(whisper) drugs?

Excelsior · 20-03-2001 3:30pm

It rock-diddly-ocks Bob.

My ears are burning over here.
Your praise is most certainly out of place.
Obviously to respond to that kind of volume of information I will need time to digest and time to read up.
It is fascinating though.

I can give some instinctual feedback now that I don't fear will force me into argumentative corners.

I can understand your misunderstanding as my first post was far too ambiguous. It allowed you to misunderstand and a writer should never let that happen.
But to re-iterate, (Neuro rightly pointed out that this is the major flaw in my last post), I am against the legalization of cannibas at this point, I am just not willing to declare that opinion without a lots more information because I recognise my opnion could change or blur.

I am a Christian.
But I have no religion and no denomination.
I read my bible, I pray and I try to do all the good stuff of Christianity.
But I, at this point in my life, having grown up in a Catholic nation, choose to stay clear of aligning myself with an organisation.

Maybe we can discuss this someday.

I will relish the chance to respond but I might have to wait till the weekend as college is tough these days.
Thanks for a great post.

(Edited to add the 4th paragraph)
[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 20-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 20-03-2001).]

Excelsior · 20-03-2001 3:43pm

frodo@work@home:
"why are the majority of police groups in the uk and ireland calling for a change in the laws concerning dope?"

This was back on page 2 but if its true I need to see their websites.
If it isn't I will be vexed.

Paladin · 20-03-2001 8:57pm

I have to say lads (Ex & Bob) your ongoing debate is impressive.
However it has delved far to much into semantics and moot points to really interest most people at this stage.

To Bobs point about Excelsiors comment:

In Laymans terms: Bob said that hash can stimulate the brain, refuting Excelsiors point about drugs changing who he is, and merely enhancing it.

Its like athletes taking steroids then. There is no personal achievement if it was drugs did it (this is simplifying it, but I aint gonna type a detailed reasoning here, Ill leave it to "you two"), so I agree with Ex's point here, although his expression didnt make it clear as to what he meant if taken literally (from my first reading anyway - had to re-read).

I have one question to ask.

It refers to Excelsior's argument.

You say you are against the legalisation of cannabis.
This opinion is fine and perfectly acceptable by me, especially since, unlike *some* others, you have not attempted to justify it with ridiculously incorrect and insulting evidence. You have been meticulous in this regard.

However, I would just like you to clarify your reasons for not legalising of cannabis?

Its just that, you say you have your reasons why you dont take drugs (soft or otherwise), which are perfectly acceptable as I have my own reasons why I dont either (altho thats a generally dont, not an "I am against them"),
but couldnt you simply not take them if they were legal?

At the same time, I think I would see logic in the quote (cant be bothered checking who posted this):

"Legalise hash? Why bother?"

And this is kind of my opinion. It doesnt bother me too much, but the whole debate was interesting

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 21-03-2001 12:24pm

Originally posted by Paladin:

However it has delved far to much into semantics and moot points to really interest most people at this stage.

In Laymans terms: Bob said that hash can stimulate the brain, refuting Excelsiors point about drugs changing who he is, and merely enhancing it.

Its like athletes taking steroids then. There is no personal achievement if it was drugs did it (this is simplifying it, but I aint gonna type a detailed reasoning here, Ill leave it to "you two"), so I agree with Ex's point here, although his expression didnt make it clear as to what he meant if taken literally (from my first reading anyway - had to re-read).

I have one question to ask.

It refers to Excelsior's argument.

You say you are against the legalisation of cannabis.

"Legalise hash? Why bother?"

Thanks Paladin, it has been a pretty good debate I would say

Moving through the quote in chronological order...

On the subject that we (Excel and I) are delving into semantics...
A fair point Paladin- there is less and less argument concerning drugs in our little tête-a-tête....but I'll be posting more information on cannabis shortly, so we're getting back on topic

After that, Excel and I could start up our own thread if that suited folks-some might want to read our "semantics" and many might not- fair enough.

Next point- to be fair, you *did* say that you were simplifying your analogy between steroids and hash...but whether you simplify it further or elaborate it, it would still be wrong- it is based on a false premise unfortunately. Anabolic steroids actually *alter* muscle work capacity, increasing cholinergic receptors, forcing calcium-gated ion channels to remain open, and other (some might say boring) extreme effects.

