The problem is that these drugs don’t work with out these horrible ingredients. Aside from marijuana everything else is refined with something nasty. I know heroin is from the poppy plant but it has to be refined with something bad.
You make a logical argument. I don’t know if I agree through personal observation that heroin is less taxing than alcohol. They both suck to kick, but you need to consume boatloads of alcohol to kick. You can detox off of a 1 bag a day heroin usage.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I feel sorry for the guy, but who would have thought the police doesn’t like people carrying guns, concealed or otherwise.
Is there anybody out there who’s in law enforcement and against gun control?[/quote]
You won’t find many cops for gun control.Since Obama has been elected I’ve bought a shotgun for the home and another handgun( glock 26)
A bottle of Bayer brand heroin
[quote]snipeout wrote:
The problem is that these drugs don’t work with out these horrible ingredients. Aside from marijuana everything else is refined with something nasty. I know heroin is from the poppy plant but it has to be refined with something bad.
You make a logical argument. I don’t know if I agree through personal observation that heroin is less taxing than alcohol. They both suck to kick, but you need to consume boatloads of alcohol to kick. You can detox off of a 1 bag a day heroin usage.
[/quote]
Heroin does not depend on horrible ingredients to do its job. It is not appreciably different from medical morphine, which you will find in the medical kit of every doctor in the world.
“Morphine” as it is commonly referred to, is morphine sulfate. Heroin is diacetyl morphine. That is, heroin is simply morphine with an acetyl molecule attached.
In terms of effects, they are exactly the same (and medically interchangeable) except for dosage. In fact, they are both converted to the same form of morphine when they get into the body.
The only significant difference between them is that the acetyl molecule allows heroin to cross the blood-brain barrier more quickly than ordinary morphine.
The result is that, in terms of dosage, heroin is about three times stronger. That is, one grain of heroin equals about three grains of morphine. Otherwise, they are identical and there is no significant difference that would justify heroin being completely illegal (Schedule I) while morphine is used routinely in medicine. (Schedule II) They can be used interchangeably as long as medical personnel follow standard practices of medical care. Heroin is still legally used and prescribed in the UK, under the name diamorphine.
In the US, heroin was originally an over-the counter, and later prescription drug. Users were protected by the Pure Drug Act of 1906, which required that medicines containing opiates and certain other drugs must say so on their labels. Later amendments to the act also required that the quantity of each drug be truly stated on the label, and that the drugs met official standards of identity and purity.
And by the way: nicotine is more addictive than heroin, alcohol, or cocaine, and the deleterious effects of smoking tobacco on the heart and lungs are far more pronounced than smoking heroin, which (along with eating) is is the preferred method of administering the drug when it is cheap and readily available. It is only the illegality and subsequent high cost of heroin that makes mainlining necessary: a way to get maximum efficiency out of a smaller dose.
Snipeout’s incapable of admitting he’s wrong on this matter and that his argument for keeping drugs is severely lacking.
…
…
Benzedrine inhalers, legal until the 50s.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
I’ll be honest man I have never seen a casual heroin user. [/quote]
No offense, but police work doesn’t strike me as the type of work where one would see “casual” anything. Imagine that there are also alcohol users and potheads that manage to stay out of trouble; probably the vast majority of them manage to not do any harm to anyone.
In police work you are dealing with an extremely small segment of the population who would probably be in trouble no matter what excuses they have at their finger tips – whether it be drugs or other mental issues, etc. Regardless, your world view get completely warped and your bias is to consider most people evil.
I guess someone who shovels shit all day is bound to take some of the smell back home with them.
Snipe, you’re a reasonable guy, I just think you’ve bought into a lot of the DARE propaganda, which I think is not much different in its methodology than Handgun Control, Inc.
Stop for a moment and recall in your mind every insidious drop of gun control vitriol you have ever heard. And now instead of the word “gun,” substitute the word “drug.”
They are the same arguments.
And they are just as wrong.
Imagine a “War on Guns,” prosecuted with as much enthusiasm as the War on Drugs. Is there any doubt in your mind that prisons would be filled to overflowing with “casual gun owners” who never committed any crime except for simple possession of a firearm?
