P/Methamphetamines

[Edbear]

. The kinda shit that gives drugs a bad name.

Eh? Drugs have a bad name...!

Any drug that you need so bad that you have to hurt others to get your next fix – is fucked up.

Agree!

[Colapop]

...I'm alive to tell this...

Are there still bad days or have you got it licked? I ask this because, with nicotine for example, I'm told that you never give up - you just control the urge. I am not trying to lessen the severity that 'P', crack, coke, or any of the other 'hard' drugs have, just trying get an idea of the post drug thing. If you thought of the times when you were doing hard drugs, do you think of the hit you got or the mess it made of your life (if it did)? I spose these could be questions you don't want to answer but I'm interested in the wider story/effects/post effects that it has had on you.

[Edbear]

The point has been raised about blaming the person, not the drug and it is valid. I question why people would want to take mind/mood altering drugs, be they alcohol, dope, BZP or hard drugs in order to have a good time. I get high on life and all the fun one can have both with and without pants on...

Drugs that alter my mind interfere with having fun and I much prefer to be in control of my mind, mood and behaviour.

One thing that sets me firmly against smoking, and the same can be said about any illicit or potentially harmful drug, (with the exception of the ones prescribed by a Dr. for a specific purpose), is the attitude of the supplier/manufacturer- they couldn't care less about the harm their product causes, they simply want your money, as much of it as they can get, and preferably all of it! The best way to achieve this is to provide addictive drugs, the more addictive the better.

Why should I put my life and health at risk just to line the pockets of those who make and supply the drugs? They are not the slightest bit interested in my welfare and if I die a horrible death it only means the loss of my money to them! Oh well, on to the next victim!

Another point beginning to emerge is the general attitude of people. Young people, and some older ones), are becoming more aggressive and less respectful in general and less caring about others. While this forum shows the deep feelings we can have for others in cases of need or tragedy, eg. Inline4, it also shows the less desirable traits of some here and the lack of respect and thought for other's views.

Yes, the cops here see the worst of society and may be overly cynical at times, but the weight of evidence shows a deterioration in our society and the comments about the sad state of crime and violence in NZ demonstrate that we are all concerned at what is happening around us.

You wouldn't give a loaded gun to a paranoid schizophrenic, so while it is not the loaded gun that is dangerous per se, it provides the schizo with a means to cause mayhem, ergo, drugs.

I know first hand what drug addiction is like having been addicted to Opiate painkillers, (prescribed), and what it takes to withdraw. It was a living nightmare and something I wouldn't wish on anyone! Kudos to any here who have beaten an addiction!

[SixPackBack]

Are there still bad days or have you got it licked? I ask this because, with nicotine for example, I'm told that you never give up - you just control the urge. I am not trying to lessen the severity that 'P', crack, coke, or any of the other 'hard' drugs have, just trying get an idea of the post drug thing. If you thought of the times when you were doing hard drugs, do you think of the hit you got or the mess it made of your life (if it did)? I spose these could be questions you don't want to answer but I'm interested in the wider story/effects/post effects that it has had on you.

Yes you do eventually 'give up' Nicotine.......many years may pass however!

[scumdog]

Funniest line (sorry about the pun) for a long time was from a 'P' user/maker I was taking to jail for the afforementioned activities:
"You know, years ago people thought cannabis was pretty evil, now everybody just accepts it, there's no harm in it, soon in a couple of years they'll think the same about 'P', they'll just accept it as part of life, it doesn't fuck you up like the TV and papers says it does"

[Skyryder]

Your logic is deficient.

By the same process you could argue that if sticks are to be legal then anyone must be allowed to own an arsenal of machineguns without control.

It is perfectly logical, and sensible, for society to say "These things cause many problems, we will not permit them to be freely sold or possessed; these things cause minor problems, but they are less serious and we are willing to accept them,they may be possessed and sold with some restrictions; these items cause few problems, they may be freely bought and sold".

That is the very purpose of law, to make such distinctions. Otherwise you might as well argue that since a 5 year old may use roller skates, a 5 year old should be able to drive a motor vehicle without restriction.

Sorry Ix, but the analogy is wrong. Both weapons and vehicles have the capacity to do harm to others who have no control of how those indaviduals use the two examples that you have quoted. Drugs on the other hand are self administed by reason of choice. Their abuse in medical terms only affects those that have taken them. No one else. You overdose you die, not the man next door. Now I am not saying that their are no consequences for those in the imediate circle of drug users, obvioulsy there is, but I am of the opinion that much of crime and associated issues could be better managed if the control and distribution was taken out of the dealers and gangs and placed in a regulated commercial environment. It was precisely why the Harrison Act was put in place. It was not the danger,by itself, of the drug. There were no controls over the use and administration.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

Sorry Ix, but the analogy is wrong. Both weapons and vehicles have the capacity to do harm to others who have no control of how those indaviduals use the two examples that you have quoted. Drugs on the other hand are self administed by reason of choice. Their abuse in medical terms only affects those that have taken them. No one else. You overdose you die, not the man next door. Now I am not saying that their are no consequences for those in the imediate circle of drug users, obvioulsy there is, but I am of the opinion that much of crime and associated issues could be better managed if the control and distribution was taken out of the dealers and gangs and placed in a regulated commercial environment. It was precisely why the Harrison Act was put in place. It was not the danger,by itself, of the drug. There were no controls over the use and administration.

Skyryder

Have to disagree, sure only the drug user will die if they overdose, (sometimes the drug is NOT self-administered) - but what about their behaviour prior to overdosing? the aberant social behaviou which may well include violence and injury to others (even if as happens it is not intended).
Not to mention the drag on social services, law enforcement and tax-payers money a waste-of-space not-working-but-still-breeding a total junky is.

