I suspect the Lindsay Lohan thread was locked because the subject matter veered from celebrity drug abuse to general drug abuse. If so, this thread should be the place to continue the debate about drugs.

----------------------------------------

First of all, theprodigalson threw out some pretty nasty accusations before the thread was locked, (that I was a cokehead et al) and I just want to clarify that I, personally, have NEVER touched any hard drugs, whatsoever, least of all cocaine.  But you don't have to be a user to realize things aren't as black and whtie as Nancy Reagan wants you to think.

Still directed at prodigalson; a drug doesn't change chemical properties when crossing borders. Cocaine has the same uses in the U.S. as outside, they're just not LEGAL in the U.S. So if cocaine was legalized tomorrow, would you still be a loser for using it in moderation, like you use the legal drug ethanol in moderation?

-----------------------------------------

With that out of the way, I think the drug debate itself is interesting. Where I live they have proposed handing out safety-syringes to drug addicts so they don't spread STD's or whatever to others. At the same time, this would seen as encouraging abuse.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a rule I don't think society should spend too much money on junkies, 'cause they chose their life-style, but if it would help non-users...I don't know.

Quoted from DM With that out of the way, I think the drug debate itself is interesting. Where I live they have proposed handing out safety-syringes to drug addicts so they don't spread STD's or whatever to others. At the same time, this would seen as encouraging abuse. I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a rule I don't think society should spend too much money on junkies, 'cause they chose their life-style, but if it would help non-users...I don't know.

Usually, places where needles can be exchanged, at least here, offer other services as well, like hepatitis and HIV testing. I think it's important that such places exist. It's, imo, a matter of public health. It, like you said, benefits non-users. It reduces, or at least aims to reduce, the spread of disease.

As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.  

Seth

First of all I'd just like to put out there that I don't really care what people do (though I do believe drug abuse is destructive) but since theprodigalson is getting blitzkrieged by three of you and in an attempt to, hopefully, clarify the argument I'm going to play devils advocate.  

Quoted from Seth How I can equate such drugs is easy. In the end, they're all taken in an effort to make one feel better. It's as simple as that.

theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify:

Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent?

Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.  

Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned.

Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

Quoted from Seth It's not atypical for a parent to wake up, pop a Prozac, ply little Johnny with a Ritalin or two, then drop a Xanax. This same parent, no doubt, will tell little Johnny that Lindsay, being a drug addict, is a low-life, scum-bag.

Why does being a hypocrite make them wrong? Just because someone correctly and logically argues that Option A is better then Option B but still does Option B doesn't negate the argument. They are a hypocrite but Option A is still the better option, the argument has not been refuted.

Quoted from Seth Actually, as Death Monkey mentioned, Cocain, like Prozac or Viagra, has medicinal uses.

I might be mistaken, but from this and some other stuff it seems like you are arguing that abusing cocaine or other hard drugs isn't bad or destructive because they have some medicinal purposes. I don't understand this.

Point 1: Why does having some positive effects and usages completely negate all the bad effects. For example, Hitler help repair the German economy(arguably), gave the German people hope, and as is commonly said "made the trains run on time". Was Hitler still a net good for the German people? Was he a net good for the human race?

And more relevantly and importantly Point 2: Why are we arguing proper usages? I thought this was supposed to be about drug abuse? In which case it's by definition not being used for the proper usage or not in the correct(meaning healthy) manner.  

Quoted from Seth Your aunt had a medical condition. That said, she wasn't a loser. You though, for believeing her a loser, are a ... Never mind.

I don't know his aunt but why isn't she possibly a loser. Are having a medical condition and her being a loser mutually exclusive?

Quoted from Seth There are many studies -- peer reviewed -- that evidence a genetic component with respect to addiction. That said, how and why she is who she is, can't be summed up with a simple "she has no one to blame but herself."

It seems to me like you're saying that because people have genetic or social predispositions they have no personal accountability. I believe the notion that people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions or have personal accountability is very destructive to society.

Quoted from Seth As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.

My experience when it comes to this is all second hand but since it's the only thing I have to go on:  From what I understand counseling and treatment isn't that effective until the addict has hit rock bottom and wants to change so I don't know if I buy your argument.

That said, I also believe that providing syringes would just enable the addict's disease to progress. So perhaps, the  treatments would be effective sooner then if their disease wasn't enabled and they might recover more quickly. Anyway, it would be most cost efficient if they didn't become addicts in the first place.

Besides that theres also all the negative social/economic consequences of illegal drug abuse, such as perpetuating Latin America drug cartels that do a lot of bad things but I'm too lazy to go on. The main point here is that drug abuse, especially illegal  drug abuse, has many consequences besides those directly felt by the person taking the drug which is what has been primarily discussed here so far.

sheepwalker  


  

Handing out needles and syringes is much cheaper than treating all those extra HIV cases you'd have if needle and syringe programs weren't around.

I work in a needle and syringe program and we embrace the harm reduction approach, which accepts that people are going to use drugs, but tries to reduce the harm associated with it by providing sterile injecting equipment and educating people about safer using. Obviously the old people just shouldn't do it line doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned addiction is a medical condition, not a moral issue, and should be treated as such. Bottom line is a lot of people try drugs and for most it doesn't become a problem. Unfortunately some people are predisposed to becoming addicts but this doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So are these people any worse than the respectable member of society who tried drugs a couple of times, but didn't get hooked? I'd say they were just unlucky.