The practical upshot is that you actually need to do far less work to appropriate muscle bulk. The hormonal side-effects of anabolic steroids are disastrous physiologically- unlike cannabis. All that cannabis does (the THC complex particularly) is to increase the *potential* for right-sided, creative activity. You still need to have natural talent, genetic predispotion and a willingness for hard work to turn it to your advantage- none of these things are needed to take advantage of anabolic steroids.

On you question about Excel's argument: I'm not sure if his last post had that in as a typo, but the impression I got is that he wanted to stay clear of stating a definate opinion on the subject of legalization. That's a remarkably lucid attitude to take, considering what we've read in this post so far- as my physics teacher used to say- an uninformed opinion is worth its weight in quarks...-so until I post that cannabis-information thingy, that's a fair stance for him to take.

As to yourself and Clinton's Cat(Socks, I believe...), stating "Legalize hash? Why bother?" I have already made that clear in some of my previous posts. I will make it even clearer if you wish- saying it's use is rife is no reason for apathy.

Well- back to the ward rounds for me then (stupid short-ass coffee breaks...)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Victor ad Infinitum=

adnans · 21-03-2001 12:54pm

since they legalized (well sort of

) cannabis substances on the nightlink i have witnesssed a fewer fights which used to happen quite a many times if you were a frequent traveller after a boozy sessions.

all they have now is a couple of peeps giggling in the back.

how harmful is that i ask you?

adnans

Shiminay · 21-03-2001 2:20pm

Originally posted by Bob...
All that cannabis does (the THC complex particularly) is to increase the *potential* for right-sided, creative activity. You still need to have natural talent, genetic predispotion and a willingness for hard work to turn it to your advantage

I always write mad stuff when wrecked. It's not my best, but always interesting!!! I've often written a song while stoned and come back to it completely sober and re-worked it to make sense and sound better. However, I'm not for one second suggesting that I (or anyone) needs an artifical stimulant to get the creative juices flowing, but it's fair to say that the results can be interesting...

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Excelsior · 21-03-2001 3:19pm

Still haven't had time to respond to you Bob. I'm looking forward to it though.
Just something to mull over.
If you legalise cannibas do you not destroy the police's strongest link to the hard drug dealers?

Chubby · 21-03-2001 5:40pm

Bob’s involvement had really raised the quality of this dying thread so kudos to the lot of you. I am indifferent to legalizing cannabis but surely the decision to legislate it boils down to what people want. The various medical benefits of alcohol are just really ways to justify why it is socially acceptable. Most people who drink alcohol could care less what the benefits are just like people who smoke cannabis is only doing it to get high. If people want it, give it to them I say...

..but for people who’re for legalizing cannabis, will the following impact on society be worth considering before making the decision?
1). Dealers will look for alternatives to supply the local population including hard drugs.
2). More and more people will try cannabis as it’d be a lot more accessible and you don’t need a mate to start you up.
3). A small percentage of cannabis or soft drug users will inevitable try the hard stuff. The increase in cannabis or soft drug usage also increases the number of hard drug users?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 21-03-2001 7:55pm

Originally posted by Chubby:
...the decision to legislate it boils down to what people want. The various medical benefits of alcohol are just really ways to justify why it is socially acceptable. Most people who drink alcohol could care less what the benefits are just like people who smoke cannabis is only doing it to get high. If people want it, give it to them I say...

It's not quite that simple Chubby...alcohol is socially acceptable because it's been part of human civilization since the Egyptians started crushing grapes. Tobacco and cannabis have been around for the better part of 4000 years in China and on the subcontinent, and only 500 years in Europe by comparison. This could be one reason why cannabis is more socially acceptable there than here.

As to your stated disadvantages for legalizing cannabis:

1) This is already happening- dealers *are* supplying the population with hard drugs. Legalizing cannabis would increase their urgency to sell more, and would bring hard drugs sales further out into the open, where the police can effectively tackle it.

2) There's nothing wrong with more people trying out cannabis- my previous posts provide enough information about the minimal effects on the body- which makes broader use a good thing. Also- if people are broadly using cannabis (a legal drug), they are less likely to turn to illegal alternatives. A historical example of this is readily available- in Suffolk county(UK) during the 1830s a tobacco ban-scheme was tried for political reasons. Opium usage quadrupled in the early 1830s. Upon the rescindment of the ban 15 years later, opium usage died down and tobacco usage soared. There's also the recent examples of Holland and Belgium to illustrate this phenomenon.

