On 21 Nov 2013, at 17:47, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>> You worry me a little bit .... I was joking with the tanks ...
(Well I was hoping being joking ...).
I do worry that some federal prosecutor (with jurisdiction in
Washington or Colorado) will go on a personal Jihad or that a new
federal administration will decide to impose its will on the states.
That would be sad, to say the least.
>>The "schedule one" notion is also an incredible aberration. A
product is considered as being so dangerous that research on it is
forbidden! Why not making nuclear bomb schedule one? Why not make
physics and math schedule one?
Also why for a product that has such a very low toxicity. THC is
less toxic than vitamin C;
Far less. I am not sure if THC is toxic at all.
not one person has ever died from a Marijuana overdose. How many
have died from acute alcohol poisoning? The justifications for the
original decision were suspect from the beginning and based on
shoddy research that has since been discredited. And yet the
prohibition policy has rolled on decade after decade after decade.
It has been known for decades that it was a failure and that the war
on drugs has only succeeded in creating powerful global criminal
organizations that have corrupted every dimension of life – perhaps
that was the purpose of this irrational policy from the very
beginning.
>>I think that the evidences go in that direction.
Either this is evidence for the terrible momentum of bad ideas or of
something much more sinister working to preserve a status quo that
is harmful for society because some narrow interests benefit from
said policy.
I'm afraid so.
>>Those international treaties are a mystery for me. Also how quick
all this happened. Prohibition seems to be an international criminal
decisions at the start.
That is what it seems like – the lockstep coordination, and the
weird lockin of all these countries into this system and the evident
fear or perhaps I should say reluctance of countries from Holland,
to Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Mexico (which was considering
ending the prohibition on drugs when I was living there)… of all
these and more countries to take on this treaty system.
International treaties are flouted with a surprising regularity by a
lot of nations. I am curious why this particular system of treaties
has such a grip on nations and why they seem to not want to cross
that line.
Why the fear?
Good question.
>>>I hope you will legalize all drugs. In my country we get at last
the official result of the "Tadam Project", which has consisted in
providing heroin legally to the heroine users (in the city of Liege).
It is considered by the experts involved as an important success,
but the government stopped it one year ago, and it will take time to
approve it, and to decide to pursue it.
Since the project has been stopped, already three heroin users have
died.
Most of the time it isn’t Heroin that kills the addicts; it is what
it has been cut with by criminal gangs that are without scruples.
Although it saddens me personally when I see a junkie – it is very
much a waste of life (but excellent for dulling pain), I would far
prefer that addicts could get --- at a reasonable price and
quality – the heroin they need. And be able to inject their drug in
a safe environment – again I believe they should pay some small fee
for this too.
Yes. most opiates are no bad for the health, but they can be strongly
addictive. They are not expensive (when legal), and should be sold
with medical prescription. Experience shows that the consumption go
down once made legal.
>>Just to prevents the spreading of AIDS, legalizing heroin (even if
medically prescribed) is common sense.
Exactly…. As well as all the street crime. Imagine how much more
street crime there would be if alcoholics had to work up $100 or
more in order to get their illegal bottle of bad beer, wine or rot
gut liquor. If Heroin addicts could get a decent supply for a decent
amount say around $20 (heavily taxed to cover health and recovery
treatment) for a fix they would not be committing the street crime
or prostituting themselves to earn the money they need for their fix.
Same for cocaine. If it was affordable there would be no crack whores.
Right. Prohibition is responsible also of the new development of new
drugs, which are often dangerous erzats of illegal one.
That is how crocodile (the worst possible products) made his
apparition, after an attempt to clean a part of Russia from any trace
of heroin. And crocodile is easy to make with stuff you can find in
any groceries.
This would have an immediate dramatic effect on street and property
crime – a junkie needing to make $100 to $150 and up each and every
day in order to support their habit and the organized criminals
profiting off of them is a veritable street crime wave.
I believe that drugs such as heroin or cocaine, or tobacco or
alcohol for that matter that have known chronic health costs and
pose risks of death and physical and mental deterioration of the
users should be taxed so that users of these drugs can fund the
costs society must bear because of their use.
I agree.
