Sky News:Mexico Blames US Over Drug Crime And Murders

[Hubbs]

I am arguing that LEGALIZING hard drugs such as meth, crack, coke, heroin does NO GOOD medically speaking. There are no beneficial medical effects of this crap. If you disagree, I encourage you to dig up scientific, peer-reviewed literature that states that meth is medically useful. Or that crack is medically useful. Or coke. Or heroin.

I provided those (and can provide plenty more), but it also seems that you're not reading what I'm saying, because I'm certainly not arguing for their legalization because of any medical benefits. You and Bang are the only ones interested in medical benefits, so I've obliged and provided some examples. My point is that you could (and many have) written about the mountain of problems related to, and, in some cases, directly caused by, the War on Drugs. I believe the whole thing is worth serious rethinking on a societal level, a true, honest-to-God look at the question, "Hey, are we doing what's most effective here? Is there another way that might ultimately do more overall net good?" And if your arguments for no change in our current policies come from laws that are, and I could literally provide links about various effects and chemical makeups of various substances all day to demonstrate this, very much totally arbitrary, then I think you're living inside a box that you're unwilling to step out of because you're used to it.

I agreed with you no more than a couple years ago. But the more I dug into this issue, the more I found that it simply didn't add up. I don't take this stance because of some sort of political allegiance - quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what any party of choice thinks about hard drugs if I don't agree (see my utter disdain for libertarians who argue for doing away with the public school system). But the evidence at the core of illegal substances versus legal ones just isn't even remotely consistent.

[Bang]

I provided those (and can provide plenty more), but it also seems that you're not reading what I'm saying, because I'm certainly not arguing for their legalization because of any medical benefits. You and Bang are the only ones interested in medical benefits, so I've obliged and provided some examples.

You're totally misunderstanding my point.

I don't want heroin or cocaine to have medical properties. They don't. Simple as that. Those forms of coca and opiate derivatives are deadly and have zero beneficial use.

My point is they are not comparable to other dangerous drugs that DO have medicinal applications and are used properly, even ones made from the same plant. There is no doctor in the world that would ever subscribe a patient black tar heroin for any purpose other than to kill him, but there are plenty who would give a patient morphine or oxycontin for their proper practical use.

~Bang

[Larry]

You're totally misunderstanding my point.

I don't want heroin or cocaine to have medical properties. They don't. Simple as that. Those forms of coca and opiate derivatives are deadly and have zero beneficial use.

He's provided evidence which says otherwise.

You're re-stating your unsupported opinion.

[GoSkins561]

Herwin a perscription drug? lol

[Bang]

He's provided evidence which says otherwise.

You're re-stating your unsupported opinion.

You may as well say it's my unsupported opinion that sticking your head beneath the tires of a moving bus will result in serious injury 100% of the time.

Legalizing cocaine, Methamphetamine and Heroin would result in nothing good. Same reason why they won't sell those other medicinal derivatives of the same stuff over the counter.

If that's an unsupported opinion, it's because those who don't support it have no idea what those things will do to a person beyond what they've read or seen on TV. Because anyone who has ever been a user or known an addict or had that **** in your life at all will tell you otherwise.

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

I don't want heroin or cocaine to have medical properties. They don't. Simple as that.

...

~Bang

And I want don't want to have an exam after spring break, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be one when I return.

[Bang]

And I want don't want to have an exam after spring break, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be one when I return.

And i don't want to think I missed the point,, but I think I did.

~Bang

[Special K]

So, tell me. When people point out that you are arguing contradictory positions in the very same post, is your reaction always to attack the person who pointed it out?

Correct, I usually don't involve myself in discussions with people who have nothing to add to a conversation except smartass questions...something that happens to be your MO.

No, Oxycontin is not legally available to the regular population, but it is a legal narcotic. Are you suggesting we wouldn't see a problem if we just made this readily available to everyone?

Bang/keeastman, do you understand that the reason that cocaine and heroin aren't used for "beneficial purposes" right now is because no doctor is able to prescribe them because they're illegal? The only thing people use them for is to get high.