3) This is happening in the status quo. Legalization has been shown to make the hard drugs situation better, not worse. This is due to the fact that soft-drugs acted as a powerful illegal front for hard drugs. Without the spectre of soft drugs to hide behind, hard-drug pushers would have to make direct deals- increasing the chances of arrest, and driving up the prices of hard drugs ten-fold. So there is hardly any great danger posed by legalization.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Carpe Diem=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 21-03-2001).]

darthmise · 21-03-2001 8:45pm

Just to go with Kharn on his point about writing some amazing stuff when he's stoned.

This is the primary reason I used to smoke, I found that it opens up little pockets of your brain so to speak that yuo didn't know existed. I find that my thought process was completely different, tangential for want of a better description. You just seem to think on a higher and quicker level. Which is why things I used to write never made much sense the next day, My hand couldn't keep up with what my mind was thinking.

Not wanting to sound like a hippie but I find that smoking (from bongs in particular)opens up your mind and makes you more aware of your mental capabilities. Still to this day some of the greatest most amazing conversations I've had have been while stoned.

Paladin · 21-03-2001 10:49pm

Maybe its best just to point out at this stage, that the real important thing is that you (the person reading this) makes a good choice, and does not take drugs. We can debate till the cows come home (which sadly will be a long time from what I hear of BSE and F&M) but at the end of the day, all it will achieve is education for people, which is FAR more important than legalisation.

The real problem with drugs is people simply dont know their effects because society is taught to be close lipped (spelling? never used that word b4) about "such evil things".

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 21-03-2001 11:44pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat:

why drag the clintons cat is socks topic up again? is it a conspiricy to discredit my veiws?

OK sociological experiment to prove the link between the supply of canabis and the supply of hard drugs....

People who believe that Hard drug dealers will disapear with the legalisation of canibis are simply deluding themselves.Those involved in the supply of Hard Drugs and bulk supply of cannibis are the ones most likely to exploit any loosening of drugs legislation.The profits of hard drugs will always exceed those of canibis how long will a 1/2 oz of hash costing roughly £30 last the average dope head?Thus it will always be in the intrest of the dealers to continue to peddle harder drugs no mater how many eigths they sell to a burgeoning market of newly libererated dope smokers.
Unlicencensed dealers will always be able to undercut licencesed hash dealers because of the high level of taxation such product will unquestionably accrue.So the link between canabis and hard drugs will always be maintained whatever the legality of hash.

In chronological order...

Again??! When have I *ever* posted anything about Clinton's cat being socks? If other people have, I apologize on their behalf...but I really wasn't to know.

On to more interesting stuff now...
Let us indeed discuss sociological experiments. How about the largest one to date- Holland? Organized crime involving *hard* drugs has fallen over 30 percent per annum since it was first introduced(The Economist). That's 30 percent...a *year*. Now, crime involving hard drugs is a thing of the past. Estimated sales of hard drugs have dropped below illegal arms sales(virtually non-existent in Holland)- which tells you something.

As for profits exceeding needs for hard vs. soft drugs, read my last post or two CC. The whole point of legalization is that it forces a direct point of contact for hard drugs- seldom seen atm. This increases risk of arrest and drives the price up. Look at my later posts on page 4 of this thread(19/3/01)- I argue clearly against the notions that

a) Unlicensed dealers undercut legitimate prices, and

b)Taxation would create a price differential

I'm not going to repeat myself here- no time for that atm, and it'd just be a waste of space. Please read my posts on page 4 CC, and then rethink before reiteration of your arguments

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=

Greenbean · 22-03-2001 2:18am

Holland is in an unfortunate position of having so much drugs going through it because of its more lient drug laws. The actual street dealing is much less reduced. Holland is only this way because only it (oh and belgium) has such lenient laws. If all the other countries followed and legalised all types of drugs. Banning anything drives it underground.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 22-03-2001 12:16pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat:
Why are you appologizing for other people bob?You just accused me ,why not appologize for you bob,is that to hard for you to do?

Organized crime involving *hard* drugs has fallen over 30 percent per annum since it was first introduced(The Economist). That's 30 percent...a *year*. Now, crime involving hard drugs is a thing of the past. Estimated sales of hard drugs have dropped below illegal arms sales(virtually non-existent in Holland)- which tells you something.