I personally think they should decriminalize heroin and marijuana use, because the prohibition of them causes more harm than it prevents.

If you're interested in the drug debate have a look at these sites:

http://www.ihra.net/Barcelona/WhatHarmReductionMeansToMe

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Quoted from Seth How I can equate such drugs is easy. In the end, they're all taken in an effort to make one feel better. It's as simple as that.

Quoted from Soap Hands theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify: Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent? Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.   Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned. Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

I did not, and would not, argue that they are equivalent in terms of potential for abuse. What I did say is, they're taken for the same reason -- to make one feel better.  

Quoted from Seth It's not atypical for a parent to wake up, pop a Prozac, ply little Johnny with a Ritalin or two, then drop a Xanax. This same parent, no doubt, will tell little Johnny that Lindsay, being a drug addict, is a low-life, scum-bag.

Quoted from Soap Hands Why does being a hypocrite make them wrong? Just because someone correctly and logically argues that Option A is better then Option B but still does Option B doesn't negate the argument. They are a hypocrite but Option A is still the better option, the argument has not been refuted.

It doesn't make them wrong -- perhaps Lindsay is a low-life, scum-bag. I never argued otherwise. I only said that those, and there are many in this country, who believe Lindsay to be a low-life for taking illicit drugs, then ply their kid with Ritalin, pop a Prozac, then a Xanax, ought to, maybe, examine their own drug use.

Quoted from Seth Actually, as Death Monkey mentioned, Cocain, like Prozac or Viagra, has medicinal uses.

Quoted from Soap Hands I might be mistaken, but from this and some other stuff it seems like you are arguing that abusing cocaine or other hard drugs isn't bad or destructive because they have some medicinal purposes. I don't understand this.

Abusing any drug, be it legal or illegal, is, by definition, destructive.

Quoted from Soap Hands Point 1: Why does having some positive effects and usages completely negate all the bad effects.

I never said it did.

Quoted from Soap Hands For example, Hitler help repair the German economy(arguably), gave the German people hope, and as is commonly said "made the trains run on time". Was Hitler still a net good for the German people? Was he a net good for the human race? And more relevantly and importantly Point 2: Why are we arguing proper usages? I thought this was supposed to be about drug abuse? In which case it's by definition not being used for the proper usage or not in the correct(meaning healthy) manner.

The prodigal son stated that Cocain had but one use -- to numb the dumb. His comment was incorrect. It's as simple as that.

Quoted from Seth Your aunt had a medical condition. That said, she wasn't a loser. You though, for believeing her a loser, are a ... Never mind.

Quoted from Soap Hands I don't know his aunt but why isn't she possibly a loser. Are having a medical condition and her being a loser mutually exclusive?

  
Of course not. Theprodigalson said she was loser *because* she abused drugs and killed herself. I simply do not believe that those with medical conditions, who succumb to them, are losers.

Quoted from Seth There are many studies -- peer reviewed -- that evidence a genetic component with respect to addiction. That said, how and why she is who she is, can't be summed up with a simple "she has no one to blame but herself."

Quoted from Soap Hands It seems to me like you're saying that because people have genetic or social predispositions they have no personal accountability.

No. What I said, and I wish you had quoted what my comment was in reference to, is that something as complex as addiction can't be reduced to one simple thing, like lack of will-power or accountability.

Quoted from Soap Hands I believe the notion that people are not ultimately held responsible for their actions or have personal accountability is very destructive to society.

I don't disagree.

Quoted from Seth As for it encouraging abuse, I don't believe it does. In fact, given that such places often offer counselling and referrals to treatment facilities, the opposite is probably true.

Quoted from Soap Hands My experience when it comes to this is all second hand but since it's the only thing I have to go on:  From what I understand counseling and treatment isn't that effective until the addict has hit rock bottom and wants to change so I don't know if I buy your argument.

How about this argument, when an addict does want to change, he should have access to counselling and, if necessary, referrals to treatment. That's what such places provide.

Quoted from Soap Hands That said, I also believe that providing syringes would just enable the addict's disease to progress.

Addicts who shoot are going to continue to shoot regardless of whether or not they have, at their disposal, clean needles. That said, would you rather they not have access to clean needles and, as a consequence, spread disease -- to innocent persons?

Quoted from Soap Hands So perhaps, the  treatments would be effective sooner then if their disease wasn't enabled and they might recover more quickly. Anyway, it would be most cost efficient if they didn't become addicts in the first place. Besides that theres also all the negative social/economic consequences of illegal drug abuse, such as perpetuating Latin America drug cartels that do a lot of bad things but I'm too lazy to go on. The main point here is that drug abuse, especially illegal  drug abuse, has many consequences besides those directly felt by the person taking the drug which is what has been primarily discussed here so far.

And this is exactly why needle exchanges are, imo, so important -- because, as you say, drug abuse effects more than just the abuser -- a clean needle might mean the difference between life and death to an innocent person who unknowingly sleeps with a junkie.

