Calrisian.

The bail hearing should be on Monday, but it is unusual that a bail hearing has not yet been held. Typically they take place within 24 hours of arrest, unless an investigation is ongoing and the accused are being held temporarily without bail. This may be because there is a risk that the arrest news might inform other persons who are also under investigation.

Earlier reports of a drug bust in Hearst, Ontario are not related the seizure of Overgrow.com websites.


More information to come, when provided
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4638.html

ianmc38

Interesting, I used to read/get tips from that site all the time. Overgrow.com had great forums. On what grounds was he arrested?

Belfast

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=21379&page=1&pp=15&highlight=Gypsy+Nirvana

Belfast

Some background information On Overgrow.com

Overgrow.com history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Stairway

some former overgrowers have gathered at the below link

OVERGROW/ CANNABISWORLD REFUGEES
http://www.icmag.com/ic/forumdisplay.php?f=118

Fratton Fred

what has some hippy drug user geek getting arrested got to do with politics?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the war on drugs?

you know, the international war western liberal democracies are fighting against their own populations.

seems kind of political.

Fratton Fred

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

the war on drugs?

you know, the international war western liberal democracies are fighting against their own populations.

seems kind of political.

don't tell me he has been locked up for 42 days without charge :eek:

turgon

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

you know, the international war western liberal democracies are fighting against their own populations.

Kinda sounds to me like |-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| doesnt realize that a lot of people actually die from the drug trade, and many more are captivated in a life of growing Opium and Coca under pressure from militants in Afghanistan and Columbia.

In my opinion Cannabis is not as bad as the harder drugs. However I still have the opinion that hard drug dealers should be convicted for Murder and Crimes against Humanity as well as the usual "Sale and Supply" that gets tagged on them.

Pappy o' daniel

Let the free market decide, theres no supply without demand.

SeanW

turgon wrote: »

Kinda sounds to me like |-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| doesnt realize that a lot of people actually die from the drug trade

Much like the alcohol trade in the US during the 1930s prohibition era?

Kama

Not sure what part of alluding to the War on Drugs as being political means you get automatic ignorant status...Doesn't seem a justified leap at all there turgon. Prohibition is a political policy choice, and contains a lot of tasty issues to do with internationalization of law, human rights and liberties, contradictions of market-liberal approaches, and so forth.

Thought experiment: if legal, then those militant drug gangs wouldn't be forcing people to grow opium, would they? (We'd be getting our supply from organic fair-trade co-operatives hehe) And those gangs wouldn't be making all that money, and so forth. More simply: if you grow your own, you're not supporting narco-terrorists, are you?

Plus if you want to make a Social Harm argument about drug criminalization, you'd need to show more people would be harmed in a legalized regime. I've yet to see a convincing case made on this basis.

turgon

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Let the free market decide, theres no supply without demand.

And very very little demand without supply.

Kama wrote: »

Not sure what part of alluding to the War on Drugs as being political means you get automatic ignorant status

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wasnt just stating that the war on drugs is political (which of course it is). Her post was styled dismissively, so as to conjure the impression the "western liberal democracies" she was talking about were somehow reducing their peoples freedom.

Kama wrote: »

Prohibition is a political policy choice

Based on the fact that fundamentally, drugs have a large negative impact on your biological body, and the economic and emotional well being of you family and friends and to a certain extent society as a whole, especcially when people start getting murdered.

Kama wrote: »

Thought experiment: if legal, then those militant drug gangs wouldn't be forcing people to grow opium, would they?

Well the gangs in Columbia have a much a share in transportation as the growing. I doubt now if legalized these gangs would lay down there weapons and become civilized. On the contrary they would be given more freedom. This freedom would make the militant drug trade appear somewhat legal, encouraging others to get involved. Eventually you are going to have a lot of competition. Only problem is the way this competition interacts with itself will be quite different to standard industries in Europe. Instead of resolving issues like companies here do they probably would just kill lots of people. Just so pompous clowns can get a buzz.

Kama wrote: »

More simply: if you grow your own, you're not supporting narco-terrorists, are you?

No. But when I refer to drugs Im not exactly only on about stuff you can grow, like weed. When did you ever hear of anyone making their own heroin?

Kama wrote: »

Plus if you want to make a Social Harm argument about drug criminalization, you'd need to show more people would be harmed in a legalized regime.

Just look at the damage alcohol does to our society. Alcohol not being a problem in moderation, its just that many Irish people couldn't spell the word. Look how dysfunctional families led by alcoholics are. And as opposed to Alcohol, which can be enjoyed in moderation (a glass of wine here, or a pint of cider for the taste), when we talk about hard drugs one can rarely separate use and abuse.

SeanW wrote: »

Much like the alcohol trade in the US during the 1930s prohibition era?

Exactly, when alcohol was in the command of the gangs. However alcohol should be legal because most people can treat drink with respect and enjoy it for its taste and refreshment. Cocaine heads dont do cocaine for the smell - they do it to get high. Not the same for alcohal. Read above!!

Kama

A constricted supply increases the price, sure, but removes the demand? In the case of a physiologically addictive substance, I don't see how this follows. Interdiction of supply will never be total, so at most you'll increase the price, meaning Johnny Junkie must now steal more to buy the same amount.

