Are all lefties drug users of some sort?

[Guest]

I've seen quite a lot of letists in this board claiming they are stoned, or they do drugs of some sort, or they smoke pot. Even Malte talks natuarally about it:

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=17&topic=1094 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=17&topic=1094)

And then they come here and pretend they care about injustices in the World. Don't you know that by using drugs you are not only slowly destroying yourself and your mind, but also helping to contribute to the mafia and international terrorism?

Don't you know that money from drugs is what fuels wars such as the Colombian conflict? You all scream and shout when the US is giving aid to Colombia to fight terrorism, arguing that is only fueling up the war more.

Well, you people, with your irresponsible acts are not only destroying yourselves but directly funding the mafia and war in places like Colombia.

[Sasafrás]

Uh... I don't use drugs and I'm a leftist. And I don't even consider myself straight-edge or anything of the sort, I just don't see drugs as a good thing personally (Maybe because I've seen them destroy people close to me). Sure, a lot of leftists use drugs, but a lot of right-wingers use them too. Drug-use can't really be pinned on any particular group. It crosses the entire spectrum.

So, thanks for generalizing and telling "us people" including many who have never even touched an ilicit drug in their lives that we're irresponsible and that we're destroying ourselves. We all really appreciate it. ;)

[Guest]

La Rainbeaux, I think it is great you don't use drugs, great personal choice!. Sorry for the generalization. I have the impression though that people in the left tend to be drug users far more times than people in the right. Maybe I am wrong. Although I've never seen any of the capitalists here talking about the drugs they use. But as I said maybe I am wrong, that was just my impression.

I would like to hear from the people here who do use drugs. It is your personal choice I guess, but are you aware of where your money is going an what it is creating? Or you just don't care? In which case I wouldn't see a reason to come here to che-lives and pretend they do care about society and other people..

[komsomol]

So you don't use drugs? Damn, no cola, tea, coffee or chocolate for you then pal. I assume you are refering to illegal drugs. The question is where do you draw the line, since in different nations the drug laws are different.

[IzmSchism]

I have experimented with most every drug attainable, with exception to the needle stuff. I smoke pot maybe once a month now and have the occasional taylor made. I took drugs not out of political conscience, but out of a need to escape, to this I blame on Catholosizm. Just kidding, I have always been a curious cat. Now I am in my mid twenties and it is time to devote my time to reading and action, instead of passivity and escapizm.

[Sasafrás]

Quote: from IzmSchism on 6:50 pm on Aug. 10, 2002
Now I am in my mid twenties and it is time to devote my time to reading and action, instead of passivity and escapizm.*snap, snap* That's deep, my brotha *snap*

:)

[kidicarus20]

I am straight-edge, that means i dont do ANY drugs, eat meat or drink caffinee, I don't drink any alcohol, EVER, which is more dangerous than Marijuana by the way, etc...

Striaght-edge is about personal control and to try on a personal level to take care of the environment.
It brings the outspoken leftism of punk into it's scence but without the drugs.

Some straight-edgers in Utah are intolerant, they attack people who smoke and other innocents, they do a lot of good though by attacking fur farms and leather industry and such, 2.5 million dollars damage to fur farms and leather industrys and stores here in utah since 1997 or something.

The Straight-edgers here are earth crisis (sXe band) straight-edgers, mean they justify violence against the polluters and slaughterhouses or whatever who waste our land.

I consider myself an earth crisis straight-edger.

Drugs suck, but the problem in columbia is do to the fact america is trying to stop drugs wrongfully, and i'm a straight-edger that wants drugs leagalized because that way addicts can get it on prescription and the price goes down so crime goes down.

For more information on straight-edgers and living sXe check out:

http://www.vegan-straight-edge.org.uk/

or punch in staight-edge in google

http://home.attbi.com/~greenparty2/sxe3.gif


http://home.attbi.com/~greenparty2/straightedge.gif%20

[Americana]

WAIT> Marijuana is awesome. and it does not fuel the colombian war.
Most marijuana in the USA comes from either cuba, colorado, or BC canada.
Believe it or not.
Colorado because its central location and low population and thousands of square miles of land never touched by a human. you can hide it and truck it out anywhere in CO, no customs or anything..

Cuba because you can boat into the keys without passing any port authority checkpoints or coast guard strongholds(except for the CG base and NAS on Key west).

BC canada is the least producing because of temperatures and customs checkpoints. but it produces for canada.

Marijuana is not as bad as many people think and its garunteed (spelling?) that at least 1 out of 5 people you associate with either currently smoke or have tried pot.

marijuana is believed to be better for you than cigarettes because mary jane doesnt contain any artificial chemicals for preservetives (spelling?), flavor enhancement, addiction chemicals, placebo (fake tobacco (spelling?)) or any of that shit that damages tissue.

So before you trash marijuana, think about it.

cocaine fuels the colombian war
opium fuels the middle east, oriental, Pacific Island turmoil
Ecstasy fuels the IRA and Neo-Nazis
Heroin i have no clue.
PCP fuels US senators
Marijuana fuels 16 year olds that sell it.