Seth  

Quoted from Soap Hands theprodigalson already made this augment but to further clarify: Just because two unlike things share an attribute or quality does not make them the same or equivalent. For example, both ducks and jets fly. Are ducks and jets the same? Are they equivalent? Things can even share many attributes and not be the same or equivalent. For example, little league baseball and major league baseball. Both are games that involve a ball, in both games you hit the ball with a bat, both games have nearly identical rules. That said there is a world of difference between little league baseball and major league baseball.   Similarly, there is a world of difference between cocaine and alcohol. Cocaine is, in general for the general population, far more addictive and as such has a greater capacity to destroy ones life. Thus a hard drug like cocaine is not the same as alcohol or as far as I know most of the other drugs you mentioned. Cocaine is not equivalent to viagra and abusing cocaine is certainly not equivalent to abusing Viagra.

Now that you grouped me in with those who "blitzkrieged" theprodigalson, I feel obliged to reply to this point, if for nothing else, then just to clarify my position.

I've never said cocaine is the same as alcohol or viagra. I would never make such a claim. I simply responded to the ignorant statement that cocaine had just ONE use, which is wrong.

The prodigalson argued that people who used recreational drugs (even moderately, that is without being addicted) were losers simply for escaping through an illicit substance. Then I tried to show how he himself used drugs like ethanol and nicotine recreationally, yet didn't consider himself a loser. I find this hypocritical since the only difference in aforementioned arguement is the legality of the drug.

Again, I don't know if it was directed at me or you were scattershooting, but I've never equated the effects of alcohol to the effects of cocaine.

I don't know the situation in other countries, but in the UK I fear that handing junkies clean needles will not have the desired effect.

They tried the same method with underage pregnancies. They handed out condoms to schoolchildren in the belief that if they are having sex anyway, they may as well be safe.

Statistically it has been a disaster. The reason is that rather than encouargaing safe practice, it just encourages the practice full-stop. The kids need for sex develops and they become more likely to have sex with or without a condom. STD's and pregnancies have risen.

It would undoubtedly be the same with drugs. Drug addiction results in you needing more and more of the substance and ultimately the drive for it will go beyong safety levels in the few. People who have the time to go and pick up needles will probably have the wherewithal to do it safely in the first place.

Quoted from Death Monkey Still directed at prodigalson; a drug doesn't change chemical properties when crossing borders. Cocaine has the same uses in the U.S. as outside, they're just not LEGAL in the U.S. So if cocaine was legalized tomorrow, would you still be a loser for using it in moderation, like you use the legal drug ethanol in moderation?

Yes. What causes a user of the "Hard" drugs to be a loser as opposed to a tobacco smoker and normal alcohol drinker (I.E. two, three drinks a night) are more that just "Oh it's legal and that isn't" or a "Holier than thou" syndrome. It is the way they live there life, how they effect others and a whole lot more.

For the record, I didn't accuse you of being a coke head, I merely asked if you were since you seemed to love defending them so much.(I see why right-wing nuts love this tactic so much )


I should also say sorry to the original OP for my rantings and going off. I am sorry, but I hate to see a drugs that can help be lumped in with things that are more a determent then anything.


I am not against everything, quite the contrary. I think Marijuana should be legal in the same way tobacco and alcohol are. I believe that not only can it be good for medical use, but it is not as detrimental as a drug like cocaine is. And No, if pot was legal tomorrow I would NOT smoke it.

I also used to wonder if you could some how isolate the chemicals in cocaine that suppressed appetite and create a non addicting, weight loss drug. But this is all irrelevant.

Quoted from theprodigalson I should also say sorry to the original OP for my rantings and going off. I am sorry, but I hate to see a drugs that can help be lumped in with things that are more a determent then anything.

No need to apologize. I appreciate that you spoke your mind. And, really, my original post was idiotic -- I didn't explain my position very well.

Seth

Quoted from Takeshi Handing out needles and syringes is much cheaper than treating all those extra HIV cases you'd have if needle and syringe programs weren't around. I work in a needle and syringe program and we embrace the harm reduction approach, which accepts that people are going to use drugs, but tries to reduce the harm associated with it by providing sterile injecting equipment and educating people about safer using. Obviously the old people just shouldn't do it line doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned addiction is a medical condition, not a moral issue, and should be treated as such. Bottom line is a lot of people try drugs and for most it doesn't become a problem. Unfortunately some people are predisposed to becoming addicts but this doesn't become apparent until it's too late. So are these people any worse than the respectable member of society who tried drugs a couple of times, but didn't get hooked? I'd say they were just unlucky. I personally think they should decriminalize heroin and marijuana use, because the prohibition of them causes more harm than it prevents. If you're interested in the drug debate have a look at these sites: http://www.ihra.net/Barcelona/WhatHarmReductionMeansToMe http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Good for you. I'm glad to read about someone who is DOING something about the drug problem rather then just talking about it.  

Quoted from theprodigalson Yes. What causes a user of the "Hard" drugs to be a loser as opposed to a tobacco smoker and normal alcohol drinker (I.E. two, three drinks a night) are more that just "Oh it's legal and that isn't" or a "Holier than thou" syndrome. It is the way they live there life, how they effect others and a whole lot more. For the record, I didn't accuse you of being a coke head, I merely asked if you were since you seemed to love defending them so much.(I see why right-wing nuts love this tactic so much )

First of all I don't defend cocaine. I don't like cocaine, and I don't think anyone should use it. But that doesn't change the fact that cocaine has other uses than just as a high-society recreational drug. It's simply fact. Just like saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't create AIDS isn't defending him, it's simply fact. No matter how much we may hate Osama.