The War on (Some) Drugs does, imo, reduce our freedoms; its a contradiction in liberal market economies that recreational drug use is criminal, and distribution takes place through a illegal supply network. Why? Why not cigarettes, alcohol, etc? (come to think of it the LVA sounds like a paramilitary army) That isn't that easily dismissed. First directly, through regulating what a person can and can't do on libertarian grounds, and secondly through structuring a society and penal system around that illegality. Even in its own terms its not working.

Based on the fact that fundamentally, drugs have a large negative impact on your biological body

As do alcohol, paracetamol, and jogging; Jim Fixx died of a heart attack, and jogging is hell on your knee cartilage. I note you said 'largely negative': would you accept that there is a mix of costs and benefits to various drugs, much as pharmaceuticals may have beneficial functions and negative side effects?

and friends and to a certain extent society as a whole

The argument I was making is that this tends to be a secondary effect of prohibition; make something illegal that people want, don't allow a legitimate supply, and of course crime will move in, and then, as you say, people die. But these people aren't dying 'because of drugs'; you could make 'drugs' alcohol, or cigs, or whatever. They are dying because of hypocritical policy regimes that ensure, and are essentially complicit in, the illegal supply of substances. 2 choices; supply people legally, or let gangs do it. Atm we let gangs do it, and that doesn't seem to be working out too well. But thats a choice we are making, by default.


Now, if alcohol 'can be enjoyed in moderation', then surely any other drug which can be enjoyed 'moderately' should be on an equal and legal status? Or, perhaps it should be illegal for those people who cannot be 'moderate' to consume?

And tbh, most people I know who drink do it to get *ever-so-slightly-pissed* rather than predominantly for subtle aesthetic appreciation...I don't see the seperation of use and abuse in alcohol as quite that clear-cut.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

And very very little demand without supply.

What???

There is absolutely enormous demand for a miracle one treatment weight loss pill even though there is zero supply (as it doesn't exist) Demand is independent of supply for most goods, the ratio of supply to demand is what sets the price in a market economy. Cutting supply for a high demand good increases its price but it doesn't reduce its demand. (there are some exceptions for some goods that need good market penetration before they become viable to own, like Beta format cassettes and ethanol powered cars)

Based on the fact that fundamentally, drugs have a large negative impact on your biological body, and the economic and emotional well being of you family and friends and to a certain extent society as a whole, especcially when people start getting murdered.

Fundamentally? There are many drugs that cure diseases, there are positive medicinal properties for cannabis as a method of controlling pain and inducing appetite for people with certain medical conditions. All foods drinks and drugs can have negative effects if they are consumed irresponsibly. The humble potatoe could sustain much of the food requirements for the entire human population of this planet, (its one of the most soil and water efficient crops that we have, far better than grains) it could also contribute to morbid obesity if people consume it via fast food and potato chips

Well the gangs in Columbia have a much a share in transportation as the growing. I doubt now if legalized these gangs would lay down there weapons and become civilized. On the contrary they would be given more freedom.

They would probably not lay down their weapons completely, but they would be driven to legitimise and do what corporations tend to do and get the state to point their guns for them. Global capitalist corporations use violence to defend their profits too, they just use state violence. That said, it is better than criminal gangs controlling the supply as they have absolutely no accountability to anyone while states have to at least pretend that they have the interests of the people at heart.

This freedom would make the militant drug trade appear somewhat legal, encouraging others to get involved.

Cannabis is semi legal in holland, and while I was living there, I noticed that far fewer local dutch people smoked heavily than my own peer group in Ireland did. The fact that drugs are illegal tends to glamorise it for young people. While the legal alternatives to drugs are seen as naff (how come every child doesn't get addicted to solvent sniffing, you can buy bostik glue in every corner shop)

Eventually you are going to have a lot of competition. Only problem is the way this competition interacts with itself will be quite different to standard industries in Europe. Instead of resolving issues like companies here do they probably would just kill lots of people. Just so pompous clowns can get a buzz.

They wouldn't risk their license by killing lots of people. If drugs were legalised, the drug dealers would become like publicans and chemists 'respectable businesspeople' and they would have public interests to uphold which would be severely damaged by killing sprees and gun rampages.

Just look at the damage alcohol does to our society. Alcohol not being a problem in moderation, its just that many Irish people couldn't spell the word. Look how dysfunctional families led by alcoholics are. And as opposed to Alcohol, which can be enjoyed in moderation (a glass of wine here, or a pint of cider for the taste), when we talk about hard drugs one can rarely separate use and abuse.

The biggest risk in taking ectasy is that you don't know what the drug dealers have cut with it to increase their profits, if there was proper regulation of ingredients and dosages, the number of people who die would be much lower. Would you prefer that we made alcohol illegal and people went back to distilling their own poiteen in their sheds? They mightn't drink as often, but whenever they did drink, they would be doing much more harm.

Exactly, when alcohol was in the command of the gangs. However alcohol should be legal because most people can treat drink with respect and enjoy it for its taste and refreshment. Cocaine heads dont do cocaine for the smell - they do it to get high. Not the same for alcohal. Read above!!

people don't drink for the taste, they have a preferred drink based on taste, but they drink for the effects of the alcohol. (otherwise why aren't people drinking cidona instead of cider) Responsible people have a glass of wine in the evening to unwind, responsible people have a few beers at the weekend to loosen up and enjoy themselves. Whats wrong with allowing people to have a joint to relax or even a few mg of MDMA to give them energy and a really good feeling when they're out clubbing?