[Mazdak]

I dont take drugs of any kind. And i hate the taste of coffe and alcohol. My only drug is the internet and this computer..

[Michael De Panama]

I don't drink. I don't do drugs. I don't eat meat.

But I'm not Straight Edge.

I love coffee. Sex is great.

[Xvall]

lol Mike.
You couldn't get laid in prison.

[suffianr]

Yes, lefties are all drug users of some sort. That's why we always think the same. Duh!

What a simplistic comclusion! Ah, guilty by association, right? Damn, are you depriving some village out there of an idiot!

[Stormin Norman]

Maybe all communists aren't drug users, but it does seem like a significant number of them exhibit signs of brain damage, like that of the heavy drug user.

[uth1984]

Stormin Norman, could you explain how smoking a joint is helping terrorists? My dealer smells a bit and loves Pink Floyd, but I'm not sure hes got links to international terrorists. (probably because he's too lazy)

Also, many anthropologists have forwarded the arguement that drug use is not a minority belief or interest, but a fundamental part of human society. Therefore, the urge toget wasted is not restricted to a time , place or political belief.

[Stormin Norman]

I am not the one who started this thread, so I don't know why you are asking me this question. However, I will answer. Where do you think the money from the cocaine and heroine trade goes? I am sure that the people ate the top of the drug food chain are as lazy and stupid as your drug dealer. No. They are probably people who buy weapons and use their money and power to corrupt the political system of the countries that they operate from.

If you care to hear my drug philosophy, I suggest you take a look in chit chat under "how many times do you smoke pot a day".

[Edelweiss]

I don't do any hard drugs, so i don't fueling any mafia. The pot I'm smoking comes from Holland, were pot is officially tolerated.

[guerrillaradio]

"All lefties are drug users of some sort"

Are they still taking applications for dumbest right-wing quote of all time??

[vox]

"They are probably people who buy weapons and use their money and power to corrupt the political system of the countries that they operate from."

I agree, as long as SN is talking about the CIA, which has used drug money (http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/blum1.html) to support its corruption of an elected government in Nicaragua (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/CIADrugs_WBlum.html). And let's not forget about the heroin trade during the Viet Nam war.

If you register, you can read the first chapter of Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/webb-alliance.html) by Gary Webb and the first chapter of Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press (http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cockburn-white.html) by Cockburn and St. Clair. Good stuff, both of them.

vox

(Edited by vox at 5:16 pm on Aug. 11, 2002)

[marxistdisciple]

The only drugs I use are alcohol and caffine. What, are the right so short of arguments that they start saying lefties are drug users with brain damage?

I used to smoke, which I gave up when I found out Japan Tobacco owned rights for future lung cancer drugs.
I used to smoke pot ocassionally, but I stopped because I found it made me too anxious about things (and I am already an anxious person.)

So, what's the point exactly? Liberals are the root of all evil/drugs/terrorism? It's like me saying because you might of bought a drink at an east coast Irish bar you were funding the IRA (as many of them were shown to fund them.)

It's ridiculous quite frankly. You got any nike clothes? Then you are funding sweatshop labour. That doesn't mean you condone it. It's like saying because someone voted republican they therefore condone the bombing of Afghanistan. The only link is money. Money doesn't mean anything, it doesn't symbolise people's beliefs.

Maybe that's the thing that confuses you right wingers. Just because I buy food at ASDA (which is owned by Walmart) doesn't mean I therefore am linked directly with what they do to small town stores.

You can trace the train of money to something deplorable if you try hard enough. Aparently 1 in 10 bank notes have traces of cocaine on them. Probably some of the bills I use were in the hands of drug dealers, is that my fault? Is it people's fault that when they buy ecstacy the money goes to a nasty person? If so, how can they prevent it?

When you go to buy a pint of milk do you first go check to make sure the head of the company has fair views, and isn't linked to any kind of terrorism? Of course not. It shouldn't be a person's responsibility for where their money ends up somewhere down the line, don't talk bull.

[Stormin Norman]

There is no evidence that the crack cocaine explosion was planned and carried out by the CIA. However, the CIA recently declassified information implicating them for their involvement in drug trafficking. How do you think they fund many of their black operations?

[Lardlad95]

man fuck the whole terrorism thing.

The Gun industry supports terrorism. The plane industry fuels terrorism....didnt they use planes to destroy the WTC building?

Man fuck those claims. Let the people get high if they want.