Actually, I shouldn't say the only thing, because, to go back to Adderall, the entire reason that girl I dated was able to try it was because one of her friends used it in place of Adderall for the same reasons because it actually had less side effects for her. Adderall can be prescribed at the 5 milligram level. I have a 10 milligram prescription, myself. These pills are really, really small. If you crushed them into powder to snort a line, you'd get one about a quarter of an inch long. How long were your average coke lines, Bang? Do you have any idea how much Adderall you'd need to crush to match them? Do you know how little of those coke lines would go into making a single "pill" of legally prescribed coke? I've been to parties where people actually were crushing up Adderall and snorting it, and believe me, you need a bunch of pills to create the lines that these kids wanted for a really solid punch.

I understand that you have a particularly strong reaction to cocaine and heroin because the former had a powerful grip on your life for a while, and you saw what both did to others' lives. My point isn't that random, usually massively overdosed use, by anybody at all, without medical research into how their brains will react to certain substances, had medical benefit. It doesn't. My point is that saying random, usually massively overdosed use, by anybody at all, without medical research into how their brains will react to certain substances, will almost always fail to have medical benefit, is just as true about hundreds of legal substances.

What I'm trying to say to you is that everything you're saying about cocaine and heroin is true about hundreds of substances I can get at the pharmacy. Hundreds. Random snorting of random and usually unnecessarily large amounts of Adderall or Vyvance will produce the same rapid changes in lifestyle for a very large percentage of the general population that random snorting of random and usually unnecessarily large amounts of cocaine does. Random shooting of random and unusually large amounts of OxyContin will produce the same rapid changes in lifestyle for a very large percentage of the general population that random shooting of random and unusually large amounts of heroin does. To say that their use under those circumstances is the reason why cocaine and heroin should be illegal is to make an argument that is, yes, completely arbitrary.

I provided those (and can provide plenty more), but it also seems that you're not reading what I'm saying, because I'm certainly not arguing for their legalization because of any medical benefits. You and Bang are the only ones interested in medical benefits, so I've obliged and provided some examples. My point is that you could (and many have) written about the mountain of problems related to, and, in some cases, directly caused by, the War on Drugs. I believe the whole thing is worth serious rethinking on a societal level, a true, honest-to-God look at the question, "Hey, are we doing what's most effective here? Is there another way that might ultimately do more overall net good?" And if your arguments for no change in our current policies come from laws that are, and I could literally provide links about various effects and chemical makeups of various substances all day to demonstrate this, very much totally arbitrary, then I think you're living inside a box that you're unwilling to step out of because you're used to it.

I agreed with you no more than a couple years ago. But the more I dug into this issue, the more I found that it simply didn't add up. I don't take this stance because of some sort of political allegiance - quite frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what any party of choice thinks about hard drugs if I don't agree (see my utter disdain for libertarians who argue for doing away with the public school system). But the evidence at the core of illegal substances versus legal ones just isn't even remotely consistent.

Alrighty Hubbs, what is your entire point here? What are you trying to argue about? I guess I'm confused. You are saying there are pharmaceutical drugs that are just as dangerous. Um, yeah. When taken improperly, ANYTHING is dangerous.

Oxycontin and other opiates have addictive properties. Yes. That is why they are strictly controlled...although now there has been an uptick of illegal prescribing and usage of these drugs.

You keep on talking about the college parties you've been to where kids were snorting ADHD medication...what's your point? They are not taking the drugs as prescribed. What is your whole point?

And yes, you are right, I'm "living inside a box that I'm unwilling to step out of because I'm used to it"...I've seen how these drugs such as heroin and meth have destroyed patient's lives. I've had actual clinical experience dealing with patients addicted to this crap. It has destroyed their lives.

You want to legalize everything, sounds good. You can live in "your little box" in regards to how damaging it would be to legalize everything and let our population have free reign on these drugs, so be it. It'll never happen and I thank God those making the laws have the common sense to realize how much of a disaster would be to legalize this crap.

P.S. There is an alternative to cocaine now days called lidocaine. Works quite well actually.

[Hubbs]

I'll get to a more thorough response later, but for the moment, Bang, I want you to read this sentence:

No other single drug combines the anesthetic and vasoconstricting properties of cocaine.

...and then explain to me how cocaine doesn't have medical properties.

[Larry]

Correct, I usually don't involve myself in discussions with people who have nothing to add to a conversation except smartass questions...something that happens to be your MO.