Kama

Heh I smell a Say's Law dispute!

In turgons favour, I think its fair to say in the case of physiologically addictive drugs (I include alcohol and nicotine btw) induced demand is a definite factor, and supply and demand aren't entirely independent. But eliminating supply isn't plausible, so its a moot point. There will *always* be a demand, so the only possible choice is between regulation-legalization and criminalization.

Speaking of responsible use and benefits, some old news in the Irish Times today.
Thankfully, psychedelic research is coming back in from the cold...

conceited

Belfast, eircom now know your a possible weed grower.Maybe they will send out the guards to watch you :pac:

Belfast

conceited wrote: »

Belfast, eircom now know your a possible weed grower.Maybe they will send out the guards to watch you :pac:

That type of thing is said about most people in to Libertarian politics.

Belfast

Kama wrote: »

Heh I smell a Say's Law dispute!

In turgons favour, I think its fair to say in the case of physiologically addictive drugs (I include alcohol and nicotine btw) induced demand is a definite factor, and supply and demand aren't entirely independent. But eliminating supply isn't plausible, so its a moot point. There will *always* be a demand, so the only possible choice is between regulation-legalization and criminalization.

Speaking of responsible use and benefits, some old news in the Irish Times today.
Thankfully, psychedelic research is coming back in from the cold...

I agree with you about only possible choice is between regulation-legalization and criminalization.

not sure how far I would trust LSD. Electric convulsive therapy is used by doctor and do not trust that one either.

In the end banning stuff like this usually is counter productive.

Kama

Yup...my position is, even in the case of near-wholly negative drugs such as heroin or meth, that greater harm is caused by their illegal position than would be caused by a legal one, ergo legalise.

Its not a moral position, its a purely pragmatic one. Even if you are against them on principle, and don't think people should go near them, its a harm minimization thing; more people will probably use them (due to induced demand from a para-capitalist criminal delivery system) and more people will die (due to quality issues, or yonder meth lab exploding) in a criminalized regime. Like I said, I've never seen a satisfactory answer to this yet. The 'debate' tends toward moral panic, link drugs and crime, throw in some added sensationalism, and voila!

There's the whole human freedom angle too (generally, I'm for human freedom hehe) but the evidence-based argument from consequences of criminalization seems stronger to me.

turgon

Im felling quite sick today, so Im not going to respond as in length to Kama and Akrasia as I normally would. Plus, imo, a lot of your answers are extreme because ye have too much pride to take a moderate stance. Especially ye are obviously right wing, and are letting this muddle the argument.

Kama wrote:

A constricted supply increases the price, sure, but removes the demand? In the case of a physiologically addictive substance, I don't see how this follows.

If the drugs arent there for people to use, they cant get addicted. Its quite a simple philosophy.

Kama wrote: »

First directly, through regulating what a person can and can't do on libertarian grounds, and secondly through structuring a society and penal system around that illegality.

Yes, I intend to protest tomorrow that all forms of justice be erased, the government toppled indefinitely and that the police and army forces be disbanded.

Kama wrote: »

As do alcohol, paracetamol, and jogging; Jim Fixx died of a heart attack, and jogging is hell on your knee cartilage. I note you said 'largely negative': would you accept that there is a mix of costs and benefits to various drugs, much as pharmaceuticals may have beneficial functions and negative side effects?

Pharma companies provide drugs to fix a problem - in general the side effects will not be as bad as the original illness that required medication. Most drug users dont have biological problems. Mentioning jogging in a drugs discussion is a bit ridiculous, in all fairness.

Kama wrote: »

2 choices; supply people legally, or let gangs do it

I like the way you so cynically describe the second choice. Would that be the same one where people in Mexico, Columbia and Afghanistan are having the government fight criminals so they can have a half decent life.

Kama wrote: »

Now, if alcohol 'can be enjoyed in moderation', then surely any other drug which can be enjoyed 'moderately' should be on an equal and legal status?

Grand, if your talking about certain substances. There is no such thing as enjoying Meth, Cocaine or Heroin in moderation.

Kama wrote: »

And tbh, most people I know who drink do it to get *ever-so-slightly-pissed* rather than predominantly for subtle aesthetic appreciation.

Akrasia wrote: »

people don't drink for the taste,

Im not surprised that ye would come into contact with such people, being people for legalizing all forms of drugs yourselves. Wine tasting events are the most prominent example of how a lot of people drink alcohol for the taste.

Akrasia wrote: »

There is absolutely enormous demand for a miracle one treatment weight loss pill even though there is zero supply (as it doesn't exist)

Your talking about hypothetical demand.Im talking about actual demand, actual sales.

Akrasia wrote: »

Fundamentally? There are many drugs that cure diseases, there are positive medicinal properties for cannabis as a method of controlling pain and inducing appetite for people with certain medical conditions.

Theres a bit of difference between drugs for recreational use and drugs for medicinal use.

Akrasia wrote: »

they would be driven to legitimise and do what corporations tend to do and get the state to point their guns for them.

OMG, what sort of a dream land do you live in? So your saying suddenly that these gangs will lay down there weapons, start filing tax forms, actually PAY TAX, and submit to running like a normal company. Yeah as if.