People don't give a fuck if people get drunk and if drugs were legal then it wouldn't fuel black market operations

[Imperial Guardian]

Well, i consider myself right-wing liberalist.
I believe capitalism is a good system (when developed properly, under certain conditions), but I must say I do support the legalisation of all drugs.
Why? Bcos
a.) Legalisation would cut the money to the terrorists like Al-Quaeda.
b.)It would also cut crime by about 60-80% (a personal guess, but think about it. Most organised criminal groups like the mafia thrive off drug-dealing. Heroin addicts rob for money to get it, etc etc). this would lead to a significantly more peaceful society, and therefore capitalism would flourish under these conditions.
c.) Think how much profit could be made off of taxation, especially of marijuana. More jobs and buisnesses could be created.
d.) Legalising would remove the social stigma, so we could educate children about them. Also, with all drugs being legal, kids wouldn't want to rebel and take drugs, beacuse it would be socially accepted. In other words less people would take them bcos it wouldn't be 'naughty' anymore.
e.) The war on drugs is unwinnable. We have been trying for years with laws against them, and drug use has increased. The laws are just seeming to make them worse.....Although I don't think people should take drugs such as cocaine, and certainly not heroin, I do think they should be legalised, bcos it would solve the many problems the drug laws cause.
f.) I smoke cannibas and very very occasionally take ectasy.

P.S sorry if i went off the point a bit there!

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Imperial Guardian on 2:48 am on Aug. 12, 2002
Well, i consider myself right-wing liberalist.
I believe capitalism is a good system (when developed properly, under certain conditions), but I must say I do support the legalisation of all drugs.
Why? Bcos
a.) Legalisation would cut the money to the terrorists like Al-Quaeda.
b.)It would also cut crime by about 60-80% (a personal guess, but think about it. Most organised criminal groups like the mafia thrive off drug-dealing. Heroin addicts rob for money to get it, etc etc). this would lead to a significantly more peaceful society, and therefore capitalism would flourish under these conditions.
c.) Think how much profit could be made off of taxation, especially of marijuana. More jobs and buisnesses could be created.
d.) Legalising would remove the social stigma, so we could educate children about them. Also, with all drugs being legal, kids wouldn't want to rebel and take drugs, beacuse it would be socially accepted. In other words less people would take them bcos it wouldn't be 'naughty' anymore.
e.) The war on drugs is unwinnable. We have been trying for years with laws against them, and drug use has increased. The laws are just seeming to make them worse.....Although I don't think people should take drugs such as cocaine, and certainly not heroin, I do think they should be legalised, bcos it would solve the many problems the drug laws cause.
f.) I smoke cannibas and very very occasionally take ectasy.

P.S sorry if i went off the point a bit there!

Wow, this is one of the most progressive posts I ever saw here by a cappie. I entirely agree with you, IG!

[Anonymous]

I agree somewhat. I think we should stop the war on drugs. However I don't think drugs of any kind should be taxed to pay for any new fucking social programs.

[President Dick Nixon]

"a.) Legalisation would cut the money to the terrorists like Al-Quaeda. "
Bullshit. Al Qaeda does not make money from drug trafficking.

"b.)It would also cut crime by about 60-80% (a personal guess, but think about it. Most organised criminal groups like the mafia thrive off drug-dealing. Heroin addicts rob for money to get it, etc etc). this would lead to a significantly more peaceful society, and therefore capitalism would flourish under these conditions."
Drug use will skyrocket taking the crime with it. Dope wars are not very common occurances. Crime as a result of drug use is.

"c.) Think how much profit could be made off of taxation, especially of marijuana. More jobs and buisnesses could be created."
More people on dope. It would be ruthless and immoral for people working for Big Weed to push their products onto children and other otherwise non-drug users.

"d.) Legalising would remove the social stigma, so we could educate children about them. Also, with all drugs being legal, kids wouldn't want to rebel and take drugs, beacuse it would be socially accepted. In other words less people would take them bcos it wouldn't be 'naughty' anymore."
The forbidden fruit theory is completely illogical. Children do not use drugs to rebel from the traditional order of things. Tobacco is legal, there is a greater number of tobacco users than marijuana users. If you honeslty believe that the use of drugs will not go up as a result of liberalising the policies you are a crackhead.

"e.) The war on drugs is unwinnable. We have been trying for years with laws against them, and drug use has increased. The laws are just seeming to make them worse.....Although I don't think people should take drugs such as cocaine, and certainly not heroin, I do think they should be legalised, bcos it would solve the many problems the drug laws cause. "
Bullshit. The war on drugs can be changed or modified. You do not know how much it actually helps. Without such drug control, drug use would be much more rampant.

Face it IG, you will have hard drug use everywhere. Normal communities would be ruined. Children and teenagers would "try" hard drugs at an early age, trying such drugs would likely get them addicted immediately. Underproduction would grow as more people are addicts to hard drugs. Everyone in the lower class would be using drugs as they do tobacco now to relieve their social problems. You are a complete lunatic, your ideas will bring society into anarchy and chaos. How old are you?

Malte,
There is nothing at all progressive about such policies and you know it. If there is, I would love to hear it.

