Ecstasy is a superior and safer party drug than Alcohol!

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure

This seems to me to be a good example of Orwellian doublethink.

Like it.

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

I don't know what your definition of anecdotal is.

anecdotal [ánnik dṓt'l]

adjective

1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on second-hand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
anecdotal evidence

2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes

-anecdotally, , adverb

The investigation is neither based on anecdotes or hearsay. What I have done consists of firsthand knowledge and experience and a scientific investigation of sorts with questionable methodology and lack of alternative subjects for repeats.

To people reading this Randfan messaged me asking if I really was on drugs. I said I was and I said the reason why I am doing it is because it is real firsthand evidence of the effects both drugs have on the psychology of the user. He then replied no it is not- at the best it is anecdotal. Now going by the Encarta Dictionary definition of 'anecdotal' I do not think that what I did counts as merely anecdotal evidence. I do agree that it has no real scientific value but the evidence is stronger than purely anecdotal.

[Kevin_Lowe]

To you it is first-hand, Space_Ed.

To us it is anecdotal.

[Space_Ed]

So do you dismiss that type of evidence?

Most of the entire history of the world is based on second hand accounts with a few historical artefacts to help back them up. Shall we discredit all recorded human history as merely anecdotal?

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

To you it is first-hand, Space_Ed.
To us it is anecdotal.

This coming from Kevin Lowe. Kevin's only evidence given so far is what he thinks he remembers from one seminar. Talk about anecdotal, and talk about hilariously hypocritical.

[Space_Ed]

Hello. I have come up with the least socially damaging way of handling the drug situation I can think of, based on my own previous ideas, research and experience and the ideas and information put forward by you scumbags:

The first notable change is legalisation of all the major recreational narcotics including heroin and cocaine. Like Skepticybe’s idea in order to be able to take any drug you must first pass an exam on its effects. Exams are undertaken at the school level and will be as hard as is necessary for all the important facts about each drug to be known. At the school level students can choose which courses to take i.e. a reflection on which drugs they can imagine themselves wanting to take. After the school level if anyone wants to take a drug they are not qualified to take then they have to go to a certified retailer of recreational narcotics and get the necessary free information needed to swat up for the exam. This can be got around at the adult level by getting friends to buy the drugs for them- a flaw. However, at the school level purchase of these drugs will be very difficult due to age restrictions as is seen in people below 18 in the UK. So by the time they are old enough to buy the drugs they have been well educated in all the known relevant effects.

Going to the drug shop would probably be quite similar to going to an Amsterdam coffee shop or hippy shop. I imagine they would be stylised as this would help attract customers. However unlike in the above stated shops, shop owners and employees must pass all necessary exams and indeed be more qualified than someone who has passed all the exams needed for purchase. An international network of computers would be necessary to find out how often users are taking the drugs and what they are taking and if they are qualified to purchase the drug they want. ID cards would be essential to prove identity. This could be a provisional drivers licence. The management is required to refuse purchase to anyone taking any individual addictive or other drug over a specifically calculated rate which could well lead to physical or psychological dependence. Example:

I want a hit of heroin. Go to the shop. I am weighed. Deductions for clothes taken into account. Maximum dose based on previous usage and body weight calculated using formula on the computer network. I pay for the hit. Go into a private room and shoot up. This gets around all the problems associated with criminalisation included sharing of needles, dumping needles, bad quality heroin and risk of overdose.

This system would boost the economy massively. Reduce significantly the risks associated with addiction. Massively reduce organised crime, reduce problems associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption because, as we have seen, an increase in ecstasy consumption leads to a reduction in alcohol consumption which as we also have seen is more dangerous. Also when buying drugs the shop owners will be able to help out and advise unlike the average drug dealer. All of the drugs will be taxed and much of this tax can go towards the health service. All the money used for the war on drugs can also go to the health service. Win win.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

................ Go into a private room and shoot up. This gets around all the problems associated with criminalisation included sharing of needles, dumping needles, bad quality heroin and risk of overdose. ........

