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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to