[Skyryder]

I hear you - but the way I see it is: We already have a shark (alcohol) and a man-o-war (tobacco) in the pool, so why would we want to introduce a crocodile ('P') as well???

i.e. Having two evils here already is no justification for accepting a third.

I once read and interesting argument countering this view. It was some time ago so do not recall who wrote this. The writer hypothersized that by allowing the wholesale use of drugs in a regulated manner, would in time eliminate or at least drasticly, reduce their usage and acceptability by those who are prone to use these drugs today. He maintained that by removing the 'underground' and criminal association of illegal drugs and bringing the users out into the light of day, those in society that are likely to use them, would be better educated of the risks involved. It is intersting now that this is precisely what is happening with nicotene. The evils of this drug can be readily seen and although this drug is legal it's usage in western society is declining. From this I tend to think that the hypothesis may well be correct.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Have to disagree, sure only the drug user will die if they overdose, (sometimes the drug is NOT self-administered) - but what about their behaviour prior to overdosing? the aberant social behaviou which may well include violence and injury to others (even if as happens it is not intended).
Not to mention the drag on social services, law enforcement and tax-payers money a waste-of-space not-working-but-still-breeding a total junky is.

Only drugs are adminested, self or other wise. The two examples that Ix used are not. So I believe that the analogy that he used on this basis is incorrect. You are right in the 'residual' anti social behavour but see my post in reply to sharks, man'o'war, and crocodiles.

Skyryder

[SixPackBack]

I once read and interesting argument countering this view. It was some time ago so do not recall who wrote this. The writer hypothersized that by allowing the wholesale use of drugs in a regulated manner, would in time eliminate or at least drasticly, reduce their usage and acceptability by those who are prone to use these drugs today. He maintained that by removing the 'underground' and criminal association of illegal drugs and bringing the users out into the light of day, those in society that are likely to use them, would be better educated of the risks involved. It is intersting now that this is precisely what is happening with nicotene. The evils of this drug can be readily seen and although this drug is legal it's usage in western society is declining. From this I tend to think that the hypothesis may well be correct.

Skyryder

In total agreeance. The way ahead is decriminilisation [sp] of all drugs

[The_Dover]

yeah, and make them cheaper too.

[Ixion]

Sorry Ix, but the analogy is wrong. Both weapons and vehicles have the capacity to do harm to others who have no control of how those indaviduals use the two examples that you have quoted. Drugs on the other hand are self administed by reason of choice. Their abuse in medical terms only affects those that have taken them. No one else. You overdose you die, not the man next door. Now I am not saying that their are no consequences for those in the imediate circle of drug users, obvioulsy there is, but I am of the opinion that much of crime and associated issues could be better managed if the control and distribution was taken out of the dealers and gangs and placed in a regulated commercial environment. It was precisely why the Harrison Act was put in place. It was not the danger,by itself, of the drug. There were no controls over the use and administration.

Skyryder

My context was to refute the general logic that if one thing (eg alcohol) is allowed then all things (eg P, heroin) must be allowed.

The argument that much of the evil of the drug trade would be averted by regulation rather than prohibition is a different matter. The argument has some merit - in the 19th century, when heroin, cocaine etc were available without (much) restriction, their usage, though not unknown was heavily censured by society , and usage was rare.

And the example of the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920s seems to support that.

Which is one reason why I keep an open mind on the subject.

However I think society will always expect to maintain some control. For instance , if the supply and use of P be legalised - should small children be allowed to buy and use it ? Or vendors be permitted to supply it. A packet of sweeties and a gram of P please ? Analagously , the sale and use of alcohol and nicotine is permitted. But not to minors. So what would be the "legal age" for P ?

What about use of P by drivers? Do we really want some trucker on P (legally) who hasn't slept for three days ?

There will always be a need for societal , legal restrictions. The argument is about where to draw the line.

Personally I care not who uses what, so long as it does not cause the user to do shit that threatens or endangers me. Or costs me money.

[Ixion]

Have to disagree, sure only the drug user will die if they overdose, (sometimes the drug is NOT self-administered) - but what about their behaviour prior to overdosing? the aberant social behaviou which may well include violence and injury to others (even if as happens it is not intended).
Not to mention the drag on social services, law enforcement and tax-payers money a waste-of-space not-working-but-still-breeding a total junky is.

The same argument could be used about alcoholism, to support prohibition (and is). Or to support a "motorcyles are dangerous and unnecessary and should be banned" crusade. But the point is a valid one, especially in the short term. If drugs were legalised, eventually people might be repelled by them as happens (to a limited extent) with nicotine. But in shorter term, the mess caused by large numbers of people going hogwild on the stuff could be very nasty and very expensive.

[scumdog]

In total agreeance. The way ahead is decriminilisation [sp] of all drugs

And pistols.
And military style semi auto rifles.There may be a bit of carnage at the start but people would be educated in the dangers of them and would see the horror and negative of them, be repelled and the desire for and use of them would decline. - Pfft! Tuis moment.

Can somebody quote some facts'n'stats to show where in this wide-wide world decriminalising of a drug has resulted in the decline of its use?

Be might interested in hearing of such a place.

[Paul in NZ]

I get VERY nervous about the lets just make em all legal and regulate / tax it theory. yeah - Prohibition was not a great thing...

BUT on the other hand - just look how responsible the Tobacco and Liquour industries have been even in modern times... Give them half a chance with other products and....

No thanks......