Secondly you say that the reason why people who use hard drugs are losers is because of the way they live their lives and how this affects others. But by definition "using in moderation" means using, NOT abusing. It means being able to live your life as you would otherwise, just like you would live yours even though you use alcohol (in moderation). So if someone uses cocaine in moderation and it doesn't affect his life or anyone else's, is he still a loser? Or do you simply think this is impossible?

I think this is important because this is where the anti-drug campaign went wrong. They decided it was okay to lie, exaggerate and distort the truth because in the end "drugs are bad, mmkay?". That may be the case, but let's be honest about what drugs are, and what they do. Forget those condescending "this is your brain on crack" commercials or the "link" between marijuana and terrorism. Just tell the kids why we think it's a bad idea to do drugs instead of the scare tactics. Stick to the facts.

That's what I want from the discourse on drugs.

Quoted from suncrafter Good for you. I'm glad to read about someone who is DOING something about the drug problem rather then just talking about it.

About six years, I beat the living shit out of a local drug addict after he broke into my car.  Afterwards, I paid over $300 to replace the broken window and have my radio re-installed.

How's that for DOING something?


Phil

Quoted from Death Monkey First of all I don't defend cocaine. I don't like cocaine, and I don't think anyone should use it. But that doesn't change the fact that cocaine has other uses than just as a high-society recreational drug. It's simply fact. Just like saying that Osama Bin Laden didn't create AIDS isn't defending him, it's simply fact. No matter how much we may hate Osama. Secondly you say that the reason why people who use hard drugs are losers is because of the way they live their lives and how this affects others. But by definition "using in moderation" means using, NOT abusing. It means being able to live your life as you would otherwise, just like you would live yours even though you use alcohol (in moderation). So if someone uses cocaine in moderation and it doesn't affect his life or anyone else's, is he still a loser? Or do you simply think this is impossible? I think this is important because this is where the anti-drug campaign went wrong. They decided it was okay to lie, exaggerate and distort the truth because in the end "drugs are bad, mmkay?". That may be the case, but let's be honest about what drugs are, and what they do. Forget those condescending "this is your brain on crack" commercials or the "link" between marijuana and terrorism. Just tell the kids why we think it's a bad idea to do drugs instead of the scare tactics. Stick to the facts. That's what I want from the discourse on drugs.

I do not think it is possible to do coke in moderation, in much the same way I don't think you can smoke cigarettes in moderation. Cocaine is highly addictive, second only to about heroin when just talking about drugs.(this is opinion, not fact, if you an show me evidence other wise, I'll consider it) It may start out a line here or there, then it is two lines and finally it has you. Not to sound like a cheesy anti-drug commercial, but you get my point.

Quoted from theprodigalson I do not think it is possible to do coke in moderation, in much the same way I don't think you can smoke cigarettes in moderation. Cocaine is highly addictive, second only to about heroin when just talking about drugs.(this is opinion, not fact, if you an show me evidence other wise, I'll consider it) It may start out a line here or there, then it is two lines and finally it has you. Not to sound like a cheesy anti-drug commercial, but you get my point.

Well, you kinda do sound like a cheesy commercial. You use a generic anecdote about "it may starts out with a line or two...". Not very scientific.

What makes you say that you can't smoke in moderation?

I'm not saying cocaine isn't addictive. It definitely is. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE will get addicted. It depends on frequency and dosage. There are countless things you use everyday that are addictive.But even so, are you defining hard drugs by their addictiveness? How do you for instance feel about LSD?

Even more interesting, are you a loser for smoking? You mention the addictiveness of nicotine. Isn't your beef really with addictedness in general?

Quoted from Death Monkey Well, you kinda do sound like a cheesy commercial. You use a generic anecdote about "it may starts out with a line or two...". Not very scientific. What makes you say that you can't smoke in moderation? I'm not saying cocaine isn't addictive. It definitely is. But that doesn't mean EVERYONE will get addicted. It depends on frequency and dosage. There are countless things you use everyday that are addictive.But even so, are you defining hard drugs by their addictiveness? How do you for instance feel about LSD? Even more interesting, are you a loser for smoking? You mention the addictiveness of nicotine. Isn't your beef really with addictedness in general?

Fact is, I am against drugs because I have grown up around losers that abuse them and went no were with there life. (When I say grow up around them, I do not mean family. My parents are very cool people, and as an extension lots of people like to treat my parents like there parents. it is weird) The best drug education is seeing these people first hand. They are people I do not want to be, nor should other inspire to. Fact is drugs are addictive, and so are ciggs. But I hardly see anyone who smokes a cigg start to have there life do a downward spiral.

I may not have a lot of argument to back up my point, they are my beliefs. But this is how I feel.

Quoted from theprodigalson Fact is, I am against drugs because I have grown up around losers that abuse them and went no were with there life. (When I say grow up around them, I do not mean family. My parents are very cool people, and as an extension lots of people like to treat my parents like there parents. it is weird) The best drug education is seeing these people first hand. They are people I do not want to be, nor should other inspire to. Fact is drugs are addictive, and so are ciggs. But I hardly see anyone who smokes a cigg start to have there life do a downward spiral. I may not have a lot of argument to back up my point, they are my beliefs. But this is how I feel.

It's very apparent this is a personal issue for you which is why your arguments are grounded in fervor and strong conviction rather than "numbers and science".