[Imperial Guardian]

Thank you......
Just bcos i believe in capitalism, doesn't mean i don't believe in the current 'all-drugs are bad' status-quo.
goes to show, the drugs issue has little to do with political standing.
I think the only reason drugs are still illegal is bcos the tobacco and alcohol companys fear them.
I can see where they are coming from , they could lose alot of money, and alot of people would be put out of work. But the amount of companys created through legalisation would benefit the economy on a whole. Plus it would create good competetion between different drugs companies (e.g. tobacco competing with marijuana), and more jobs on the whole.
Alternatively, existing tobacco and alcohol companies could start selling and producing different types of drugs for the consumer. This would incraese profits , increase employment, and the poeple and companies would both be happy. Plus we'd have a dramatic decrease in crime=safer streets=happier, more keen workforce.
Plus a decrease in drug addicts, and alot of money from taxation to the state (which could be used to sort out the NHS for example).
Also, could you imagine how cool buying a 10 pack of 'Marlborough-Marijuana joints' would be!?

[President Dick Nixon]

Tobacco and alcohol companies do not fear them because they will OWN them if they are legal. They will push them onto minors and create more users as a result. They will add addictives to relatively unaddictive drugs to get more customers. So much for your wholesome malboro weed. You are an airhead to believe safer streets will come from a greater number of crackheads.

fortunately for me, people are too smart to be as dumb as you are, to allow such corruption, immorality, crime, and degradation to happen.

[Imperial Guardian]

''Bullshit. Al Qaeda does not make money from drug trafficking. ''
Ok, well it's what I heard. If not Al-Qaeda, then the murderous people who traffik it.
''Drug use will skyrocket taking the crime with it.''
Why? How can that possibly be true?
Why wouldcrime incraese.....It wouldn't happen beacuse companies would be selling, safer, cleaner, potent drugs. No one would buy street-quality drugs off of criminals, therefore, how would the crime rate skyrocket?
''Crime as a result of drug use is.''
Explain. I smoke pot, take ectasy, and drink alcohol. I've never been in trouble with police, nor do I consider myself a criminal (apart from the obvious fact i'm breaking the law by possessing these drugs).
Yes, it's true heroin addicts steal and rob for money. But with legalisation, these addicts would not be stealing or robbing. They'd be buying it for a cheaper price off of the comapnies (yes, a cheaper price. Heroin dealers often raise the price to about £40 a hit when they know they're 'customer' is addicted.).
''Dope wars are not very common occurances.''
Um, Colombia.
''It would be ruthless and immoral for people working for Big Weed to push their products onto children and other otherwise non-drug users. ''
Not atall. Tobacco companies and alcohol companies are doing it now! All companies have the right to advertise to whoever they want. All consumers have the right to a choice.
Plus , with better drugs education, kids would be able to make a 'non-bullshit' choice.
''The forbidden fruit theory is completely illogical. Children do not use drugs to rebel from the traditional order of things.''
Why do they do it then? Lack of education? Wrong type of education? I knew a kid at school who said, ''i'm gonna stop smoking when i'm 16 bcos it wont be illegal anymore.'' He was a twat, but he did!
''The war on drugs can be changed or modified''
True, and it has been constantly changed and modified for decades. Has it worked? no. If people want to take drugs, they will, legal or not. I should know.
. '' You do not know how much it actually helps. ''
Give me some figures to show how much it's 'helped' then.
''trying such drugs would likely get them addicted
immediately.''
Recent surveys showed only 1 in 10 cocaine users become addicted. I'm not sure of the source, but you'll have to trust me. As for other drugs.
LSD: Not addictive.
Marijauna. Not addictive.
Ecatsy: Not physically addictive.
etc etc Apart from heroin, crack-cocaine. And, oh! Alcohol, which is legal!
''Everyone in the lower class would be using drugs as they do tobacco now to relieve their social problems.''
So, why is it any different then? And how could it be any worse? Also, many social problems are caused by crime. Since crime would be dramatically reduced, there'd be fewer social problems, therefore, less drug use. It's simple logic.
''your ideas will bring society into anarchy and chaos. ''
anarchy? so the legalisation of all drug's will bring about a non-heirarchal society. interesting.....
How old are YOU? And what's it got to do with anything?

[Imperial Guardian]

''They will add addictives to relatively unaddictive drugs to get more customers. ''
Ok, then maybe it should be monitored by the state. Or maybe the state should distribute the harder drugs.
''You are an airhead to believe safer streets will come from a greater number of crackheads. ''
But there wont be a graeter number of crackheads!
Jesus! What do i have to do to make you understand this!? Are You listening!?
Try paying attention to what i'm arguing, rather than attacking me personally , airhead.
''to allow such corruption, immorality, crime, ''
Idiot! Take a look around! the majority of crime is drugs-related!
As for immorality....Well, you must want alcohol, caffine, and nictotine banned too then, because alcohol kills around 50,000 people here in the U.K every year...That could be said to be pretty immoral.....especially when you comapre it to the deaths occured by illegal drugs:
Heroin: around 1000
ectasy: around 30-50 (usually beacuse people 'double-dose'. This is bcos they are uneducated about it, an don't know that double-dosing can be fatal).
Marijuana: 0 (no-one's ever died from marijuana)
LSD: 0
..................I think you get the picture.
Also, recent figures have shown that over 50% of people here in the UK have tried marijuana. ...So much for the drug-laws working.
3 million people take ectasy here every weekend..... Yes, the drug laws are working then...NOT!
''Tobacco and
alcohol companies do not fear them because they will OWN them if they are legal.''
That's what i meant by:
*Alternatively, existing tobacco and alcohol companies could start selling and producing different types of drugs for the consumer. *
''people are too smart to be as dumb as you are''
lol....... You sound really, REALLY , fucking retarded yourself.........