Well my dealer tells me that most extacy imported into the uk comes from amsterdam where it is not a legal drug either.Interpol have identified holland as being the principle entry route into europe for a variety of hard drugs including heroin and cocaine.
The 30% statistical fall year on year is highly dubious more likely that detection rates for organized crime involving *hard* drugs have fallen by those rates as smuggling organisations have become increasingly sophisticated behind the legal dope scene not the ammount of drugs consumed and definately not the ammount imported you only have to look at the increase in size of drug hauls siezed over time of the average customs siezure.

Unlicensed dealers undercut legitimate prices,Taxation would create a price differential

they will because income tax,vat,customs duties and a host of other health taxes will be avoided.
SIMPLE FACTDrugs Dealers do not pay their taxes,therefore they will not find their dope costs twice as much a scrutinised sources.

OH and please bob ask your dealer for some coke for the weekend,i would be real interested in his response...Dare you post it?
Legalise Pot
Dont Make Me Laugh

Ohhhhhh deaaaaar- a friendly debate is being turned into a flaming ground here Just because we have differing points of view, there's no need to be hostile CC...

To address the first paragraph above....what exactly *am* I accusing you of CC? I never accused you of anything as far as I am aware. I only made the point that I didn't *know* of any previous referrals to your name- so I wasn't to be blamed for ignorance of this.

To address the next point- your dealer(?!) told you that holland was a European entry-point? Now before I discuss the dubious wisdom of quoting statistics from a drug-dealer, let us look at the *facts*. To be perfectly honest, Interpol are a large, bureaucratic and systematically inefficient organization today- hardly the font of information it was, say, 20 years ago. According to the Police Consultation Guide (PCG) issued by the Met early last year, the *largest* single entry point for all hard drugs entering the UK is Prague. Most East European capitals (Bucharest, Budapest, Warsaw) feature high on the list. Holland ranks slightly below Britain in terms of hard drugs passage.

MPs and police have been calling for legalization of cannabis in the UK for years now. Check out http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/oxfordshire/archive/1998/04/01/NEWS2VQ.html

- for a look at what one of Labours most recognized MPs thinks of the current situation. Parliamentary members are contemplating a legalization policy *very* seriously indeed. The House Sub-comittee on Substance Control made the point that the soft drugs trade in Britain is worth roughly 8.5 billion pounds- and that legalization would not only reduce hard drugs usage, but provide a huge source of revenue to combat what drug problems are left. Now, I can't be certain, but I'm *positive* that such an influential sub-comittee will have secured expert opinions on the socio-economic effects of soft vs. hard drug usage in deregulation. Otherwise such a sweeping statement by them wouldn't reach public ears.

And the statement that soft drug users will continue to supply you with dope after legalization...of course not. It's frustrating when you obviously haven't done the background reading on prohibition of substances. Here is a list of historical examples of why prices of black-market goods (in a prohibition environment) are HIGHER than the legalized equivalent.
1) 45 B.C. - Roman salt tax(prohibitive sale) : the earliest example of the fact that trusted sales, no matter how expensive, will outstrip an illegal alternative.

2) 1764 - Tea tax-prohibition in the 13 colonies : With the strictness of law enforcement, there was no choice except to buy British- until the Boston tea-party that is

3) 1920s America- Alcohol Prohibition: The classic example. Illegal sources were *far* more expensive and dangerous("moon-shine" caused over 900 *recorded* deaths in a 3-year period). After legalization of alcohol- the moon-shine disappeared within a year. The classic example of a population rejecting Prohibition after years of exploitation by the black market

4) The piece-de-resistance: Holland. Cannabis costs a *fraction* of what it would cost on the black market. In Amsterdam 2 weeks ago, I payed 4 pounds for half a gram of house hash in a coffee shop. The best hash was roughly 9 pounds for half a gram(soz Canniboid- I'm American- not used to "grams/kilogrammes" ). In spite of the taxes, in spite of the "undercutting" (which statistically has *never* historically transpired in a Prohibition environment), in spite of the policy threats from the EU, the price has stayed very low on *legal* hash in Amsterdam.
So illicit drug dealers may not pay taxes on their product, but there isn't a *single* case in recorded history which favors their situation after legalization.

As for me asking my dealer for coke...I'm speechless. I have repeatedly stated that I am against hard drugs of any kind with desperate conviction...I fail to see how this escaped you...I am disappointed indeed.

Lastly- These are structured civilized arguments that Excel and I have been posting- if anyone gets personal again- I will ignore them- simple as that. There's no excuse to flame one another over policy issues- it's just not worth it. Let's just all try and keep the discussion friendly, k?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Pax Romana=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 22-03-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 22-03-2001 12:53pm

Just to reply to your 2nd post CC...