Is there any doubt in your mind that the emergency wards would be packed with people suffering injuries inflicted when their black-market homemade guns loaded with dodgy ammunition blew up in their faces?
In my mind, the difference between hoplophobia (the irrational fear of guns) and “narcophobia” is a very small one. Just as you must realize that a gun is an inanimate object possessing no evil will of its own, you must also realize that a drug is not, in and of itself, evil.
Put a gun in the hands of a skilled and responsible person, and it is no danger to himself or the people around him.
Put the same gun into the hands of a sociopath, or an unskilled child, or any ignorant, irresponsible person, and the potential for tragedy is very great.
If a man is inclined to murder a schoolhouse full of children, he can do it with a legally-owned .22 revolver. If he is not so inclined, putting even an illegal, fully automatic MP-5 into his hands will not make him any more dangerous.
Now replace guns with drugs. A cigarette and a beer in the hands of a temperate man is probably not going to do anyone very much harm. Some people might look askance, just the way they might look askance at a man legally carrying a handgun in a holster.
An intemperate man, legally addicted to alcohol or tobacco, is going to do considerably more harm to himself and the people around himself (cancer, emphysema, cirrhosis of the liver, delirium tremens, domestic violence) than a casual (non-addicted) user of opium or heroin.
The difference is that the four-pack cigarette smoker is only considered a smelly nuisance, whereas the casual opium or heroin smoker is considered a felon, and is liable to huge fines and years in prison.
I’m sure that as a police officer, you have seen more than your share of both gun abuse and drug abuse. If you are against gun prohibition, then it follows that despite your experience, you still believe that responsible people are capable of owning and using firearms safely.
Similarly, once you realize that, despite what you have seen of the effects of drug abuse, there are responsible people who are capable of using drugs safely, then I think you will see the fallacy of criminalizing them through drug prohibition.
I have still seen drugs tyear apart way more families than guns.
As far as a comparison to alcohol and cigarettes, it is a close comparison. I have just never seen a person murdered with a hammer because they can’t get their next cigarette or drink.
I see way more crime attributed to drug abuse, and not because it is illegal. Because the person needs their next fix.
Do you think legalizing drugs will make them affordable? Last time I checked they taxed cigarettes and alcohol to death, same as they would do to drugs.
Legalizing something takes away the stigma behind it making it alot more likely people will experiment with it. Look at the explosion in prescription drug abuse. You will have a whole new generation of addicts.
There is no way to convince me otherwise. As it is now pharmacies are being robbed for oxy’s. Imagine if that same pharmacy held heroin, coke and meth.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
gun=drug analogy[/quote]
This is not an apt analogy, largely because ownership and use of a gun does not substantially change behavior, personality, or personal biology as a rule. Guns don’t make people psycho who would otherwise be normal - drug use certainly can, and huge social anf financial costs are incurred as a result.
There might be a good argument for decriminalization or legalization of drugs, but not because they are similar to firearms.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
gun=drug analogy
This is not an apt analogy, largely because ownership and use of a gun does not substantially change behavior, personality, or personal biology as a rule. Guns don’t make people psycho who would otherwise be normal - drug use certainly can, and huge social anf financial costs are incurred as a result.
There might be a good argument for decriminalization or legalization of drugs, but not because they are similar to firearms.
[/quote]
nonsense. Take all the armed bank and store robberies every year. You think they would have robbed the same people with no gun? The gun provides them the self perceived power and intimidation to commit such crimes without the gun they don’t feel they are powerful enough. Simple delusion.
guns can easily change your personality and behavior.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
gun=drug analogy
This is not an apt analogy, largely because ownership and use of a gun does not substantially change behavior, personality, or personal biology as a rule. Guns don’t make people psycho who would otherwise be normal - drug use certainly can, and huge social anf financial costs are incurred as a result.