[President Dick Nixon]

Thank you...... Just bcos i believe in capitalism, doesn't mean i don't believe in the current 'all-drugs are bad' status-quo

I can see no reason why the state should reward weakness and degeneracy.

Why? How can that possibly be true?

Considering the fact that Cocaine is a highly addictive narcotic, it would seem nothing more than common sensical that when made available to the general public using a massive state and legal distribution system criminals could only dream of we would experience a sharp increase in drug addiction.

Why wouldcrime incraese.....It wouldn't happen beacuse companies would be selling, safer, cleaner, potent drugs. No one would buy street-quality drugs off of criminals, therefore, how would the crime rate skyrocket?

Well let us suppose for a moment that we legalized crack-cocaine, a highly addictive narcotic, and had the state or private corporations heavily market it heavily to minorities in poverty stricken areas. Now let us look at the effects of this drug:

Use of cocaine in a binge, during which the drug is taken repeatedly and at increasingly high doses, leads to a state of increasing irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This may result in a full-blown paranoid psychosis, in which the individual loses touch with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations.

By legalizing such drugs, you immediately take away an economic outlet for advancement in minority communites. You also make a highly addictive narcotic, another one and we have seen what alcohol had done to such communities, readily available to people struggling to make the bills pay as it is. I do not like to predict the future myself, but I for one, would not want to live in such an area upon legalization of drugs like cocaine.

Explain. I smoke pot, take ectasy, and drink alcohol. I've never been in trouble with police, nor do I consider myself a criminal (apart from the obvious fact i'm breaking the law by possessing these drugs).

You are breaking the law, engaging in irrational activity, and are thus a criminal.

Yes, it's true heroin addicts steal and rob for money. But with legalisation, these addicts would not be stealing or robbing. They'd be buying it for a cheaper price off of the comapnies (yes, a cheaper price. Heroin dealers often raise the price to about £40 a hit when they know they're 'customer' is addicted.).

I was not even under the impression you were ACTUALLY suggesting we LEGALIZE Heroin which is HIGHLY addictive that most drug abusers that I know are actually afraid of. Please clarify this statement. Do you support the legalization of HERION? Did I hear that right?

Um, Colombia.

The United States has yet to declare war on Columbia

Not atall. Tobacco companies and alcohol companies are doing it now! All companies have the right to advertise to whoever they want. All consumers have the right to a choice.
Plus , with better drugs education, kids would be able to make a 'non-bullshit' choice.

Consumers have the right to purchase products in a social context governed by the rule of law. Rights are accorded by an agreement of political association and are thus a feature of the community not the individual. Outside a social context, when isolated, and individual has no such rights. The DARE program in the United States has been an utter failure. Educating children about drugs does little to stop their desire to abuse them, making them inaccessible or using them punishable does deter such behavior.

Why do they do it then? Lack of education? Wrong type of education? I knew a kid at school who said, ''i'm gonna stop smoking when i'm 16 bcos it wont be illegal anymore.'' He was a twat, but he did

They do drugs because it is “a thing to do” when you are that age. They do drugs because they have access to them. They do drugs because they are for the most part inexperienced with them.

True, and it has been constantly changed and modified for decades. Has it worked? no. If people want to take drugs, they will, legal or not. I should know.

We can stop drugs by cutting them off the source, and do not even refer to your government’s ridiculous attempt to fight drugs with the gloves on. We can eradicate drugs if we chose to, if we have the moral strength of will to say enough is enough and we will stop drug abuse by any means necessary.

Give me some figures to show how much it's 'helped' then.

We helped take criminals off the street and we also seized a lot of cocaine on its way to teenagers.

Powdered cocaine and crack cocaine are readily available in South Carolina. According to Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) data, federal law enforcement officials in South Carolina seized 102.1 kilograms of cocaine in FY2001. U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) data indicate that 70.5 percent of all drug-related federal sentences in South Carolina in FY2000 were cocaine-related compared with 44.2 percent nationwide.

Here are the costs of Crack Cocaine to the State of South Carolina annually:

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1.9 percent of South Carolina residents reported having abused cocaine at least once in the past year compared with 1.7 percent nationwide. Cocaine-related treatment admissions to publicly funded facilities decreased from 5,643 in fiscal year (FY) 1997 to 5,018 in FY2000 then increased to 5,420 in FY2001, according to the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services. (See Table 1.) From FY1997 to FY2001, crack cocaine abuse accounted for at least 80 percent of all cocaine-related treatment admissions. According to the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), in 1999--the most recent year for which these data are available--the number of cocaine-related treatment admissions per 100,000 population in South Carolina (121) exceeded the number per 100,000 nationwide (104).

