U.S. Drug Policy Would Be Imposed Globally By New House Bill

[ephrem]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught :)[/quote]

Well I disagree slightly there. There is a good reason to make the production of meth outside of a lab for scientific use, and there is good reason to ban its use in humans. The underlying issue with current drug laws is that they are too over-inclusive.

An example relevant to this site wold be anabolic steroids. If they were administered in a clinical setting with the appropriate PCT etc. they have no reason to be illegal. I should be able to walk down the road to a steroid “clinic” and get a thrice-weekly shot of Testosterone and handed some Arimidex or something similar on the basis that I feel like it.

Obviously you would need controls in place to avoid people double dipping and risking organ failure (nooo not ma balls), but it could work, it would provide jobs, and it would provide a taxable trade good/service.

Feel free to ban athletes from using, but why the common man? What logical reason is there?[/quote]

The trend here in the Netherlands to move away from liberal legislation on drugs is based on personal preference of the politician involved.

They think a certain ban looks good to their constituency and they ignore studies that show that the reasons they give for banning drugs are false.

What steroids are concerned, they are classified as medicine and are unavailable without prescription because they are classified as medicine.

As long as a population at large believes the lies it’s spoonfed by the state [for whatever reason but control mainly] there will never be a push for legalising big enough to make it so.

I think it will only get worse, tbh.

[orion]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught :)[/quote]

Well I disagree slightly there. There is a good reason to make the production of meth outside of a lab for scientific use, and there is good reason to ban its use in humans. The underlying issue with current drug laws is that they are too over-inclusive.

An example relevant to this site wold be anabolic steroids. If they were administered in a clinical setting with the appropriate PCT etc. they have no reason to be illegal. I should be able to walk down the road to a steroid “clinic” and get a thrice-weekly shot of Testosterone and handed some Arimidex or something similar on the basis that I feel like it.

Obviously you would need controls in place to avoid people double dipping and risking organ failure (nooo not ma balls), but it could work, it would provide jobs, and it would provide a taxable trade good/service.

Feel free to ban athletes from using, but why the common man? What logical reason is there?[/quote]

The trend here in the Netherlands to move away from liberal legislation on drugs is based on personal preference of the politician involved.

They think a certain ban looks good to their constituency and they ignore studies that show that the reasons they give for banning drugs are false.

What steroids are concerned, they are classified as medicine and are unavailable without prescription because they are classified as medicine.

As long as a population at large believes the lies it’s spoonfed by the state [for whatever reason but control mainly] there will never be a push for legalising big enough to make it so.

I think it will only get worse, tbh.[/quote]

I dunno, we have very sturdy lampposts in Vienna.

Beautiful too, but also structurally sound.

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught :)[/quote]

Well I disagree slightly there. There is a good reason to make the production of meth outside of a lab for scientific use, and there is good reason to ban its use in humans. The underlying issue with current drug laws is that they are too over-inclusive.

An example relevant to this site wold be anabolic steroids. If they were administered in a clinical setting with the appropriate PCT etc. they have no reason to be illegal. I should be able to walk down the road to a steroid “clinic” and get a thrice-weekly shot of Testosterone and handed some Arimidex or something similar on the basis that I feel like it.

Obviously you would need controls in place to avoid people double dipping and risking organ failure (nooo not ma balls), but it could work, it would provide jobs, and it would provide a taxable trade good/service.

Feel free to ban athletes from using, but why the common man? What logical reason is there?[/quote]

Well, this is one topic where I am actually more liberal than you. I don’t think it’s any of the governments damn business what I put in my body or anybody else. If I want shoot meth, huff gas, and drink bleach, it’s my problem. Ironically the latter 2 are not illegal. The problem is that the government isn’t concerned with people poisoning themselves as having and ingesting poison is not illegal. That are concerned with people getting off or having fun.
Now I would take legislation that legalizes softer drugs, and I am not dumb enough to believe that they would follow my ‘legalize everything’ mantra. But I believe everything should be legal. The dumb stuff you do as a result of taking the drugs is already illegal.
I am fine with a little darwinism thinning the herd if the herd wants to poison themselves with meth or PCP or what ever. So long as it’s a result of their freewill, go nuts.
People are killing themselves in multiple ways any damn way. They just enjoy it less.