Not quite. For the reasons already said, it would be necessary for a health-care to inject the addict, and not to allow the addict to theoretically do it for themselves.

[Space_Ed]

Oh ok well that makes sense. So what do you think? That is the best solution that solves as many of the problems with drugs I can think of at this moment in time. Can anyone see any flaws or put forward a strong argument that this would be more harmful than the current system?

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

Oh ok well that makes sense. So what do you think? That is the best solution that solves as many of the problems with drugs I can think of at this moment in time. Can anyone see any flaws or put forward a strong argument that this would be more harmful than the current system?

I think what you suggest (plus my addition) would be the best plan all round; I also think it would be very expensive. Who will pay for this? Addicts of course by and large are not famous for being financially and socially responsible.

And that is the major question. Who pays?

[Lonewulf]

Who pays for the current War on Drugs?

[Gurdur]

We don't all live in the USA, and the USA is not the measure of all things. D'oh.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that the USA was a major country that actually has some influence over the subject.

For all people in the USA or cares about the USA: Who pays for the War on Drugs, and would that money be better invested with the example given above?

If you aren't in the USA and don't care about the USA, go ahead and don't answer. I don't really care. However, I was under the impression that buying drugs illegally still gets you arrested in other countries.

And I was under the impression that, by necessity, laws, courts, and jails are all paid for by public money in almost any country.

But go figure, I must be entirely ignorant. There seem to be people in this thread that are SO much more knowledgable. I wish they would share in their imminent and all-powerful wisdom with us poor wretches.

[Space_Ed]

Lonewulf- Bist du deutsch?

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

For all people in the USA or cares about the USA: Who pays for the War on Drugs, and would that money be better invested with the example given above?

I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by madurobob

I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

If it could be proved that giving it away would cost less than the 'war on drugs' and as a result your tax bill would go down, would you view the plan more favourably?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

Lonewulf- Bist du deutsch?

Nein, ich bin ein Amerikaner. Aber, ich liebt in Deutschland.



(Yes, I know that came out terribly. I'm trying to get better at my German).

Originally Posted by madurobob

I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

Do you really want me to explain the economics, or do you mean the ethics? I'm not an economist, so I'm sure that anything I say will be faulty.

The thing is, do we let junkies rot, or do we try to help them? And how would we help him? I'm not sure that treating them like criminals helps much. Letting the minority of people that can't get their act together rot doesn't seem to be the solution, either.

I'm not saying that the only solution is injecting people with medical doses of heroin if they're addicted. Really, honestly, I just intended a rather snarky reply to someone that was snarky himself with the "Oh yeah? Who pays, then? Huh?"

We pay for druggies already. The question is, do we stop paying, or do we shift the payment? Even if we stop paying altogether, there's still the question of hospitals.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

Oh yes it has no real scientific value but at best it is a strong indication. There you are anyway. I thought it would be a good way of showing the difference and I think it has worked but in no way would that be acceptable in the proffessional world of science. I don't know what your definition of anecdotal is. Maybe it is anecdotal but I still think it helps to prove my point.

I'm sorry Space_Ed but it has zero validity expect perhaps to falsify an argument or arguments that are not, to my knowledge, even being made.

Your experiment fails on many grounds. You are biased, we know that from your posts. I share your bias BTW. You've done nothing to control for that bias.

I would expect that others could carry out the experiment with opposite results.

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm sorry Space_Ed but it has zero validity expect perhaps to falsify an argument or arguments that are not, to my knowledge, even being made.

Your experiment fails on many grounds. You are biased, we know that from your posts. I share your bias BTW. You've done nothing to control for that bias.

I would expect that others could carry out the experiment with opposite results.

I agree with you end of. I think it does help to to prove my point.

[Gnu Ordure]

Quote:

This coming from Kevin Lowe. Kevin's only evidence given so far is what he thinks he remembers from one seminar. Talk about anecdotal, and talk about hilariously hypocritical.

I see, Gurdur, now you've gone from ignoring questions to ignoring entire posts.

I answered your questions; you evade mine.

Kevin and I have presented evidence. All we've had back from you are rants and insults.