1) The police *don't* take the enforcement of soft drugs seriously. The customs post at the ferry station (Dover) for returning ferries from Amsterdam is a joke. The last *3* Police Foundation reports state clearly that the legalization of cannabis is the only realistic policy to control its use. Once it is legalized, the enforcement of illegal trade becomes a priority- I stated this in 2).

2) I was referring to piracy *sales* CC- this was made obvious by my referral to "profits". Most people in the West with a CD burner burn CDs for personal use or to give to a friend...they don't set up a stall on the nearest street corner and start flogging their merchandise! In China and Southeast Asia, black-market piracy of software is a *huge* business. Practically every street vendor has a pirated copy of Windows, etc, on display. There's no way you could convince me that that sort of large-scale piracy is rife in the West. Even Tottenham Court Road and Camden market sell *second-hand*, not pirated goods. This collates with the relatively low price of cannabis you refer to- with a declined level of police enforcement for possession and sale of cannabis in the UK- there is less risk, and the price comes down. When enforcement is taken seriously after legalization(as the Police Foundation states), the price of illegal cannabis will soar. This is historically supported as well (read my last post, above, for examples). The notion that Holland and Belguim are flooding their neighboring countries with drugs is a mistaken notion- Southern and Eastern Europe constitute far larger and geographically sensible portals of entry. Hashish comes from the *East* CC- it doesn't make sense to import it through Amsterdam(who take illegal drug smuggling *very* seriously indeed). As for drug dealers not paying taxes- that makes no difference as my last post argues. Risk is the motivating factor for price increase, *not* taxation.

3)You ask what impurities there are in dope- there are *several* in illegal dope. Monochloracetic acid(a dilutive caustic), salicylic acid(another caustic), ferric chloride, and numerous nitrogenous waste compounds all serve to dilute the active ingredient in cannabis to increase volume. This would be prohibited in legal sales.

4) You state that "tax is tax". That is a gross oversimplification of taxation policy. My fiancee majored in economics before she qualified as an accountant- as such, I am (much to my dismay at times) bombarded by information on tax policy. Commodities are taxed according to risk, relative harm caused, and profitability. On all these factors except the last, cannabis would be taxed at below base sale rates. As for the latter- I have already argued that in spite of up to 45% taxation levels in Holland, prices have stayed lower than illegal cannabis. That is a fact from a working model- one too stark to ignore.

I said that you were alluding to specious arguments propagated by government. I never disputed that you came up with these arguments by yourself. But that makes them no less specious or misleading. I'm not trying to discredit you, I am merely trying to keep you from misinforming people about the administrative consequences of legalizing cannabis. Far more experienced professionals with higher levels of expertise than any of us, have determined, after careful study, that legalization is the only viable alternative to Prohibition of the substance. What is the harm of trying, at any rate- if the policy doesn't work, it can always be shelved. What *I* object to is the puritanistic view that the policy is dangerous in the first place, despite all the excellent case evidence to the contrary. *That* is what I meant by our need to start thinking for ourselves. And I don't mind *anyone* disagreeing with me as long as their arguments are structured and well-researched. The intellectual sparring between Excelsior and I shows that, (I hope) although we share differring points of view in certain areas, we respect each other's point of view without being acrimonious or aggressive- emotions I'm sorry to say, I felt in your first reply to my post CC.

Mutual respect is important when trying to argue a point of policy. I'm perfectly willing to change my point of view if I hear a compelling arguement of opposition. In the absence of such an argument, my current position will stand- I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Caveat Emptor=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 22-03-2001).]

darthmise · 22-03-2001 8:32pm

True, there is no way a coffee shop would sell you half an ounce!!

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 22-03-2001 9:08pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat:
Simplified EcconomicsTax is Tax Bob.Drug Dealers dont pay tax bob.

Please ask your dealer for some coke bob,you dont need to buy it just ask him if hypothetically he can sort you out with some for the weekend...Will you do it?
its your chance to disprove the link between hard and soft drugs once and for all.

oh and another point "People dont buy blackmarket hi-fis"? what are you talking about bob? fences will sell anything that isnt nailed down.

piracy? people dont set up market stalls selling drugs either bob that doesnt mean dealers dont exist bob.

my dealer tells me amsterdam is where the drugs come from.
the police tell me holland is the principle entry route into europe [prague is outside the eu bob]prague is a staging point before entry via holland bob.
the press tell me holland is the frontline for drugs smuggling bob.
the only person who tells me otherwise is you bob.