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/1222/cocaine.htm

Recent surveys showed only 1 in 10 cocaine users become addicted. I'm not sure of the source, but you'll have to trust me. As for other drugs.

If you cannot provide evidence to back up your claims then I must dismiss them as arbitrary. Nevertheless, until you provide me an objective source to your assertion I will thus reply to you.

Cocaine is highly addictive, especially in the crack form. In studies, animals addicted to cocaine preferred the drug to food, even when it meant they would starve. Many users report being "hooked" after only one use. The addiction is both psychological and physical.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fscoke.htm

Cocaine also has NUMEROUS medical side effects.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Co...aine3.html#long (http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Cocaine/cocaine3.html#long)

LSD: Not addictive

LSD is not addictive but LSD can have many long term side effects. I have personally witnessed such occurrences. A friend of mine who used to use LSD in the past was on his way home from work one day and started hallucinating. He ran off the road into a building and has been paralyzed ever since. Regardless, please tell me why such filth should be legalized and given APPROVAL by the state. Why should unreason be rewarded?

Many LSD users experience flashbacks, recurrence of certain aspects of a person's experience, without the user having taken the drug again. A flashback occurs suddenly, often without warning, and may occur within a few days or more than a year after LSD use. Flashbacks usually occur in people who use hallucinogens chronically or have an underlying personality problem; however, otherwise healthy people who use LSD occasionally may also have flashbacks. Bad trips and flashbacks are only part of the risks of LSD use. LSD users may manifest relatively long-lasting psychoses, such as schizophrenia or severe depression. It is difficult to determine the extent and mechanism of the LSD involvement in these illnesses.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/lsd.html

Marijauna. Not addictive.

Q: Can people become addicted to marijuana?

A: Yes. While not everyone who uses marijuana becomes addicted, when a user begins to seek out and take the drug compulsively, that person is said to be dependent or addicted to the drug. In 1995, 165,000 people entering drug treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, showing they need help to stop using the drug.

According to one study, marijuana use by teenagers who have prior serious antisocial problems can quicky lead to dependence on the drug.

Some frequent, heavy users of marijuana develop a tolerance for it. "Tolerance" means that the user needs larger doses of the drug to get the same desired results that he or she used to get from smaller amounts.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html

Ecatsy: Not physically addictive.

Why should such filth be legalized and even SOLD and PROMOTED by the state? This is state supported unreason.

MDMA has both common and unique properties. It shares, with other amphetamine-like drugs that potentiate dopamine (d-amphetamine, methamphetamine, cathinone), the characteristic of inducing degeneration in axons in fasciculus retroflexus, projecting from lateral habenula ventrally to target cells in SN, VTA, and raphe nuclei. As such, it destroys an important descending negative feedback system from forebrain projections onto the monoaminergic cells that innervate them. Some of these drugs also induce degeneration in other neuropil (for example, the amphetamines on dopamine terminals in caudate), but studies of degeneration also show that MDMA has other, unique long-lasting effects on brain. There is a very pronounced profile of degenerating terminals in ventral pons (presumably serotonergic terminals on the giant oral pontine cells) and also scattered axons in the trigeminal nerve

http://165.112.78.61/Meetings/MDMA/MDMAAbs.html

etc etc Apart from heroin, crack-cocaine. And, oh! Alcohol, which is legal!

I have already covered cocaine and I barely even have to begin to describe the negative effects of herion, even from the historical example of the Opium War in China. Here are some facts about alcohol:

- An alcohol-related motor vehicle crash kills someone every 33 minutes and nonfatally injures someone every two minutes.

- In 1999, 15,786 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. That's 38% of the year's total traffic deaths.

- Approximately 1.4 million drivers were arrested in 1998 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That's just over 1% of the estimated 120 million or more episodes of impaired driving that occur among U.S. adults each year.

- About 3 in 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash in their lifetimes.

- Nearly three-quarters of drivers convicted of driving while impaired are either frequent heavy drinkers (alcohol abusers) or alcoholics (alcohol dependent).

- The National Safety Council estimates that alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes cost the nation $26.9 billion in 1998.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/09_Alco...uries_%20ED.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/09_Alcohol_%20Injuries_%20ED.htm)

Alcohol also promotes unreason and degeneracy, two things in my state that I would not tolerate. Alcohol and Tobacco are bad enough as it is, the last thing we need is the legalization of even MORE drugs which can result in similar fatalities and injuries.

So, why is it any different then? And how could it be any worse? Also, many social problems are caused by crime. Since crime would be dramatically reduced, there'd be fewer social problems, therefore, less drug use. It's simple logic.