The best drug education is NOT seeing drug addicts wither away and die first hand. that's probably the best DETERRENT, but not education. I can't stress this enough. The "I know a guy/people who..." is anectdotal, and not admissable in an open discourse on drugs. I know a guy who uses drugs and has done so for many years and it in no way influences his daily life, but that's not an argument. And neither is yours.

And you evade my question. Are you a loser if you are addicted to cigarretes? Are you a loser if you use LSD but aren't addicted to it?

Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.

Finally, I understand why you feel the way you do, but this is a discussion about drugs and you won't convince anyone just because you feel really strongly about it. If you can't back up your beliefs then you always have the right to retire with them intact.

Quoted from Death Monkey Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.

Forget apples and oranges. Dude, are you comparing recreational drugs to cheese? Are you kidding me?

Quoted from James McClung Forget apples and oranges. Dude, are you comparing recreational drugs to cheese? Are you kidding me?

Cheese! Where on earth did that come from? Recreational drugs are nothing like cheese.  They are much more like pistachios.

Quoted from Death Monkey The "I know a guy/people who..." is anectdotal, and not admissable in an open discourse on drugs.

Why isn't it? You (or most people for that matter) may not find it as compelling as a scientific study with numbers but thats far from it not being admissible as evidence. Many great thinkers have used personal observations in their arguments (Plato, Hume, Locke, Freud).

Quoted from Death Monkey And you evade my question. Are you a loser if you are addicted to cigarretes? Are you a loser if you use LSD but aren't addicted to it?

I'm not speaking for the prodigal son, but for me personally it would be a strong indicator that they were a loser. I suspect that there is a correlation between using illegal drugs (or misusing legal drugs) and loserdom.  

Quoted from Death Monkey Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.

Again other things with addictive qualities are being compared to hard drugs. You said earlier that weren't equating the effects, are you now equating their level of addictiveness? Or are you asking this rhetorically because the prodigal son's argument hinges merely on the fact that hard drugs are addictive? Is that what the prodigal son is arguing?

And for the record:

Quoted from Death Monkey I don't know if it was directed at me or you were scattershooting

In that post I was more or less I was trying to combat the general argument of your side and wasn't trying to target you specifically. I did exclusively quote seth however but I wasn't trying to target him either, it was just that he was the last person to post at the time, and in that post I thought he touched on most of the points that were being put forth.

...

For me at least it has become unclear as to what each side is specifically arguing. I know that there are a lot of different arguments going on here that are all part of the main argument (although am not sure what that is anymore) so I think the discourse would benefit greatly if each side clearly laid out what they are arguing and how they are arguing it.

sheepwalker

Quoted Text COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS! ASK US WHY After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease! The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition.

This is from the second of the two links I posted.

Dude, i am going to attempt to argue logic point on this if you want, but i will post tomorrow.

Quoted from Death Monkey Is your beef with JUNKIES or addiction rather than the actual drugs, because so far you've not been able to tell me WHY you're a loser if you use a drug recreationally without being addicted. What about caffeine? Chocolate? Certain types of cheese? All addictive. Fact.

No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact.


Phil

*downs a martini*

Yep, still a loser.

Quoted from dogglebe No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact.

If heroin addicts had access to prescription heroin the need to steal for it would disappear. It's the prohibition of the drug that drives crime.

Quoted from ABennettWriter *downs a martini* Yep, still a loser.

In your defense, you were a loser BEFORE the martini.  

Be nice!

Quoted from dogglebe No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact.

Too bad that doesn't apply to marble rye.

Quoted from dogglebe No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact.

Yes I have.  I do it often.  It is way cheaper then buying diet coke...  especially with my twelve pack a day diet coke habit.  I don't hit them or anything.  I don't need to.  Most grannies don't remember they even had a diet coke sitting at the edge of the table.

I also don't pay for alcohol.  Paying is for losers.

And a bum swiped a cheese pizza in LA a few years back and got his third strike because of it.  He just wanted some cheese pizza not 15 years in jail.

Quoted from Dethan And a bum swiped a cheese pizza in LA a few years back and got his third strike because of it.  He just wanted some cheese pizza not 15 years in jail.

What loser came up with the third strike rule? What's it too complicated to handle situations on a case by case basis?
I guess this is what happens when people want easy answers to complex problems. By this sort of logic we could cure HIV by just killing everyone who has it. Ah yes, the Hitler approach.  

Quoted from Xtopher If heroin addicts had access to prescription heroin the need to steal for it would disappear.

At least until the addict loses his job and can't afford to buy it.

Quoted from Dethan I also don't pay for alcohol.  Paying is for losers.

QFT

Quoted from Xtopher What loser came up with the third strike rule? What's it too complicated to handle situations on a case by case basis?

I think at its core it makes sense, if the person has habitually committed crimes its likely they're going to commit a crime again so they might as well be off the streets. Its just that they should count stealing a pizza as a felony.


I think it's about time the all seeing, all knowing, all encompassing one weighs in on this:


He has spoken, 'nuff said.
sheepwalker

Quoted from dogglebe No one has ever robbed an elderly woman to satisfy his caffeine or cheese addiction.  Fact. Phil

Cheese and caffeine are cheap, legal, and easily accessible. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, how many people rob elderly ladies to satisfy their nicotine addiction?