Enough.





I'll talk to Madbob instead.

Quote:

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use.

The US spent 45 billion on the War on Drugs in 2005. That figure doesn't include the cost of incarceration.

Legalizing drugs slashes that figure immediately. Less crime, fewer police, fewer lawyers, less prison, lower health costs.

In the case of heroin, what then needs to be spent to administer it ?

Not very much, because the infrastructure is already there. The US already imports half the world's morphine, it's in every hospital in the country as a controlled drug.

So in the cheapest scenario, recreational users simply go to their nearest hospital to be given it.

Even allowing for putting more money into drug-rehabilitation schemes, you'd still save a huge amount of money.

And in practice, there'd be no reason why some users shouldn't pay towards their own costs, if they could afford to, further reducing your tax bill.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by 3point14

If it could be proved that giving it away would cost less than the 'war on drugs' and as a result your tax bill would go down, would you view the plan more favourably?

More favorable? Absolutely. But not acceptable unless giving it away would also cost less that selling at full cost recovery.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Really, honestly, I just intended a rather snarky reply to someone that was snarky himself with the "Oh yeah? Who pays, then? Huh?"

Dang, we need a "snarky" tag. I took it at face value and it offended my sensibilities.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

We pay for druggies already. The question is, do we stop paying, or do we shift the payment? Even if we stop paying altogether, there's still the question of hospitals.

I can be had on the Space-Ed legalization scheme with the Gurder modification, but I have a problem with a government subsidy of heroin.

Do we let the junkies rot? No and yes. I'm all for taking some of the savings from the war on drugs and applying it to social programs that help junkies get back on their feet. Get them educated, jobs, etc... But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by madurobob

Dang, we need a "snarky" tag. I took it at face value and it offended my sensibilities.

I'm good at doing that. I offend people all the time. Just ask Gurdur, Dustin, Cain, or any of the eight+ people on my ignore list.

Quote:

I can be had on the Space-Ed legalization scheme with the Gurder modification, but I have a problem with a government subsidy of heroin.

Do we let the junkies rot? No and yes. I'm all for taking some of the savings from the war on drugs and applying it to social programs that help junkies get back on their feet. Get them educated, jobs, etc... But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

Eh, true enough. I can see your viewpoint, and agree with it.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Eh, true enough. I can see your viewpoint, and agree with it.

Wait... what? Are you sure your doing this right?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by madurobob

Wait... what? Are you sure your doing this right?

Well, unlike some, I'm not a contrarian.

But if you must, I think you're wrong because you're stupid and ugly. So there.

Also, your mustache smells like Parmesan. >:P

[Space_Ed]

Originally Posted by madurobob

But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

Absolutely!

[Space_Ed]

When talking to two of my flatmates (one a Canadian Lawyer the other a Londoner Physiologist) they had these problems with my solution-

-You cant trust Joe Shmoe to be able to take heroin and look after himself despite all the precautions
-Growing of drugs in poor countries would upset the world order as the rich countries dont have the right climate (I think this is silly)
-The canadian also said that an educated person wouldn't want to try heroin so to me that means that the exams are still a good idea

By the way the wern't keen.

[Space_Ed]

Comments?

I think that this system would have to be tried in a city but preferably with as little publicity as possible to see how and if it worked.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Space_Ed

...-Growing of drugs in poor countries would upset the world order .....

Happens already. In fact the major illegal drug plant growing areas tend to be otherwise very poor nations.

Quote:

-The canadian also said that an educated person wouldn't want to try heroin....

Education levels have very little indeed to do with opiate addiction whatosoever.

[Gnu Ordure]

Quote:

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

I understand that it goes against the grain to contemplate handing out free drugs, Madbob/Ed/Lonewulf.

But what you're suggesting is overkill, given the numbers.

If we decriminalize heroin, we make massive savings in various areas.

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming that only a small proportion of society wants to take heroin for fun. I'm assuming only a proportion of those people become addicts. I'm then assuming that only a proportion of those people don't have any income. That's who we're talking about - the jobless junkies. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very small proportion of society as a whole.