This reply presupposes that I support the legalization of Alcohol and Tobacco, two degenerate drugs that subsidize unreason and cause enough deaths and crime as it is, ruining the lives of even more addicts. Cocaine, Ecstasy, and LSD all have long term degenerate effects on one’s body and cocaine especially is associated with violent crime. Your solution is to legalize these drugs, presupposing that their legalizition well end drug related crime and even cause LESS abuse of it. Thousands of people die each year as a consequence of the legalization of alcohol and the legalization of alcohol has NOT stopped alcohol abuse. I see no valid reason to repeat the same mistake. The last thing we need in this world are MORE Rodney Kings driving on the freeway 100 miles an hour, high as a kite, and attacking police officers. What logic, and what antecedent evidence, indicates to you that if such drugs were legalized use of them would decrease?

Cocaine, particularly crack, is the drug most often associated with violent crime in South Carolina. Law enforcement officials across the state report that cocaine distributors frequently carry firearms and have committed homicides, drive-by shootings, and assaults. Further, crack abusers often commit crimes to support their drug habits, resulting in increased property crime and violent crime rates.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/1222/cocaine.htm

anarchy? so the legalisation of all drug's will bring about a non-heirarchal society. interesting.…

When you speak of a non-hierarchial society perhaps clue me in as to what exactly you are talking about.

How old are YOU? And what's it got to do with anything?

I am 22 years old and seen personally several of my friends get addicted to such drugs which have ruined their lives and potential. Several friends of mine have also been KILLED in accidents involving the use of illegal drugs.

goes to show, the drugs issue has little to do with political standing.

The legalization of drugs is a political issue, especially in states like New Mexico. Since when has drug legalization not been a political issue?

I think the only reason drugs are still illegal is bcos the tobacco and alcohol companys fear them.

Perhaps hard drugs like crack-cocaine, associated with out of control violent crime in the 80’s, are illegal because it is scientifically proven by massive empirical evidence they cause degenerate physiological side effects. Perhaps drugs are illegal because society has decided that ENOUGH irresponsibility is promoted with alcohol and tobacco as it is. You seem to be suggesting some kind of corporate conspiracy here. I think you have spent just a little too much times here at Che-Lives.

I can see where they are coming from , they could lose alot of money, and alot of people would be put out of work. But the amount of companys created through legalisation would benefit the economy on a whole. Plus it would create good competetion between different drugs companies (e.g. tobacco competing with marijuana), and more jobs on the whole.

I do not see how peddling such poison is a good idea, especially in the spirit of materialism of all things. In fact, I do not even see why such nonsense should even be considered. American citizens are in an irresponsible and degenerate state as it is and I do not see why American citizens need access to even more filth and degeneracy. I do not see why highly addictive drugs, unreason, should be promoted by the state and I do not see why your excuse, well it will make money, is going to cut it. Even if pot, ecstasy, and LOL even crack cocaine are made available, SOLD and PROMOTED by the state to its citizens, I do not see how that is going to stop Joe Six Pack from getting wasted after getting home from work either. Alcohol is responsible for BILLIONS of dollars in tax payer paid for health problems every year. We do not need to exacerbate the problem even more.

Alternatively, existing tobacco and alcohol companies could start selling and producing different types of drugs for the consumer. This would incraese profits , increase employment, and the poeple and companies would both be happy. Plus we'd have a dramatic decrease in crime=safer streets=happier, more keen workforce.

You would have a more degenerate population indulging in addictive drugs and unreason. This would effect minorities especially, who have liquor stores on every corner, and massive amounts of crime. Who would profit off of this? The Government and degenerate sick materialists. Many minorities are heavily involved in such activities, to make money, cutting off the drug trade could provide them with even LESS of an opportunity to increase their standard of living translating into even more crime by that is a hypothetical and I like facts, not hypotheticals. Making drugs even MORE readily accessible to people in poverty will EXACERBATE their problems. Cocaine is a highly addictive drug, like tobacco and like alcohol. Legalizing Cocaine would FOR SURE cost the state BILLIONS in health related problems every year.

Plus a decrease in drug addicts, and alot of money from taxation to the state (which could be used to sort out the NHS for example).

You have provided no evidence whatsoever that legalizing addictive drugs like Cocaine would decrease drug addiction. The state makes enough money off the population as it is, which it wastes in excessive government spending. I see no reason to provide the federal government, run by the District of Criminals, with even more funding.

Also, could you imagine how cool buying a 10 pack of 'Marlborough-Marijuana joints' would be!?

I have seen several of my friends get addicted to pot and turn into complete losers. I do not see anything cool about dumbing myself down, that would hinder my ability to make these sharp and witty ripostes ;).

Ok, then maybe it should be monitored by the state. Or maybe the state should distribute the harder drugs.

The State should not be a drug dealer to children.

But there wont be a graeter number of crackheads!

Your supposition that making highly addictive drugs like crack cocaine readily and easily legally available to citizens will not increase abuse of the drug is ludicrous. Please provide evidence in support of your arbitrary claims.

Jesus! What do i have to do to make you understand this!? Are You listening!?
Try paying attention to what i'm arguing, rather than attacking me personally , airhead.