Quoted from Death Monkey Cheese and caffeine are cheap, legal, and easily accessible. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, how many people rob elderly ladies to satisfy their nicotine addiction?

Once again, apples and oranges. Seriously, comparing cheese and caffeine to cocaine is asinine. Any crack addict could tell you that. I've got nothing against a healthy debate but let's play fair here. You flat out can't compare the three. Nicotine is fair game though.

Quoted from Soap Hands Why isn't it? You (or most people for that matter) may not find it as compelling as a scientific study with numbers but thats far from it not being admissible as evidence. Many great thinkers have used personal observations in their arguments (Plato, Hume, Locke, Freud).

Well, I think it's quite obvious why, which is why I supplied the example with my friend. One side can enter "personal observation without having to supply factual evidence, or detail the circumstances around the anectdote. Thus it holds no weight in a discussion as it can neither be proved nor disproved but arbitrarily argued.

I can choose to disbelieve your personal anectdote because it holds no inherent merit of truth. In other words, you can claim whatever you want and there's no way I can know.

Scientific facts, on the other hand, are testable and recreatable.

Quoted Text I'm not speaking for the prodigal son, but for me personally it would be a strong indicator that they were a loser. I suspect that there is a correlation between using illegal drugs (or misusing legal drugs) and loserdom.

Most university professors have glasses. That doesn't mean the glasses made them smart.

Quoted Text Again other things with addictive qualities are being compared to hard drugs. You said earlier that weren't equating the effects, are you now equating their level of addictiveness? Or are you asking this rhetorically because the prodigal son's argument hinges merely on the fact that hard drugs are addictive? Is that what the prodigal son is arguing?

Not equating. Comparing. Prodigalson's problem with drugs seems to be their addictiveness, and would like to know if this applies to legal drugs and substances with addictive nature. If not, then were is the line drawn.  I used nicotine as an example of a legal drug whose addictiveness I would directly compare to cocaine. Cheese and chocolate were examples of substances in our everyday life that are addictive as well, yet (rather) harmless.

Quoted Text In that post I was more or less I was trying to combat the general argument of your side and wasn't trying to target you specifically. I did exclusively quote seth however but I wasn't trying to target him either, it was just that he was the last person to post at the time, and in that post I thought he touched on most of the points that were being put forth. ... For me at least it has become unclear as to what each side is specifically arguing. I know that there are a lot of different arguments going on here that are all part of the main argument (although am not sure what that is anymore) so I think the discourse would benefit greatly if each side clearly laid out what they are arguing and how they are arguing it. sheepwalker

You assume there are clear-cut sides in this matter. I'm against legalisation of most drugs (I'm not even sure about Marijuana), but I'm pro a constant debate about them and against propaganda in combatting it.

Let me know which side I'm on, 'cause I'm not sure.

Quoted from James McClung Once again, apples and oranges. Seriously, comparing cheese and caffeine to cocaine is asinine. Any crack addict could tell you that. I've got nothing against a healthy debate but let's play fair here. You flat out can't compare the three. Nicotine is fair game though.

I'm getting to you, James. Cut some friggin slack here, I'm quoted all over the place!

Like I just stated I'm NOT equating the effects or addictiveness of cheese to cocaine, nowhere have I done so. I'm asking prodigalson if he would have a problem with legal, harmless substances that are addictive. I'm doing this to find out if he draws the line between loser and non-loser and the boundaries of the law. So if you're a loser for using non-addictive illegal drugs, what about using addictive legal substances.

Please don't jump the gun on this, but look first at WHAT I'm comparing. You can compare properties of a wrecking ball to a marble. they're both round. that doesn't mean you're saying the marble can tear a house down.

Quoted from Death Monkey Please don't jump the gun on this, but look first at WHAT I'm comparing. You can compare properties of a wrecking ball to a marble. they're both round. that doesn't mean you're saying the marble can tear a house down.

I understand what you're getting at but I still think it's apples and oranges. The marble and the wrecking ball don't compare.

Anyway, now that I've gotten myself caught up in this thread, I might as well contribute to discussion. My stance on drugs aside, I think drugs like cocaine and heroine have a considerably bigger impact on one's life than, say, cigarettes. The fact that they're illegal is a complication but I think they'd effect people relatively the same if they were legal. As for all drug users being losers, loser is a subjective term and can't really be debated in a logical context, as all of you guys seem to be doing. In any case, I think everyone can agree that being addicted to anything isn't good.

Quoted from Soap Hands At least until the addict loses his job and can't afford to buy it.

Well if he's unemployed healthcare should cover it. Anyway, drug addiction for many is a health issue not a moral issue. You wouldn't fire someone for having cancer or depression; therefore you shouldn't fire an addict. Bottom line, prescribing heroin at an affordable price would be much less damaging to society and the individual than prohibition. There are plenty of unemployed people on methadone who don't need to steal to pay their pharmacist.

At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?    

Quoted from Xtopher Well if he's unemployed healthcare should cover it.

The Australian health care system would buy an addict his fix? lol
I'm moving to Australia.

Quoted from Xtopher You wouldn't fire someone for having cancer or depression;

If it was to such a degree they couldn't preform their job well I would in so many words fire them. If it was because of cancer I would probably be more sympathetic, but it would still probably happen, just with soft hands. And also, it may just be the US but for a lot of people here it is a moral issue, but then again what isn't in the US?