Akrasia wrote: »

They wouldn't risk their license by killing lots of people. If drugs were legalised, the drug dealers would become like publicans and chemists 'respectable businesspeople' and they would have public interests to uphold which would be severely damaged by killing sprees and gun rampages.

I didnt think it could get better than the last quote, but it does. Yes I can see the lads running in in commando suits carrying AK47's and changing into suits and talking like company executives. Tell me, how would they be severely damaged? If they have the freedom to do what they want when drugs were illegal, they will hjave as much freedom when there illegalized.

Akrasia wrote: »

The biggest risk in taking ectasy is that you don't know what the drug dealers have cut with it to increase their profits, if there was proper regulation of ingredients and dosages, the number of people who die would be much lower.

I am moved to disagree.

Akrasia wrote: »

even a few mg of MDMA to give them energy and a really good feeling when they're out clubbing?

First of all they shouldn't have to take stimulants to get a "really good feeling".

Also, a lot of violence after clubs is attributed to people on E, who fell less fearful and more confident and start fights over nothing. But I suppose you might enjoy such a thing. Letting them "do what they want", libertian kind of thing. Please dont run for Taoiseach.

Kama

*Not* respond at length? Please do.
Especially re harm minimization.
I will.

If the drugs arent there for people to use, they cant get addicted. Its quite a simple philosophy.

In Churchill's (approximate) words; simple, clear, concise, and wrong.
As has been said, if drugs could be completely elimated (they can't, and won't be. As a middle ground, lets say the economic and political cost of complete prevention makes elimination unattainable.
Drugs are there. People are addicted. Supply ispresent. The question is how best to deal with this in policy terms.

obviously right wing

I usually gets mistaken for a leftie, but I have some ideological oddities. Libertarianism isn't owned by Left or Right btw, it can be regarded as an independent variable in social mapping. Still, on the whole I'm pretty far left on political compasses. Just so's you know.

Yes, I intend to protest tomorrow that all forms of justice be erased, the government toppled indefinitely and that the police and army forces be disbanded.

Join the Movement! (jk)

I'd settle for a downsized prison system due to less criminalization...the rest can wait ^^
Btw I'm a meliorist; I'm interested in how a current situation can be improved. It has the advantage that you don't need to overthrow everyone else applecart to get stuff done.

Grand, if your talking about certain substances.

Great. One more for the Cause! And decriminalising the Softies reduces the ease of market access for harder drugs, sounds good to me. I'm all for incrementalism hehe.

There is no such thing as enjoying Meth, Cocaine or Heroin in moderation.

See Harm Minimization. The question is is quality of life for all involved better or worse in a legal or criminal regime. Will there be greater pressure to create new addicts in a legal or prohibitive regime?
A legalised supply at a maintenance dose would seem (I think) to be closer to a 'moderate' use pattern than an illegal one. The referent here would be post-Great War junkies from the army, hooked on smack as a painkiller, in the UK. Stable-declining population of addicts, with a dependable legal supply, and less incentive to addict others. The junkie population skyrocketed once it went illegal, due to the pressure to pay for next fix.

Wine Tasting:

I'm not saying that people don't appreciate wine aesthetically. But neither do I think the human history of alcohol use took place because 'it tasted nice'. That comes after. First, we got pissed. Then, we invented talking about 'a hint of diesel' in the wine commentary lessons. Similar to the moderation line of argument: if it can be considered 'aesthetically' does that make it ok?

Your talking about hypothetical demand.Im talking about actual demand

Say's Law dispute: someone fetch an real economist. Lets assume you're right in theory; given that elimination isn't plausible, the best can do is increased price from constricted supply. Which just means a higher price, due to scarcity. Straight supply-demand malarkey.

Unless we do mandatory constant blood tests and all sorts of intrusion into peoples lives, best can hope for is partial interdiction of supply; this is generally ackowledged by law enforcement globally. So in theory, possibly you are right. In practice, I don't see how this elimination can take place.

Linking to wiki doesn't refute Akrasia's point, which was that a non-criminal synthesis of compounds would most likely have lower fatality/toxicity/etc. That point remains imo. Which would you think is safer, a drug made in regulated legal conditions, to pharmaceutical grade, or one made in a metaphoric bathtub? Harm minimization again. Note from the linked wiki:

The rate of serious adverse events in MDMA users appears to be low. A UK parliamentary committee commissioned report found the use of "Ecstasy" to be less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[15] In terms of deaths, figures in the United States show that fewer than 10 people per year die with only MDMA in their system, and fewer than 100 per year with MDMA and other drugs.[16][17] In England and Wales, in the five years between 2001 and 2005, there were an average 27 deaths per year attributed to MDMA alone. In the same period, the average deaths for heroin (including morphine), methadone, temazepam, and cocaine alone were 575, 99, 61, and 45 respectively. An average of 132 deaths resulted from the use of paracetamol alone.

So I think we can safely assume that that figure would be lower if supply was monitored and regulated? MDMA kills far less people than paracetamol? Caveat: need comparison figures on usage, which is a 'dark figure' on illegal drugs. But as a crude numbers game, an interesting comparison.

First of all they shouldn't have to take stimulants to get a "really good feeling".

Whether they have to or not, if they want to, and are willing to pay for the privilege, why is it accepted that 'feeling good' through some substances is legal, and others is illegal? Its not based afaik on a balance of costs and benefits so much as inertial drift in policy and moral panic approaches.