So it isn't worth the effort. Bear in mind that on the whole, they're only hurting themselves. Why punish them further, at all that expense ?


It's like, you don't want to give away 50 dollars a day for the drug, but you're happy to spend 500 dollars a day dealing with the consequences of withholding it.

While achieving what ? Does punishing these unfortunate people actually help in any way ? Either them, or us ?

Keeping an addict in jail costs $100,000 per annum (I'm guessing).

Keeping an addict in society costs $30,000 pa (likewise).

Surely it's far better for everyone to take the second option ?

Even if it goes against the grain.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure

I understand that it goes against the grain to contemplate handing out free drugs, Madbob/Ed/Lonewulf.

But what you're suggesting is overkill, given the numbers.

If we decriminalize heroin, we make massive savings in various areas.

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming that only a small proportion of society wants to take heroin for fun. I'm assuming only a proportion of those people become addicts. I'm then assuming that only a proportion of those people don't have any income. That's who we're talking about - the jobless junkies. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very small proportion of society as a whole.

So it isn't worth the effort. Bear in mind that on the whole, they're only hurting themselves. Why punish them further, at all that expense ?


It's like, you don't want to give away 50 dollars a day for the drug, but you're happy to spend 500 dollars a day dealing with the consequences of withholding it.

While achieving what ? Does punishing these unfortunate people actually help in any way ? Either them, or us ?

Keeping an addict in jail costs $100,000 per annum (I'm guessing).

Keeping an addict in society costs $30,000 pa (likewise).

Surely it's far better for everyone to take the second option ?

Even if it goes against the grain.

I'm torn between the two sides of the argument, I really am.

The danger in giving it away is that it will encourage people to take the drug as they have nothing to lose, the drug will be free if it becomes a problem, so why not try it. This could drive your costs up as numbers increase.

(actually, how much does Heroin cost? I have no idea - the most recent figure I have in my head for keeping someone in prison is £30k pa. This could be very wrong though, so forget I mentioned it!)

I do always tend to lean towards the socialist solution (I'm just an old hippy really) so, as a really big social experiment, try the 'giving it away' solution, then, if that drives the number of addicts up unreasonably, then go to the expensive, law enforcement option, as by then there would be enough addicts on the street to justify the massive cost.

Hmmm, perhaps not.

[Lonewulf]

Oh man, convincing the U.S. government (yes, I'm U.S.-biased, I freely admit it) to "experiment" with giving Heroine away freely would take a miracle...

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure

.....I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming ...
......I'm assuming
......I'm then assuming
...... Whatever the exact figure,.......
......(I'm guessing).
......(likewise). ......

Well, the problem there seems rather obvious.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

........

Once you actually start working and paying taxes yourself (you don't, do you?), you might understand.

[Lonewulf]

Riiiiight, I'd be SO willing to pay lots and lots of money for people to be thrown in jail for taking drugs consensually.

Get a clue someday, you might understand.

Also, please quote me for what I actually say. I did not say ".....", and while I appreciate the funny little creative commentary, it's rather childish.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I'm torn between the two sides of the argument, I really am.
.......I do always tend to lean towards the socialist solution (I'm just an old hippy really) so, as a really big social experiment, try the 'giving it away' solution, then, .....

One potential solution outlined by Space Ed and with addendums by me depends on heroin abuse outside that system still being criminalized.

It still has a number of problems, and would only work well for some of the addicts. Interestingly enough, the ones for whom it would work least well are for the addicts at the bottom end and at the top end.

One common but very hidden type of addict is the high-functioning one; the car salesman who is all on the go, hyper and well-off, who will take a hit on his lunchbreak; another such example of an addict would be a medical doctor who manages to still perform his duties very well.

Neither example would be all that well-served by walk-in and registered heroin-injecting services, for various reasons.

On the bottom end, a great many addicts at the lower end of the scale display comorbidity, meaning they have tons of things wrong with them as well, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. Good luck with trying to get those to comply meaningfully with any such program actually made for their benefit.