No, Oxycontin is not legally available to the regular population, but it is a legal narcotic. Are you suggesting we wouldn't see a problem if we just made this readily available to everyone?

Actually, my opinion concerning drugs is that the government shouldn't have the authority to restrict individuals liberties unless it can demonstrate that such restriction is the only way to prevent the clear, imminent, risk of direct harm to another person.

But that's not what we're discussing here (in our mini, two-person, thread).

My point is that you can't claim that making something freely available won't lower the prices for that something, by pointing at something which you yourself point out is deliberately highly, artificially, restricted.

You wanna argue that making certain drugs openly available would be bad for society, that's an opinion. (One which I can see logic behind. It doesn't "feel right" to me. But I certainly don't see any way that a person saying so is obviously wrong. It's an opinion which I don't share. But I'm not gonna passionately argue against it, either.)

But that, IMO, isn't the same thing as making arguments which you, yourself, contradict in the exact same post.

[PokerPacker]

And i don't want to think I missed the point,, but I think I did.

~Bang

you said that you don't want cocaine and heroin to have medicinal properties. whether or not you wish them to have those properties (not sure why you'd be against anything having helpful properties, though) does not change said properties.

[cannonshogs44]

I for one would love to see some of the Drug People go Bankrupt. Here we have GM Ford Major Banks going under, but yet there is still a huge Drug Problem in the U.S.

[Special K]

Actually, my opinion concerning drugs is that the government shouldn't have the authority to restrict individuals liberties unless it can demonstrate that such restriction is the only way to prevent the clear, imminent, risk of direct harm to another person.

That would be correct. That is why these types of drugs are currently illegal.

MJ is another issue. I have no problem with decriminalizing that to free up drug authorities to go after the hard, destructive drugs.

My point is that you can't claim that making something freely available won't lower the prices for that something, by pointing at something which you yourself point out is deliberately highly, artificially, restricted.

You wanna argue that making certain drugs openly available would be bad for society, that's an opinion.

But that, IMO, isn't the same thing as making arguments which you, yourself, contradict in the exact same post.

Evidently I did not make myself clear as you seem to be confused with what I was getting at.

Should the United States ever legalize hard drugs (which will never happen), they are not going to be legalized in a free-for-all manner. If anything, they would be restricted much the same as current narcotics used to treat pain. As such, prices are not going to fall drastically because these drugs will still be hard to acquire and people will still be attempting to circumvent the measures put in place to control these drugs.

Just as oxycontin is still expensive on the street, I would argue that "prescription quality" heroin would be as well.

Or, we could just be the UK, legalize heroin prescriptions and watch the heroin issue explode in our faces...something the UK is currently dealing with. I think they are a good country to look at as a case study for heroin legalization by methods similar to how the U.S. would ever go about legalizing the stuff.

Bottom line: I don't see ANY societal good that would come from legalizing these types of highly destructive drugs. However, it would be entertaining to see someone attempt to prove the benefits that would come from legalizing them.

[Bang]

I'll get to a more thorough response later, but for the moment, Bang, I want you to read this sentence:

...and then explain to me how cocaine doesn't have medical properties.

Ok, then let me restate so I can be crystal clear.

If you want to take these drugs medicinal properties and control the hell out of them and use them for what the doctor intends, then fine, be my guest.

But I'd bet you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor that will tell you he thinks his patient would be better off snorting a line or two of cocaine, or shooting a run of heroin, or cranking out on some meth. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if you did, he would not remain an accredited doctor for long.

My point is and always has been that cocaine sold on the street, heroin sold on the street, if you make these drugs legal for using whenever we want for whatever we want, you'd be bat-**** insane.

Perhaps this is the disconnect I'm having in this discussion. To me, legalization means legalize it, let people have it. Legalize pot, let people buy it and smoke it at their leisure.

If you legalize hard drugs like that, you're going to create a huge problem. Anyone that believes otherwise is seriously deluding themselves. ("unsupported" opinion or not. Life experience means I don't need some snooty PHd to tell me this before I believe it.)

As has been pointed out, Oxycontin is "legal", unless you're caught with it without a prescription. Making a powerful narcotic into a beneficial drug and then controlling it's distribution and use is far from "legalizing" it.