But I suppose you might enjoy such a thing. Letting them "do what they want", libertian kind of thing. Please dont run for Taoiseach.

To which I can only say:
(screened for offensiveness)

Your Mom!

Apologies...I took a strict vow in Rhetoriticians College to always reply to ad hominem with ad mominem.

But yeh. Letting people 'do what they want', so long as it doesn't cause harm to others, I'm actually kinda down with that as a general approach to politics and society; right to swing fist ends at nose, and All That. Raises a lot of interesting questions about defining harm, but it seems pretty sweet as a basic principle. What's yours?

Shulgin

turgon wrote: »

First of all they shouldn't have to take stimulants to get a "really good feeling".

Also, a lot of violence after clubs is attributed to people on E, who fell less fearful and more confident and start fights over nothing. But I suppose you might enjoy such a thing. Letting them "do what they want", libertian kind of thing. Please dont run for Taoiseach.

People shouldn`t have to drink on a night out either, but they want to. Same goes with E.
Also, violence attributed to people on E?, mixed with alcohol or cocaine maybe, but E alone makes people anything but aggressive. You are just plain wrong on that one.

Kama

Yes, but due to quality control, its quite possble that a pill someone could take would be anything but MDA/MDMA. But yeh, picking a fight on E is kinda unlikely, given its empathogenic nature.

Btw did anyone else see the Shulgin's when they were over here a few year back?

Shulgin

Kama wrote: »

Yes, but due to quality control, its quite possble that a pill someone could take would be anything but MDA/MDMA. But yeh, picking a fight on E is kinda unlikely, given its empathogenic nature.

Btw did anyone else see the Shulgin's when they were over here a few year back?

Yeah, thats the problem, quality control.
I didn`t even know the shulgins were over here?

Ask the shulgins, great people!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjrQTzz3SQ

Kama

Was a couple years ago. You could never meet a nicer old couple, perfect sympatico finishing each others thoughts, gentle and kind. Angels. Couldn't meet saner calmer people. It was a privilege.

turgon

Shulgin wrote: »

Also, violence attributed to people on E?

Ooops sorry meant cocaine

Yeah Kama I can see where your coming from. But you seem to think that drugs cant be eliminated ... why? Drugs require huge tracts of land to be cultivated, surely as civilizations progress the lawless regions of our world where such drugs are grown will be brought under greater control. Sure a lot of people will still grow cannabis, and thats their own business not mine if they dont start a drugs tavern adjacent to my gaf, but I would think that more produced drugs such as heroin could be greatly erased??

TBH, Id want to see some tests done before Id be convinced that the legal presence of "soft drugs" reduces the demand for harder ones.

Also I dont speak Latin, so you joke had no positive near euphoric effect on me as was intended

Kama

Haha cocaine makes more sense. Was a bit puzzled by the E brawlers...

I don't think they can be eliminated because that would require a level of enforcement that beggars belief, with presumably attendent increases in incarceration during this attempt. Its very easy to make meth, for example. How can you eliminate it, if any poorly-trained chemist can make it? This is a huge problem in the States, meth labs blow up all the time, and are made with easily available crap. SUffice to say I think the economic costs of elimination are prohibitive; its not like law enforcement isn't trying to catch it all. Its that at best you get some.

Second, as said, not convinced that even given this, that there will be no demand. My understanding is that even 99% interdiction will just lead to a spike in price, possibly with significant demand destruction, but by no means eliminating demand. If anyone is a qualified economist, please step in to correct plx. *Looks around*

The soft drugs argument is that if you don't buy heroin from the same person you buy marijuana from, this makes it less likely that soft drugs would act as a gateway to harder ones. Nice theoretically, interesting to see in practice, for which you'd need a number of decriminalizing Western countries to try and get hard empirical data out of. We have the Alaskan experience, Holland, and not much else that I know well.

heh sorry for the crap latin. Ad hominem is when you slag the person rather than address what they said. Ad mominem is a bullsh1t term I made up for when you reply 'Your Mom!'. It was funny in my head. Must be all the drugs I'm not taking messing with my mind ^_^

extragon

You can argue, plausibly, about eliminating "drugs" if you want to turn the country into a police state. ( Internment without trial, anyone? ) It can't be done.

The media debate on this issue is ludicrous. If all drugs were sold with zero quality control, or dose information, people would regularly die from antidepressants, or even aspirin. Or what about mental illness caused by cannabis? Politicians go on about it while making no mention of psychosis and depression caused by alcohol. And turgon, "hard drugs" like heroin ( diamorphine ) are "medicines" in that addicts "prescribe" them to themselves to manage their own psychological or social problems. Maybe the state could get its moralistic arse off their backs, and leave it as a matter between themselves and their doctors.

But, of course they won't, and need to keep in line anyone who falls out of normal society. All societies do this, it's just that the lies used change through time. The "war on drugs" replaces religious and sexual repression. In the US it's an important part of "managing" the black population.

St_Crispin

turgon wrote: »

Ooops sorry meant cocaine

Yeah Kama I can see where your coming from. But you seem to think that drugs cant be eliminated ... why? Drugs require huge tracts of land to be cultivated, surely as civilizations progress the lawless regions of our world where such drugs are grown will be brought under greater control. Sure a lot of people will still grow cannabis, and thats their own business not mine if they dont start a drugs tavern adjacent to my gaf, but I would think that more produced drugs such as heroin could be greatly erased??