Ignore me bob if it makes you feel better...

Patronizing me won't help anything CC. I *will* ignore you after this post if you do nothing more than reiterate your arguments over and over again, while ignoring the issues I raise in my posts. I have better things to do than discuss this issue with the chronically uninformed.

Let us start off with a *basic* principle of evidence, one that has obviously escaped you...One isolated case proves *nothing*. Models or systems have value, but one *case* is not indicative of a wider trend. Your dealer telling you the drugs were from Amsterdam, and my dealer(also my friend) who told me she couldn't get me any coke, are only single, isolated cases. They show *no* trend. It wasn't "my big chance to prove the lack of a link", but an isolated case.

You start off with "simplified economics". There is no such thing CC. Having done econ in high school, and being engaged to an accountant taught me that long ago. Tax is but a single cost of production. Others are availibility of materials, labor, risk, accesibility of market, marketing, production costs, etc. Not to mention that being an illegal good, the hidden costs of protecting the secrecy of these goods comes into play. "Simplifying central issues only enable you to defeat yourself"- Kissinger

Fences *do* sell hi-fis, etc, but their contribution to overall sales is a fraction of total sales. The same will be true when cannabis is legalized- illegal sales will total but a fraction once brand-name recognition comes into play.

You state that drug dealers don't set up market stalls, in reference to piracy??! That argument makes no sense, and doesn't clash with any of mine CC- if you're actually serious about that, how exactly would you *pirate* a drug? Be so good as to explain that to all of us...I'm certainly dying to hear it.

You say "the police tells you that drugs come from amsterdam". What do you mean by the Police, exactly? The Police foundation report?- they reported the principal entry point as Denmark...Lord Mackay's Police report?- they seem to be *positive* that the EU port of entry is Italy, followed by Spain! And the Custom's and Excise Annual Report states that the majority of drugs come either from Turkey, or from direct Point of Origin, usually Prague. Find me a *single* credible police source that states Holland as a major EU entry port, and I'll believe you. The same goes for "the press". I haven't read that in a single newspaper, and I read the Guardian and the Independant regularly(as well as a bit of the FT, and the Economist).

And *I'm* not telling you otherwise CC- I have shown a strong trail of evidence to support my arguments- unlike you, I choose to rely on scientific studies, polls, reports and commission findings, rather than personal experiences. So until you show evidence from *credible, recognizable sources* of substantive value, I'm not replying to your unsupported gibberish- because that's all it is...a fragment of data, made out of one person's experiences.

Back up your arguments, and I'll reply them.

PS- Darthmise, I edited my post...being American I instinctively type in Imperial measures instead of metric ones-I'm not used to all this grams/kilogrammes thing outside the laboratory- it was half a gram not half an ounce- lol- thx again to Canniboid for first pointing this out

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=L'Etat, C'est moi=

Canaboid · 22-03-2001 9:55pm

Originally posted by Clintons Cat:
Please ask your dealer for some coke bob,you dont need to buy it just ask him if hypothetically he can sort you out with some for the weekend...Will you do it?
its your chance to disprove the link between hard and soft drugs once and for all.

Not sure who's point your experiment will prove. In trying to prove the link between hard and soft you are pointing to the principal reason the link exists at all and imho a huge reason why decriminalisation of Cannabis should happen. Your hash dealer would undoubtedly be able to sort you out with cocaine, ecstasy etc., but you would never have met him in the first place if you could score hash legally.

Why bother ?

DeVore · 22-03-2001 10:44pm

You are missing my point re: dealers.

People refer to them as "pushers" but if you have to go and ask them for hard drugs and they have to either pass that request up the supply line, or make some special arrangements then he is NOT a pusher, you have become a PULLER.

The point I was making was that there arent these dreadful peer-pressuring sales men trying to hook you with your "first one free!". People chose to ask for other drugs, however I know a large number who would be horrified at the thought of taking any other drug then cannabis. After all "its not really drugs is it!".

DeV.