Frankly, if you're talking about using these drugs in a controlled medical environment, I really don't think that needed to be said, and I think we've been dancing in circles. Regardless of how these types of drugs are used, I still believe the negative outweighs the positive.

As to the other point in the thread claiming legalization would drop prices,, :rotflmao:

Buzz is expensive, and it always will be. You know why? Because people will pay anything you tell them to get it. Drug dealers don't need to have President's Day sales or discounts to compete. In fact it's quite the opposite. You could raise the price any time you want., and people will still flock to pay it. They won't even complain.

(Sidebar: it is very interesting that over the last few decades the price of cocaine has stayed relatively the same. Back in my day a gram went $100, and I don't think it's ever changed. It's been one of the most stable products in America in terms of price.)

As far as prescription drug prices,, come on, it is as obvious as the nose on my face that this country is used by the drug companies as a cash cow. Legality of drugs won't change that one iota. They have us by the short hairs here, and gouge the hell out of us for meds. How in the hell would legalizing any of them make that any different? If anything, giving people access to their high would drive the prices UP. You have to remember you're not dealing with normal people. You're dealing with junkies, and a junky will literally do ANYTHING you tell him if you're holding his sack of dope... including pay three times the price.

He can gripe about it and go home, but the big bad Jones will bring him right back with the money, and he'll get it any way he can. In fact, if Mr. Educated Consumer does turn his back and leave me standing there with his high, his monkey will immediately start screaming in his ear, and won't shut up til he comes back and buys it. But,, that said, here's another "unsubstantiated" fact. He won't turn around and voluntarily leave without it. It'll never ever happen. He'll fall down on his knees and beg, cry, offer me anything for it.. offer me sex with his girlfriend, offer me his car, offer me anything he owns of value. I can't count the numbers of times I've seen this. The only way he will turn around and leave it with me is if I force him to leave. And then as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, he'll be back with the money. You can bet your bottom dollar on it.

~Bang

[Special K]

But I'd bet you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor that will tell you he thinks his patient would be better off snorting a line or two of cocaine, or shooting a run of heroin, or cranking out on some meth. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if you did, he would not remain an accredited doctor for long.

Funny you'd bring up the physician perspective in regards to prescriptions. Currently, most physicians are hesitant or outright refuse to prescribe marijuana...so I highly doubt they would be any more inclined to prescribe straight up heroin, lol. I have a feeling it has something to do with that pesky oath they took upon graduation to "do no harm."

Coincidentally, my dad's actually staying at my place this week as he attends conferences at the medical school. Anyway, I was talking to him about some of the "discussion" in this thread since it's up his alley; as an ortho. he prescribes in-patient post-op morphine on a regular basis and follow-up outpatient oxycontin in some cases. He also prescribes other opiate derivatives such as Vicodin, Vicodin ES, and Norco to many of his patients. He prescribes these much much more than oxycontin as he typically shys away from that heavy of a drug except for extreme cases.

Anyway, when I asked if there were medical benefits of these hard drugs...well, he asked me if I was serious first of all...then when I told him I was serious, he just laughed and rolled his eyes.

Bottom line, there are very few/slim if ANY medical benefits of these hard drugs. Making them more accessible to the population whether through prescription or outright OTC availabilty essentially condones the use of this crap and does absolutely nothing to benefit our society.

[deejaydana]

Good read in this week's Rolling Stone (U2 on the cover) about this very topic, for anyone that's interested. The corruption (in Mexico) is top to bottom if that article is to be believed but, this is Rolling Stone afterall, born in the Haight, and they do take up the talk about legalising MJ and how it could help the seemingly endemic violence 'down Mexico way.' It's useless, in my opinion, to debate the potential legalisation of 'harder drugs' when MJ would have to happen first for the others to even begin to come under consideration. I'm not making a case either way here, just pointing out an additional article for consumption.

Good solid read from them, they've fallen off the last ten years (Rolling Stone, that is) but they still feature some legit journalists. Just an FYI. Boy, is it scary down there, doctors are literally quitting their jobs in the morgues due to the # of corpses coming through and families aren't coming to identify their dead due to fear of being connected and taken down themselves. Sad, sad situation.