TBH, Id want to see some tests done before Id be convinced that the legal presence of "soft drugs" reduces the demand for harder ones.

Also I dont speak Latin, so you joke had no positive near euphoric effect on me as was intended

As interesting as the whole drug debate is, I would like to point out a few things.

One can grow enough marajuana for a very good personal supply in a closet.

Overgrow was mainly populated by home growers. The kind of people who grow for themselves, not for resale.

If your agruments centre around the criminality of drugs and how the supply and trade of them cause hardships, then overgrow had very little to do with it.

However if your arguments centre around how marajuana is a deangerous drug and no-one should take it wether it's legal or not, then that's ok.

Kama

The "war on drugs" replaces religious and sexual repression. In the US it's an important part of "managing" the black population.

QFT. There's a reason they have a prison system that exceeds the gulags; if you want to criminalize your population, on a discretionary level, drug prohibition seems ideal. Large net, throw it where you will. Its a lot worse in the States than here, but similarly its targeted at the less-powerful, whereas drug use seems more evenly distributed than incarceration figures suggest. If one were at all marxist you'd call it a weapon in the class war

And people do die from anti-depressants. I know of more suicide attempts from prozac than from mdma. Thats a biased sample, of course, but yeh. Its a bull-moralist argument, I've yet to come across a primarily rational argument to keep prohibition. Still waiting for one tbh.

oscarBravo

extragon wrote: »

... "hard drugs" like heroin ( diamorphine ) are "medicines" in that addicts "prescribe" them to themselves to manage their own psychological or social problems.

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

Kama

No, I don't, but if these drugs were solely available through illegal means, it seems more likely (to me, unjustified claim ahoy!) they would be abused than in a regulated environment.

I'm not exactly lalalibertarian on drugs; I think they should be regulated, quite strictly in terms of available amounts for safety considerations, and consumed in a licensed manner, often under supervision initially. As has been argued, a significant proportion of the harm seems due to the contexts in which illegal drugs are produced and consumed.

Boggle

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

Interesting point here. On one hand you have the current situation where you can't even buy 2 box's of paracetamol which is ridiculous. And on the other you have an array of quacks out there who's first answer is to prescribe anti-biotics and anti-depressants as the quick-fix solution.

Personally, I used to suffer from asthma and was constantly sick when younger. Everytime I went to the doctor I was given the same automatic treatment to the point where I just gave up going as I decided that over use was doing more damage than riding out whatever was wrong with me. In the end I took up athletics and rowing to the point where I used to run 50 miles a week in the winter. Needless to say this cured my asthma and I've never looked back.

So in answer to your question: People need to use their own common sense and good judgement in all matters no matter whether its legal or not.

BTW: As far as I know, constant recreational use of anti-d's and anti-b's would be FAR more damaging and dangerous than hash. Open to correction on this though...(Could be that they just want to keep their doctor buddies in the green:P)

extragon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

No, though in most of the world you can freely purchase antibiotics. What I think is that a heroin addict should be allowed to stay on heroin for as long as he or she wants - under medical supervision - and without the moral input of politicians and others who care nothing about the pharmacology and basically use these people to score points.

Most people could live a stable, fairly productive life with a safe heroin supply - it's been tried in Switzerland, and other places - and suffer no more bodily risk than being on antidepressants, and be easily weaned off it, but ONLY when that person feels the time is right. Other drugs are more complicated, but surely a standardized E tablet that comes with instructions is better than what passes for control at the moment.

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

So in answer to your question: People need to use their own common sense and good judgement in all matters no matter whether its legal or not.

Of course, because peoples common sense is always right, in fact far superior to the medical knowledge doctors and pharmacists learn in their 5-6 years of study. :rolleyes: The common sense approach to an amputation would be a saw. I wonder how that would work out compared to a proper operation in a hospital.

extragon wrote: »

And turgon, "hard drugs" like heroin ( diamorphine ) are "medicines" in that addicts "prescribe" them to themselves to manage their own psychological or social problems.

Yes, using their indepth medical knowledge of what they are actually doing.

extragon wrote: »

What I think is that a heroin addict should be allowed to stay on heroin for as long as he or she wants.

And who pays for this? What does the heroin addict work at when high? And if they are addicted how do you expect them to have low peroids when they can work to feed their addiction?

Kama

And who pays for this?

In the case of a physiologcal addict, it seems more economical to pay the small fee for a maintenance dose of diamorphine (directly, through the health system) than to pay the resulting social costs (indirectly, through crime and the justice system) of an addict who commits crime to fill the same 'prescription' in a black market scenario. Soemone has to pay either way; which cost would you prefer to pay? Someone is going to pay anyway.

Again, a normalised and manageable legislated scenario versus a irregular and chaotic unregulated scenario; you pays your money and you takes your chances. I would argue the risks and costs are higher in the latter.

turgon

Kama wrote: »

In the case of a physiologcal addict, it seems more economical to pay the small fee for a maintenance dose of diamorphine

Someone gets addicted so the rest have to pay to keep him happy?

Boggle

Of course, because peoples common sense is always right, in fact far superior to the medical knowledge doctors and pharmacists learn in their 5-6 years of study. The common sense approach to an amputation would be a saw. I wonder how that would work out compared to a proper operation in a hospital.