On the other side, sooner or later you start running into massive ethical problems. A common co-effect of opiate addiction is increasing tolerance. Where such increasing tolerance happens, do you then start injecting them with more and more heroin, knowing full well in such cases you may hit the point of no return where it simply is too dangerous for the addict to ever try getting off the stuff? Any medico is going to immediately object to doing such an unethical thing.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

• Cigarettes
• whiskey
• blow jobs
• electricity
• diamonds
• Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls

right? Because, "once you criminalize them, only criminals will have them." Then you'll have to waste resources policing them.

C'mon! I see no reason why the government should encourage non-productive members of society to continue to be non-productive. Quite the opposite! Governments should encourage the non-productive to be productive and help them to become so. Telling junkies they can have free heroin for life is not a solution.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Oh man, convincing the U.S. government (yes, I'm U.S.-biased, I freely admit it) to "experiment" with giving Heroine away freely would take a miracle...

Well, party politics and 'vote getting' and actually logically thinking things through and applying the best (or least worst) solution are a little like oil and water, you can shake them about all you like, but any solution you end up with just separates in the end. This is true regardless of your location.

Add in all the economic implications and parties with 'vested interests' one way or the other and the odds of getting to try any solution other than 'Drugs are bad, M'kay' and all the associated expense and propaganda are pretty slim indeed.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

• ......
• blow jobs
• ......

......

Funnily enough, sex addiction does exist, and I recently heard of a rather interesting example of that.

A bloke who had been long-term unemployed rolled up at one of the employment agencies for a counselling session to do with just why he wouldn't hold down any job for any time.

He confessed very shame-facedly that he was actually trying to manage an addiction by not allowing himself to have any spare money (by being continually unemployed and living on a bare minimum of benefits), so he would knock back all job chances.

Turned out his addiction was to sex with prostitutes; every time he came into a bit of spare cash, he would blow the whole wad * on prostitutes. So he was actually trying to do the best by himself by so severely limiting himself moneywise.
_________

* All puns intended.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by madurobob

So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

• Cigarettes
• whiskey
• blow jobs
• electricity
• diamonds
• Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls

Were you trying to get me to disagree with you? Once I saw the bolded, I thought HELL yes!

Quote:

right? Because, "once you criminalize them, only criminals will have them." Then you'll have to waste resources policing them. C'mon! I see no reason why the government should encourage non-productive members of society to continue to be non-productive. Quite the opposite! Governments should encourage the non-productive to be productive and help them to become so. Telling junkies they can have free heroin for life is not a solution.

Well, I'm not thinking that the heroine would be given and then the doctor says, "Good bye! Stay hooked and keep going down the drain!"

I was more of thinking of it being provided while providing measures to get off the addiction.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just a quick observation, but it's fairly unreasonable to expect advocates of legalisation to put together a manifesto detailing exactly how every aspect of a very complex problem will be handled, given that the current system is so enormously destructive that legalisation would have to cause enormous problems to even compete with it.

It would be fantastic if we could come up with a scheme so watertight even the most emotionally committed anti-legalisation poster could not imagine faults emerging from it, but it's not a reasonable expectation.

It's also fairly unreasonable to make up straw men about free blow jobs and jam rolls. Blow job and jam roll abuse is not a problem costing society billions, enriching criminals, corrupting police forces and killing kids.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Blow job and jam roll abuse is not a problem costing society billions, enriching criminals, corrupting police forces and killing kids.

This is arguable, but I concede. I intended this to be obvious hyperbole, but nonetheless illustrative of my point (and how did that escape the mods?).

I think the solution on the table is not unproblematic, but workable. No way I could support heavily subsidized heroin for addicts unable pay, though.

And for the record, the price charged to customers should cover at a minimum:

• Livable wage for the farmer
• costs of production and transportation plus modest profit for the manufacturer
• all costs to run the "clinic" where the drug would be available (rent, wages, insurance, etc.).
• Taxes levied by appropriate jurisdictions to cover social costs, rehab, etc.. (think about the tax on a pack of cigs in the US)