Blub2k · 23-03-2001 12:14am

((

))
As a long time cannabis user and one time user of other substances I feel I can perhaps add some weight to this discussion.
The discussion seems to have wandered back to the old humdinger "cannabis leads on to harder substances".
The argument that cannabis is a gateway drug is an old one and its only grain of truth lies in the fact that most stimulants outside of pharma, alcohol and tobacco are illegal.
The fact that they are all illegal leaves an opening for high profits through trading in these substances. This illicit trading forces the involved parties to set up routes for smuggling their wares and this infrastructure that is built up to support one substance can easily be exploited by running other substances, get the drift.
This then brings dealers into contact with various substances at a certain level and this filters down. Having said that I have met very few ( and I have met a lot) junkies who began with hash or marijuana as their first drug experience, this honour in most cases lies with alcohol. So alcohol must be a gateway drug then? mmmm I wonder, but then before they drank alcohol they received nourishment and attention from their mothers breast and in most cases this was followed by milk in a bottle so mebbe they took their first drugs because of the bottle asociation with childhood comfort? naaaaaaaaaaa ridiculous how far back ya wanna go to realise that people will always take drugs because they wish to change their state of consciousness and you do not have to read much further into it. The reasons for this wish to change the state of mind differ from case to case but the underlying reason is to escape from normality and boredom.
The theory that cannabis leads on is rubbish, although the dealer may have it all, that is a social creation and not the way that man chooses.

Canaboid · 23-03-2001 1:23am

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
In Amsterdam 2 weeks ago, I payed 4 pounds for half an-ounce of house hash in a coffee shop. The best hash was roughly 9 pounds for half an ounce.

I'm sorry Bob but I seriously doubt that. Having been to Dam on several occasions I can assure you that that the price is on a par with "black market" prices here in Dublin. The price you quote would barely be realistic for half a gram which I assume is what you got. Also Coffee shops are not allowed to sell in the quanties that you state.
I'm going for a few days next month so I'll do some in-depth research on this and if I can remember the results I'll post 'em here

Greenbean · 23-03-2001 1:58am

People will much more readily drink alcohol than do cannabis, but I would rate cannabis less harmfull, certainly after reading Bob's comments, though too much of anything is harmful.

I'd like someone to show the facts and figures of percentages of people who drink alochol and lead onto hard drugs and people who take cannabis and lead onto harddrugs. People might point out that 100% of people who take drugs drink as well, but this wouldn't have any bearing on things, lets just compare two relatively soft drugs, one legal and one illegal and see how legallity effects the relation (whether properly connected or not - but certainly suggestive) between also taking hard drugs.

I believe that the majority of people will admit to cannabis being the first illegal drug they have taken.

I've no facts or figures but I'd take it that most people know these facts to be common-sense and fVck your special case scenarios, they don't matter.

Winning Hand · 23-03-2001 4:38am

LOL, this is probably the first time ever that a topic has been ressurected from a flame war

.

Ive realised that I have yet to give my opinion on drugs itself. In general cannibas has less side effects than alcohol, but both drugs have collapsed society, alcohol since its invention and cannibas in the seventies (no joke, its the hippies with their "free" love that gave the world aids and countless of other STDs, a ruined world economy which took decades to fix)
For the most part the main drugs for people to be directly scared of are CNS stimulants such as PCP (the reason i say directly is because all the stealing associated with drugs comes to feed a habit, the same as gambling and other illness associated with severe addictions)
I personally am against hard drugs, but that is just my opinion and i respect others opinions to do it, just keep the f*ck away from me.

As for the drug pushers, someone earlier put it better than me : They sell their drugs either way. Its as if I was to boycott buying tribes 2 due to the late release, its no skin off their nose, some other gobsheen will buy it and make my gesture of defiance laughable

Blub2k · 23-03-2001 5:34am

I'd like someone to show the facts and figures of percentages of people who drink alochol and lead onto hard drugs and people who take cannabis and lead onto harddrugs. People might point out that 100% of people who take drugs drink as well, but this wouldn't have any bearing on things, lets just compare two relatively soft drugs, one legal and one illegal and see how legallity effects the relation (whether properly connected or not - but certainly suggestive) between also taking hard drugs.

Hi Greenbean,
I dont mean to offend you but you dont get the point at all do you? I mean if you had any insight into addiction you would realise that addiction exhibits the same behavioural patterns in any addict no matter what the fix!
THERE ARE NO GATEWAY DRUGS we have been getting off our heads since the beginning of time, read your history, the western world discovered drug problems by taking drugs out of context, look at the Babu's in India for example or the Shamen in South America.
There can however sometimes be a significant "high" scoring (purchasing) drugs in risky situations with associated adrenalin highs but then that is what being a junkie or addict is about being unable to control your body chemistry so trying to do it artificially with stimulants. Understand addiction, dont think so small it is not confined to one substance or another, most so-called heroin addicts are more heavily addicted to perscrition drugs than to heroin as they supplement bad quality street heroin with guaranteed good stuff from a chemists, so they are in fact polytoxic.
I will find some stats pages there is a lot of good stuff in German.