Well, I haven't owned an inhaler in 12 years so don't be too quick to dismiss common sense. And if your common sense implies that an amputation should be carried out using a chop-saw well... what can anyone say to that kind of statement?!?
Nice way of not dealing with a post btw.

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

Nice way of not dealing with a post btw.

On the contrary I was just highlighting how ridiculous saying people should use their common sense in medical matters instead of just trusting those with so much experience in the field is.

extragon

turgon wrote: »

Yes, using their indepth medical knowledge of what they are actually doing.

They'd get it from a health worker who'd supervise them, though some programmes, as in the UK, don't work as they should being designed to get the addict off heroin ( whether they want to or not ) for reasons that are essentially moral.

turgon wrote: »

And who pays for this?

A legal 10 mg amp of heroin would cost about GBP £3. with tablets at £12 for 100. ( source: BNF )
Maybe they'd work? In Switzerland most addicts do. Having them on heroin is probably no more expensive than sleeping tablets, tranquillisers etc.

RDM_83

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/drugs_now_legal_if_user_is

Felt I should throw this in there, too me makes as much sense as any other "solution".

Kama

Someone gets addicted so the rest have to pay to keep him happy?

Again, don't seem to be addressing. I said pretty clearly there are costs both ways, and you have a choice as to which you want to pay.

And given the cjhoice between keeping an addict 'happy', as in not in withdrawal, and 'unhappy', as in criminalised and essentially increasing their likelihood of crime, happy it is. The argument that they should be as unhappy, stigmatised, and penalised as possible = current drug laws. Which is what we are mostly critiquing. And note, most of the time we are saying the response is just a moral one, as in your 'happy addicts' jibe. A heroin addict is not in a 'happy' place on the whole; to try and make their position worse seems to be kicking when down.

THe evidence-based questions are:

Does addiction rates increase, or increase faster, and are the social costs of drug use higher, in a criminalised or a legalised regime? This is the basic operational point for a sane social policy. Everything else is somewhat secondary to me.

Kama

Wow, the onion link is both funny and really cold, given that in many ways thats what we have. Conviction and sentencing rates already do this, in essence, so an 'economic distribution of justice' is the result.

turgon

Ok Kama, let me summerise your argument. Mr. D gets addicted to heroin. You are describing the two solutions: one where Mr. D is put into a clinic, and is forced off the drugs (the 'unhappy' choice). The second is Mr. D's heroin is provided by the state free of charge for the duration of his addiction: presumably the rest of his life.

So via plan 2 Mr D now is high off heroin the whole time. He is useless to employers: just like your not allowed go to work drunk. He is sponging off the system: us paying for him will apparently never end. It seems an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. What if everyone decided to become heroin addicts? Will the state pay for my life???

Kama

If you want to summarise my argument, please address its main points, specifically harm minimization.

Eh, sorry if this is repetitive but:

Paying the legal costs as outlined by extragon is likely less than the indirect costs of heroin addiction socially. More study needed for good evidence, but the post-war British soldiers who were addicted during the war is usually used as an example. There was a steady-declining population of heroin addicts, who had an assured legal supply, and were not rushing around trying to steal or addict others to pay for the next fix.

What if everyone became an addict? Pretty unlikely, first off. The point was that addiction increase rates when outside the illegal market structure (which incentivises producing new addicts) could see a reduction in addiction rates rather than their increase. Again, evidence needed, but its a fairly logical argument.

Mr' D is not working, but neither is he stealing tellys or jacking people with syringes. In neither scenario does he look likely to be working, but in one he cannot work, must get money, and hence is more likely to commit serious crime. In the other he does not to anywhere near the same extent.

This is the choice, A or B. Legalization or criminalization, pay one way (prescribe) or pay the other way (socially, and through the justice system). Compare the costs, come to a reasoned opinion. We have a serious problem, illegal hard drugs, and the current system, almost by its nature, cannot work, while it tries to penalise, it has created a large black market and both supply and demand remain.

I'm not saying legalzation is a bed of roses, and frankly I think the moral argument like you made 'free smack for junkies! Fuk them!' will shout down any reasoned proposals which might actually improve matters for addicts and the rest of society, but we should really try something else, just to compare policies...

Tha Gopher

Kama wrote: »

As do alcohol, paracetamol, and jogging; Jim Fixx died of a heart attack, and jogging is hell on your knee cartilage.

You hadnt a clue who he was before Bill Hicks, did you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just curious - do you feel that people should be allowed to freely purchase antibiotics, anti-depressants and so on, and self-medicate with them?

You can buy legal anti depressants which are marketed as such without prescription? News to me.

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

the war on drugs?

you know, the international war western liberal democracies are fighting against their own populations.

Holy dramatism Batman.

You believe John Law should allow the uncontrolled supply of heroin?

I do recant on one point I made before however, that legalisation in Ireland of cannabis would be madness because the Irish over do absoloutely everything. Biggest drinkers in the EU. In the top 3 for cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy use (although, from personal experience, I feel there are some flaws in that study, if our Eastern bloc friends consume pills and smoke like they do here we are at least tied with the Poles, Baltics and Slovaks).