Quoted from Xtopher Bottom line, prescribing heroin at an affordable price would be much less damaging to society and the individual than prohibition.

It would be even less damaging to society if no one was an addict in the first place. If you don't think thats achievable, how about the minimal amount of addicts possible which some believe is more likely to happen if heroin wasn't legal.

Quoted from Xtopher At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?

As far as I'm concerned its already over, Reagan has spoken, drugs win.

But seriously, it probably won't just "end". The people disagreeing most likely do because they have different values, the argument can go back and forth indefinitely. Like the war on terror there won't be a ceremony on an aircraft carrier nor a parade down main street.  

Quoted from James McClung I understand what you're getting at but I still think it's apples and oranges. The marble and the wrecking ball don't compare. Anyway, now that I've gotten myself caught up in this thread, I might as well contribute to discussion. My stance on drugs aside, I think drugs like cocaine and heroine have a considerably bigger impact on one's life than, say, cigarettes. The fact that they're illegal is a complication but I think they'd effect people relatively the same if they were legal. As for all drug users being losers, loser is a subjective term and can't really be debated in a logical context, as all of you guys seem to be doing. In any case, I think everyone can agree that being addicted to anything isn't good.

But the point is the marble and the wrecking ball ARE comparable. Like I said. they're both round, the can both roll. However in the context of effect they're NOT comparable.

Again, I'm not saying caffeine is the SAME as cocaine, but I'm saying they share a characteristic: They're both addictive. Are they equally addictive? No. But if you look at the context in which I used the argument you can see that wasn't my point.

I think all drugs should be legal, not that i like them, i hate them in fact, but if it gets dealers off the street it is worth it, and if someone wants to kill themselves with crack or heroin I say go for it, less human garbage walking around.  People have the right to do what they want to do to themselves, if they choose or not choose to do drugs is entirely up to them, you do have to be a moron to say "hey, crack sure sounds like fun".  I wouldn't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do with my own life, if I'm dumb enough to do drugs I deserve what i get, same if I chose to drink and drive, if I'm that stupid i deserve the book thrown at me.

Quoted from Takeshi At what point are we going to know that this debate has been won, guys?

You won't.  It'll just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

Quoted from The boy who could fly and if someone wants to kill themselves with crack or heroin I say go for it, less human garbage walking around.

That's a wonderful thought, except that they sometimes take innocent people with them.


Phil

This is the thread that never ends... it goes on and on my friends...

Quoted from Soap Hands At least until the addict loses his job and can't afford to buy it. QFT I think at its core it makes sense, if the person has habitually committed crimes its likely they're going to commit a crime again so they might as well be off the streets. Its just that they should count stealing a pizza as a felony. I think it's about time the all seeing, all knowing, all encompassing one weighs in on this: He has spoken, 'nuff said. sheepwalker

That is the GREATEST video ever. lol, I change my mind, if the Ronnie is an addict it is OK.

Wow...

Quoted from ABennettWriter Wow...

I was kidding. I am preparing my retort, which will suck and throw us for yet another 6-12 pages of comparing cheese and crack.

Quoted from Death Monkey But the point is the marble and the wrecking ball ARE comparable. Like I said. they're both round, the can both roll. However in the context of effect they're NOT comparable. Again, I'm not saying caffeine is the SAME as cocaine, but I'm saying they share a characteristic: They're both addictive. Are they equally addictive? No. But if you look at the context in which I used the argument you can see that wasn't my point.

You can compare anything on some level. That doesn't mean you should. Comparing cheese to cocaine doesn't work "in the context of effect."

Quoted from dogglebe That's a wonderful thought, except that they sometimes take innocent people with them.

I agree word for word. If you use crack or cocaine, your addiction is bound to effect someone else down the line since it's basically impossible to use either in moderation.

Quoted from James McClung You can compare anything on some level. That doesn't mean you should.

I think you miss the point again. I compared two properties in a CONTEXT; not frivolously.

Had I said "Cocaine and cheese are alike beacuse they're both MATTER" then you might have a point, but the comparison of addiction is relevant, I hope you agree, when we're debating drugs. I think you just don't like that cocaine and cheese appear in the same sentence, honestly.

Quoted Text Comparing cheese to cocaine doesn't work "in the context of effect."

Which is pretty much what I've been saying these past 3-4 pages...

Drugs, caffeine, chocolate, cheese, etc. are all addictive. I get it. But drugs are so much more addictive than the rest, I'd say you can't compare them. Forget the technicalities. From what I understand, you're trying to call theprodigalson out on condemning drugs based on their lack of legality so you asked him if he would make distinctions between drugs and lesser addictive substances. But considering these lesser addictive substances don't have a history of being so detrimental to one's quality of life on a mass scale, of course anyone you grab off the street is going to make such a distinction. In short, I don't think it's a fair argument to make if you want someone to admit they're against drugs because they're illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol would be better examples to use. Both legal and both at least in the same ballpark in terms of addictiveness.

Never knew you could be addicted to cheese. That explains alot.

Don't like drugs, don't do'em...If someone wants to smoke a bone in the privacy of his own home? Doesn't matter to me, just don't get behind the wheel of a car. Same as if someone wants to get smashed on booze, don't care, just don't get behind the wheel of a car.