TwoShedsJackson · 23-03-2001 11:12am

Clinton's Cat - if you are replying to Bob keep it civil. Getting patronising about it doesn't exactly enhance your position or your points.

Frodo@work · 23-03-2001 11:51am

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
Just to reply to your 2nd post CC...

1) The police *don't* take the enforcement of soft drugs seriously. The customs post at the ferry station (Dover) for returning ferries from Amsterdam is a joke. The last *3* Police Foundation reports state clearly that the legalization of cannabis is the only realistic policy to control its use. Once it is legalized, the enforcement of illegal trade becomes a priority- I stated this in 2).

Thsnk you ,ive been trying to find where i had actualy read that

Frodo@work · 23-03-2001 11:55am

'(no joke, its the hippies with their "free" love that gave the world aids and countless of other STDs, a ruined world economy which took decades to fix)'

WTF what a load of toss.wasnt it some bloke having sex with as albino monkey.
but really you just cant say that.its not as if the whole world turned into a group of hippies. and explain how smoking dope spreads stds

Evil Phil · 23-03-2001 12:27pm

Originally posted by Greenbean:
People will much more readily drink alcohol than do cannabis, but I would rate cannabis less harmful ...

So do the World Health Organisation.

Thing is though, people have always taken some form of drug, be it for medical, recreational or addiction reasons. And they always will. The sooner "society" accepts that the better things will become.

On the point of addiction, it's an illness. Alcoholism is an illness, so is heroin addiction. I think the drug use situation should be treated as a medical problem and not a legal one. If you put an addict in Mount Joy prison, they're still and addict. Put them in rehab and they might have a chance. If you put a dealer in MJ, one less criminal. (yay!)

... a ruined world economy which took decades to fix

Two words "Vietnam War", or another two words "Cold War". Hippies were anti-war weren't they?

Greenbean · 23-03-2001 9:38pm

"I mean if you had any insight into addiction you would realise that addiction exhibits the same behavioural patterns in any addict no matter what the fix!
THERE ARE NO GATEWAY DRUGS we have been getting off our heads since the beginning of time, read your"

Well I know what you are saying, sorta agree with it too. The whole point of wanting a comparison is not to figure out which or either is the gateway drug it was to look at the aspect of people taking and wanting a drug such as dope but having to do it illegally. The fact that this drug is illegal is the gateway to illegal drugs, not the drug itself, ie once you've gotten used to the idea of breaking the law for a relatively harmless drug, the risk is never going to hold you back from trying others. Whereas if dope were legal I'd say alot more people who tried dope would still be held back from going for harder drugs because they would yet have to break their morals or the law. Yes there are plenty who don't give a ****, but cannabis is so wide spread that its making it alot easier for usually non-risk takers to end up inside a circle where alot of other substances are then available.

Legalise the whole bloody lot and let people make educated guesses and pay for their medical bills via the cost.

Blub2k · 25-03-2001 4:56am

In general cannibas has less side effects than alcohol, but both drugs have collapsed society, alcohol since its invention and cannibas in the seventies (no joke, its the hippies with their "free" love that gave the world aids and countless of other STDs, a ruined world economy which took decades to fix.

The first thing I think when I read this is WOW, this is some messed up right wing thinkin ya got there.

"alcohol since its invention and cannibas in the seventies"

I mean come on are you actually taking part in this same adult discourse as the rest of us? When was alcohol invented???? And Cannabis has been in use since before man has records, in fact modern medicine being based on that of the Persian school of old was based on Cannabis as one of it's main tools.

Does anyone here actually know why cannabis was made illegal in the USA (upon which the world followed suit).
I'll tell you why because at the time cannabis was made illegal in the US Dupont had just invented Nylon and saw a threat to their wonder plastic in Hemp fibre which is much more environmentally friendly. Dupont saw a threat to their market and lobbied congress for a ban on hemp. You can check up the history books on this one.
Thank you for your time.

P.s. Winning Hand I dont mean to insult you but hey you leave yourself wide open to it with ludicrous ill-informed statements like those you made in the quoted post.
P.P.S Cannabis.

(whisper) drugs?

Comments