However, having been to the dam recently, Ive realised that, yes, for the first month, the cafes would be jammed here. 7 nights a week likely. But, eventually, we would get used to it, the novelty would go. Hell, I was touring the coffeeshops 3 hours and realised this is pretty cool but I enjoy spending a summer afternoon necking cold beers than smoking constantly. Plus, we were too knackered to go out that night. I reckon that legalising would be no harm, as we would get used to it to the point that the people who smoked before would just largely call in for their carry outs, the people who didnt smoke much before would pretty much not bother going to the coffeeshops once the novelty wore off. I smoked with a few of the lads who, back home, would only smoke if it was passed around at a party, wouldnt bother buying.

Having said that, the government, in co operation with foreign governments, is winning its war on cannabis slowly but gradually. So they have no reason to legalise it.

Kama

Thanks for that succinct and informative precis of the discussion, Captain Information Content...I'll repond to your points, when you make them... :rolleyes: NinjaEdit ALurt!

But yeh, we tend to overdo things, probably because Teh Lord Gawd cursed us with such miserable weather, driving us to the warm bosom of substance abuse. But overdoing is gonna happen eitherways. Decriminalising soft would prob lead to an immediate reported jump in figures, but then be 'old hat' and decline.

Having said that, the government, in co operation with foreign governments, is winning its war on cannabis slowly but gradually. So they have no reason to legalise it.

Evidence? When is the war won, out of interest?

Tha Gopher

Kama wrote: »

Thanks for that succinct and informative precis of the discussion, Captain Information Content...I'll repond to your points, when you make them... :rolleyes:

Anti drug talks in schools should involve reviewing boards.ie drug threads.

The thought of turning into the type of drug using adult so common here who is so millitant they spend hours on teh interwebz posting long winded arguements against reason and common sense (not to admit an inability to concede they are wrong) would surely turn the kids away.

Kama wrote: »

Evidence? When is the war won, out of interest?

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?
If the Morrocans succeed with their aim to all but wipe it out within 4 years? Cannabis resin is more expensive and much harder to obtain than in the past.
When the product available is so crap it isnt worth buying? It has already partly happened with cocaine in Dublin. 2 years ago Im not sure I was ever at a party where it wasnt available. Fast forward to now and people couldnt care less. It is overpriced, the effects are crap, alot of people simply dont care for it anymore compared to a few years ago. The same will eventually happen with the mashed up herbs mixed with god knows how little cannabis that passes for weed in Ireland.

turgon

Well to be honest

Kama wrote: »

Paying the legal costs as outlined by extragon is likely less than the indirect costs of heroin addiction socially.

and

Kama wrote: »

Mr' D is not working

seem to be a contradiction. If Mr D is not working how does he pay for himself, firstly, and more importantly, the rest of his god-forsaken family unlucky enough to be thrown into his care? Or should the clean tax payers support his family too??

You fail to address my position that drug addicts should be cured, not endured.

Kama wrote: »

the moral argument like you made 'free smack for junkies! Fuk them!'

While you think this argument is moral, I see it as economic. If there ever comes a day when I have to start paying for addicts' heroin I will make a few petrol bombs, find a few addicts' houses (that is, if they have any) and throw them in. I will not pay for other people to live a life high off of opium.

Oh, and finally Kama, I Just rememberer a time when Opium was legal - in China in the 1800's. Wasnt exactly the happy productive society you seem to think legalizing heroin will produce.

Kama

You fail to address my position that drug addicts should be cured, not endured.

Nope, I'm addressing it; I'm arguing that this would take better place if they weren't in an illegal setting. Imprisoning people doesn't do much to help them quit, btw. You can make a pretty good argument that it increases addiction rates.

If by the Opium setting in China you mean the Opium Wars, when the British Empire deliberately pushed smack as a 'free trade' policy with the extra-added advantage of screwing over China, due to a trade deficit? Not exactly the same as keeping registered addicts on a maintenance dose...I'm arguing that you are paying anyway, whether you firebomb or not.

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?

Thats already here, mostly. Has been for cocaine in Ireland for a while. Yet we still have a 'drug problem'. Quality is atrocious, and demand remains. Perhaps you're right Gopher, but I'm not convinced. The profits from drug importation are so high, the revenues are so high, that there's always going to be a supply, its just a basic market logic.

Boggle

On the contrary I was just highlighting how ridiculous saying people should use their common sense in medical matters instead of just trusting those with so much experience in the field is.

Actully what I was doing was saying there was a balance to be struck and that no one should just blindly accept that what others say, particularly when experience leads you to question the fact. You decided to ignore this and instead cried fould that I would dare question conventional opinion and in particular those of our "fine" medical establishment. But then again, you equate trying to ride out a chest infection without antibiotics to using a chopsaw for an amputation.
In this instance, I seem to remember looking into why I couldn't shift my chest infection and coming across articles condemning the overprescription of anti-b's. They made sense at the time, I tried it, it worked, end of. What risk was there??

long winded arguements against reason and common sense

Typical of many militant prohibitionists. There are very good arguments both for and against prohibition of various substances so I would recommend you engage in some serious thought before resorting to petty little posts like this.

When cannabis becomes so expensive it isnt worth buying?

Why buy something ou can grow yourself?? And by the way, hash might be a little harder to come by these days (mainly cos I won't get involved with scum) but grass, coke, etc certainly isn't. If I had to guess why I'd just say its because there's more money in those drugs...
Then again, if I was back in school, I'd find it much easier than now to find whatever I might want.