There might be a good argument for decriminalization or legalization of drugs, but not because they are similar to firearms.
nonsense. Take all the armed bank and store robberies every year. You think they would have robbed the same people with no gun? The gun provides them the self perceived power and intimidation to commit such crimes without the gun they don’t feel they are powerful enough. Simple delusion.
guns can easily change your personality and behavior.[/quote]
Ugh no, guns don’t change or alter the physiology of your brain. Drugs do.Whether or not they should be legal can be debated.
My opinion now is no. Not because it of any reason excpet the cat is out of the bag so to speak. We have crystal meth, crack, more potent heroin,and stronger marijuana.
I would support the legalization of drugs on one point. You give up any right to SSI disability based on drug addiction or problems. If you are a legal drug user, I mean of recently made legal drugs you give up the rights of voting and owning a firearm.
You want to be a waste product, fine, but do it on your own dime and time. Then legalize it sell it cheap and tax it. But don’t come to me as a tax payer or a health insurance buyer guy and make me pay more for that nasty habit. And as for fast food , whiskey, and ciggies, to bad. they got here first.
We have more potent heroin? According to what? And stronger marijuana? According to what?
What do you mean fast food, whiskey, and tobacco got here first? Marijuana, opium poppy, coca leaves, mushrooms, etc have been around for thousands of years… Soooo, what are you talking about?
As for giving up rights to vote and firearm privileges, if you ever drink alcohol you should have to give up your voting and gun rights then too, you hypocrite.
I can’t believe you people think the government has a right to dictate to a person what they can or can’t do with their body. You people have no concept of what freedom is. What kind of society can claim to be free when the government controls what people can do with their OWN BODY?
Some of you are off your rockers. You want to allow the government this kind of power over personal choice, just see what else comes along in the future.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
guns can easily change your personality and behavior.[/quote]
This seems like a reasonable statement to me.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Ugh no, guns don’t change or alter the physiology of your brain. Drugs do.Whether or not they should be legal can be debated.
[/quote]
That is highly debatable.
Owning a gun and learning how to use it safely will most definitely alter your brain, like any learning experience.
Given that owning a gun might actually make you feel safer or more bold it might also trigger the same reward mechanisms as drugs.
Bottom line, if guns make you feel, learn or experience anything, they alter your brain.
That might be a result of prohibition though.
Just as the ban of alcohol turned a nation of wine and beer drinkers into hard liquor users, prohibition of cocaine, heroine and cannabis have made this substances much more potent.
The more concentrated a substance is, the easier the same amount in dollars can be smuggled.
Look above for examples of legal cocaine and heroin containing products, it was almost always trace amounts, like in Coca Cola.
Potency is also not necessarily a bad thing. It makes you reach the desired effect faster without so much negative side effects from, f.e., smoking.
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Again, as long I don’t have to pay one penny to take care of the junkies out there, I’m cool. Pay for your own rehab and drug related medical issues, and we’ll both be happy.[/quote]
You already pay tons of pennies. Almost every one of these junkies in jail receives welfare, medicaid food stamps or disability insurance. Why not legalize it, this way the government will have no control over what goes in these peoples body. Then for every new addict created we will have to subsidize them with our tax dollars so we can care for the junkie we LEGALLY created.
Legalizing more harmful products will slide us down a very slippery slope. Smokers and drinkers cost everyone enough in healthcare. Think of all the new babies born with much harsher disabilities. Heroin and cocaine do much more iter-uterine damage than smoking or casual alcohol use. Hell if the fetus repetetively detox’s it can die. Happens all the time to pregnant junkies, either that or they are born severly disabled.
If you think for one minute that legalizing it will not create more users you are sadly mistaken.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
Then for every new addict created we will have to subsidize them with our tax dollars so we can care for the junkie we LEGALLY created.
[/quote]
“We” do not “create” anything that has to do with the personal choices of others.
Do you not think junkies would be junkies regardless of whether drugs are legal or not? What is the difference between a heroine addict and an alcoholic? Legality has nothing to do with addiction.
You speak like a state sponsored, know-nothing, law enforcement goon.
If those smokers and drinkers are ceased their activities, costs would drop in the short term, then rise in the long term.