My problem is that the laws are encroaching on commonsense. People no longer measure if something is right or wrong, if it will kill you or not, if it’s smart or not; it’s seen as if it’s legal, it’s cool.
I think having all options on the table and people having to make good decisions because they are good decisions is fine with me. It wasn’t that long ago where people had to make these type decisions, because the law didn’t dictate good and bad back then.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught :)[/quote]

Well I disagree slightly there. There is a good reason to make the production of meth outside of a lab for scientific use, and there is good reason to ban its use in humans. The underlying issue with current drug laws is that they are too over-inclusive.

An example relevant to this site wold be anabolic steroids. If they were administered in a clinical setting with the appropriate PCT etc. they have no reason to be illegal. I should be able to walk down the road to a steroid “clinic” and get a thrice-weekly shot of Testosterone and handed some Arimidex or something similar on the basis that I feel like it.

Obviously you would need controls in place to avoid people double dipping and risking organ failure (nooo not ma balls), but it could work, it would provide jobs, and it would provide a taxable trade good/service.

Feel free to ban athletes from using, but why the common man? What logical reason is there?[/quote]

The trend here in the Netherlands to move away from liberal legislation on drugs is based on personal preference of the politician involved.

They think a certain ban looks good to their constituency and they ignore studies that show that the reasons they give for banning drugs are false.

What steroids are concerned, they are classified as medicine and are unavailable without prescription because they are classified as medicine.

As long as a population at large believes the lies it’s spoonfed by the state [for whatever reason but control mainly] there will never be a push for legalising big enough to make it so.

I think it will only get worse, tbh.[/quote]

I have heard that. I am saddened by the news… I guess Portugal is the next stop.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
…I really doubt they would enforce this for the average Jo. It just doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

If it’s on the books it will eventually get around to the point where they WILL enforce this for the average Joe. I absolutely guarantee it.
[/quote]

yup - they told us that “the patriot act would only be used for terrorist related investigations.”

what they meant to tell us is “Well use it however we damn well please.”

I guess it was all a case of bad cellular

same general story for the rico act btw[/quote]

Anyone who thought otherwise is a complete fool.[/quote]

It’s the ol’ slippery slope. Freedoms are easy to take, and taking them is an easy sell. Getting them back is much harder.
About the only thing I did like about obama is that he swore to do away with the damn Patriot Act, only to resign it repeatedly…jerk head.

[koffea]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]koffea wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
…I really doubt they would enforce this for the average Jo. It just doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

If it’s on the books it will eventually get around to the point where they WILL enforce this for the average Joe. I absolutely guarantee it.
[/quote]

yup - they told us that “the patriot act would only be used for terrorist related investigations.”

what they meant to tell us is “Well use it however we damn well please.”

I guess it was all a case of bad cellular

same general story for the rico act btw[/quote]

Anyone who thought otherwise is a complete fool.[/quote]

It’s the ol’ slippery slope. Freedoms are easy to take, and taking them is an easy sell. Getting them back is much harder.
About the only thing I did like about obama is that he swore to do away with the damn Patriot Act, only to resign it repeatedly…jerk head.[/quote]

i was taken in by that lie as well. i did not vote for him, but I did believe he would get rid of the patriot act simply because I did not believe his base would let him get away with not keeping that promise. Instead he took it to a whole new level of unconstitutionality.

really his base (and I) should have been skeptical of this from the beginning. Joe Biden takes credit for creating the frame work for patriot act and calls himself the “Father of the Patriot Act” for creating the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. Would Uncle Joe really be a part of getting rid of something he prides himself on?

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995

[ephrem]

This sucks big time:

A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/10/13/2011-10-13_excop_we_fabricated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html

[pittbulll]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

If you come for my booze we have a problem.

Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.[/quote]

Grandpa used to make wine in the bathtub.

True story.

Grandma said it tasted awful.[/quote]

bathtub gin was famous

[orion]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

If you come for my booze we have a problem.

Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.[/quote]

Grandpa used to make wine in the bathtub.

True story.

Grandma said it tasted awful.[/quote]

bathtub gin was famous
[/quote]

And I bet I could make a better product too, with all due respect to her grandpa.

[pittbulll]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]

If you come for my booze we have a problem.

Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.[/quote]

Grandpa used to make wine in the bathtub.

True story.

Grandma said it tasted awful.[/quote]

bathtub gin was famous
[/quote]

And I bet I could make a better product too, with all due respect to her grandpa.
[/quote]

I know I could a couple seeds and bingo

[ironcross]

You can go blind making moonshine. I’m glad weed is the new moonshine. Much safer.