Heroin or cocaine could be produced for far less than they are
currently marked up by the mafias that distribute these drugs
globally; so there is plenty of room for a large tax on them while
still bringing down the cost for the addict into a realm where they
are not doing desperate things – like stealing cars or prostituting
themselves – in order to get a fix.
I have lost a good friend – a drummer I used to play in a rock band
with (20 years ago) – to heroin. We (the other guys in the band)
actually were thinking about kidnapping him and taking him to a
cabin in the forest to sweat out his withdrawals, I guess because we
knew his habit was going to kill him. But the legal implications – a
potential kidnap charge (even if the motive is pure) is a powerful
inhibitor. Three weeks later he was dead. Who knows if it had been
legal he might still be alive… perhaps.
>>Sorry for your friend. This last year I lost two close friend. One
for overdoing with a legal antidepressant, and the other succumbs to
a radiotherapy and I am pretty sure that both would be alive if some
herbs were used instead. Hard to prove, but I have the intimate
conviction on this.
How many death brought by prohibition? Millions if not billions.
Thanks, he was a really great drummer… one of the best I ever played
with. I have sometimes wondered if his overdose was really a
suicide. The life of a musician can be very hard and the dichotomy
between mastering music (no easy thing to do) and being regarded and
treated by society as one step from being a worthless bum – the fate
of many non-establishment artists, poets, writers and musicians who
do not become one of the very few who obtain commercial success. But
that is another story.
Life can be hard, especially for those who have a passion, and few
experience of selling themselves ...
The legal anti-depressants kill so many people – how many thousands
of suicides a year can be statistically linked to anti-depressant
use. A friend of mine just lost a friend of his – who was a tech
lead in a big software company – who recently jumped over a
waterfall to his death while taking anti-depressants.
Yet this stuff continues to be marketed and pushed.
Health must be separated from the state, or the state becomes a drug
dealer, and it will favor drugs which
1) does not cure (you lost clients if they do)
2) addictive (to keep the client)
Imagine if a herb caused people using it to have suicidal ideations
– how illegal that herb would be made. Some herbs are in fact very
hard to get – and we (my wife and I) get them with difficulty –
because one or two people have died from misusing them – put a
warning for sure – but prohibition?
Compare this to big Pharma drugs such as viox, which is
statistically implicated in 30,000 to 50,000 heart attack and stroke
deaths in the 1990s, and which was withdrawn for a few years, but is
being marketed and sold again. If some herb had caused that many
deaths can you imagine how illegal it would be?
If it is toxic and addictive; it will be legal!
Schedule one contains the drugs which are not toxic, not addictive,
and are known to provide a lot of help (cannabis, magic mushrooms,
LSD, etc.).
My motto to the youth: don't do *legal* drugs!
I am sorry for your friends, radiotherapy has terrible side effects
and a dubious benefit IMO, except perhaps for very specific cases.
Putting radionuclides into the body is a bad idea.
At least they could try THC injection, and if it does not work, they
can try more dangerous treatment. But the facts are there: as amazing
it can seem: cannabis does cure many cancers. All people with cancer
should suit the governments which continue to lie on this, or to hide
the information.
The only drugs that should remain illegal or at least be highly
controlled are those that induce extreme violence in those who take
them.
>>I know only alcohol for being like that. Prohibition of alcohol
has not worked. Let us make "violence" illegal. It is enough.
I can agree with that – I was thinking of rarely used strange drugs
such as those bath salt drugs that have been linked to some bizarre
cases of extreme dissociative violence such as the case of that man
in Florida who began eating a homeless man’s face while he was alive
and screaming and kept on cannibalizing him even when the cop showed
up screaming at him to stop… he was shot and killed and the homeless
man actually lived through it (at least last I heard.. who knows if
he is still alive though after that kind of trauma.
In principal I agree with you – that what needs to be illegal is the
violence itself.
Also, if there were no prohibition, people would have a big choice on
drugs, with all the informations and warning, and "bath salt" would
remain used for bath, and not for psychotropic consumption. The poor
guy has been an indirect victim of prohibition.
Prohibition hides also a simple truth: addiction is an health problem,
and it can be cured, notably with plants, which of course have been
deemed dangerous and illegal.
Why not put directly sick people in jail, and close the hospitals.
They will make sneezing illegal, if they continue ...
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