One can make the argument that the $10 dimebag funds street gangs, drug cartels, and international terrorism. That may be true and should be considered before making that purchase, however, that moral descision is up to the individual purchasing, not to me.

I think they should manage weed as a controlled substance, like alchohol or even Sudafed. Legalize it, tax it and control its manufacture and distribution. Take the illegal dealers and growers out of the equation.

Ending prohibition stopped the bootleggers in one fell swoop. Be nice to see history repeat, but it probably won't.

Quoted from James McClung Drugs, caffeine, chocolate, cheese, etc. are all addictive. I get it. But drugs are so much more addictive than the rest, I'd say you can't compare them. Forget the technicalities. From what I understand, you're trying to call theprodigalson out on condemning drugs based on their lack of legality so you asked him if he would make distinctions between drugs and lesser addictive substances. But considering these lesser addictive substances don't have a history of being so detrimental to one's quality of life on a mass scale, of course anyone you grab off the street is going to make such a distinction. In short, I don't think it's a fair argument to make if you want someone to admit they're against drugs because they're illegal. Cigarettes and alcohol would be better examples to use. Both legal and both at least in the same ballpark in terms of addictiveness.

Prodigalson's argument was that you were a loser if you were addicted to any illegal substance (at least that's how he came off to me), so I asked if you were a loser if you addicted to anything, if that was what made one a loser, and if so being addicted to caffeine would prompt "loserdom"?

Why isn't it fair? Because the effects don't match? Well effect has almost been a non-issue so far; whilst being addicted to a substance has been controlling this debate. The reason why caffeine and cheese are better examples than alcohol and nicotine is exactly because they are so far remioved from illicit substances (Alcohol and nicotine have been or is considered to be made illegal). So if addictiveness in itself is the issue this would be applicable to ALL addictive substances.

However, most people wouldn't call someone addicted to caffeine a loser, exactly because it's not (that) damaging to your health. So my point is, addictiveness in itself can't possible be what makes you a loser.

So is it how harmful the substance is? Is it a self-destruction issue? Well, if that's the case then close down Wendy's 'cause coronary heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in North America. Junk food kills more people than any designer drug.

Is it a combination then? A harmful, addictive drug? Fair enough, but that brings me back to the non-addictive illegal drugs like hallucinogens or canabis? They must be exempted from loserdom?

My point is that it's very easy to draw the line at the law, and say people who use illegal drugs are losers, but that's saying they're losers because they're breaking the law, not because of the moral implications of the actual behaviour.

Sorry about the QED-approach but I think this is the only way to make myself understood clearly in this debate.

Quoted from Death Monkey Prodigalson's argument was that you were a loser if you were addicted to any illegal substance (at least that's how he came off to me), so I asked if you were a loser if you addicted to anything, if that was what made one a loser, and if so being addicted to caffeine would prompt "loserdom"? Why isn't it fair? Because the effects don't match? Well effect has almost been a non-issue so far; whilst being addicted to a substance has been controlling this debate. The reason why caffeine and cheese are better examples than alcohol and nicotine is exactly because they are so far remioved from illicit substances (Alcohol and nicotine have been or is considered to be made illegal). So if addictiveness in itself is the issue this would be applicable to ALL addictive substances. However, most people wouldn't call someone addicted to caffeine a loser, exactly because it's not (that) damaging to your health. So my point is, addictiveness in itself can't possible be what makes you a loser. So is it how harmful the substance is? Is it a self-destruction issue? Well, if that's the case then close down Wendy's 'cause coronary heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in North America. Junk food kills more people than any designer drug. Is it a combination then? A harmful, addictive drug? Fair enough, but that brings me back to the non-addictive illegal drugs like hallucinogens or canabis? They must be exempted from loserdom? My point is that it's very easy to draw the line at the law, and say people who use illegal drugs are losers, but that's saying they're losers because they're breaking the law, not because of the moral implications of the actual behaviour. Sorry about the QED-approach but I think this is the only way to make myself understood clearly in this debate.

I see where you're coming from now. Still, you gotta admit the comparison is a helluva stretch at face value.

Anyway, if pissing your life away with drugs makes you a loser, I'd definitely lump people who eat at fast food restaurants on a daily basis in that crowd as well. I don't think it's addiction that connects the two however. I think it's abuse. You can abuse any substance and not neccesarily be addicted to it. Either way, that substance, in essence, becomes your life. I think a lot of people would agree that someone who's happiness depends on some external entity is a loser.

In any case, I think loser is a subjective term. I don't think it can be debated logically, which it seems like all you guys are trying to do. I think it's a matter of opinions and, to a further extent, beliefs. A pothead who sits on his ass all day can call a business CEO a loser for conforming to the system while the CEO can turn around and call the pothead a loser for not doing anything useful with his time. Just because you brand someone a loser doesn't quite make it so.

Well I wasn't really trying to debate loserness objectively, I was simply probing prodigalson's definition.

But I think you're right about abuse. In my book anyway. Maybe instead of addiction we should talk about dependence?

Personally, I think people who don't take responsibility for their life and who pity themselves for who they are, are losers. Often you find this in junkies. but not exclusively.

Quoted from Death Monkey Personally, I think people who don't take responsibility for their life and who pity themselves for who they are, are losers.

I think that should just about sum up this debate.

Quoted from James McClung I think that should just about sum up this debate.

Agreed.