When you start providing evidence, rather than unsubstantiated opinion as well as ad hominem, I will start listening.

Idiot! Take a look around! the majority of crime is drugs-related!

Yes, criminals high on drugs commit a lot of crime in the United States and in the State of South Carolina. Why should I want criminals to have even MORE access to the drugs they are abusing when they commit such intolerable acts of violent crime?

As for immorality....Well, you must want alcohol, caffine, and nictotine banned too then, because alcohol kills around 50,000 people here in the U.K every year…

To compare caffeine to crack cocaine or heroin is beyond absurdity. Alcohol is an addictive drug that causes ENOUGH fatalities as it is, even more of a reason why not to legalize other drugs and narcotics. Once again your reply presupposes I support how alcohol is used and abused in the United States today, that is not the case.

That could be said to be pretty immoral.....especially when you comapre it to the deaths occured by illegal drugs

Alcohol is an immoral vice, it is a drug that subsidizes unreason.

Heroin: around 1000 ectasy: around 30-50 (usually beacuse people 'double-dose'. This is bcos they are uneducated about it, an don't know that double-dosing can be fatal).
Marijuana: 0 (no-one's ever died from marijuana) LSD: 0 ..................I think you get the picture.

All these drugs are illegal and NOT as readily accessible as a Coca Cola, a Bud Light, or a pack of Camel Lights. I have not seen any studies like Coca Cola to violent crime either, maybe you have, if that is the case please show me such evidence. And while you are looking it up, PLEASE once again source the ^^ above arbitrary claims you have made since I have to once again dismiss such unsubstantiated figures out of hand.

Also, recent figures have shown that over 50% of people here in the UK have tried marijuana. ...So much for the drug-laws working.

Q: How many teens smoke marijuana?

A: Contrary to popular belief most teenagers have not used marijuana and never will. Among students surveyed in a yearly national survey, only about one in five 10th graders report they are current marijuana users (that is, used marijuana within the past month). Fewer than one in four high school seniors is a current marijuana user

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html

I would say the above is a sign of success ^^.

Once again provide evidence to support your arbitrary claim.

3 million people take ectasy here every weekend..... Yes, the drug laws are working then...NOT!

No source? This is becoming quite habitual I see.

That's what i meant by: *Alternatively, existing tobacco and alcohol companies could start selling and producing different types of drugs for the consumer. *

Perhaps you can give me some logical reason why such companies should SELL Herion and Crack-Cocaine to the general public.

lol....... You sound really, REALLY , fucking retarded yourself......…

Worthless ad hominem

One more thing, your posting style is incoherent and erratic. Can you please highlight my quoted text for I can more easily decipher your reply?

Ciao

America just hasn’t been the same since Dick Nixon……

(Edited by President Dick Nixon at 6:26 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

[Anonymous]

Its not anyones business what other people put in their bodies.

[President Dick Nixon]

Its not anyones business what other people put in their bodies.

It is completely my business when such drugs are abused, in a social context, putting me at risk and infringing upon my legally encoded rights.

You have altogether ignored my entire previous post. I do not feel the respect I deserve with such a mindless riposte such as yours. Perhaps if you start to get your brain functioning, you will be able to than post a quality argument instead of repeating the same refuted argument over again.

(Edited by President Dick Nixon at 7:03 am on Aug. 12, 2002)

[boadicea88]

Quote: from President Dick Nixon on 10:56 pm on Aug. 11, 2002
Its not anyones business what other people put in their bodies.

It is completely my business when such drugs are abused, in a social context, putting me at risk and infringing upon my legally encoded rights.

I do not feel the respect I deserve with such a mindless riposte such as yours.

A) What makes you think you deserve respect?
B) Putting you at risk? Clarify, please?
C) It's not your business what other people put into their bodies.

And oh BTW, Dick Nixon, what a shame that you had to waste so much space and time writing such a shitpotful of opinions. Now, your opinion is fine, but don't impose it on anyone else.

[President Dick Nixon]

A) What makes you think you deserve respect?

I've already explained why. I suggest you re-read.

B) Putting you at risk? Clarify, please?

I've already explained in my long post which you have obviously not read. I suggest you actually read it.

[/i]C) It's not your business what other people put into their bodies. [/i]

Do you not realize that you have simply rephrased the previous posters' claim which was based on personal stigma and no real facts?

[/i]And oh BTW, Dick Nixon, what a shame that you had to waste so much space and time writing such a shitpotful of opinions. [/i]

I have posted a great deal of statistics and studies. It is the liberal poster the one who had opinions instead of true statistics to back up his claims.

[Guest]

It really is so annoying that you "war on drugs" types can't see the simple fact that your 'war' has worsened the drug problem to the point where it seems hopeless. I'm not a drug user, but it's quite a simple task to compare two experiments: The Dutch approach and the American approach. Americans, like a dumb ape, bang at and attack the problem with their "toss 'em in jail and throw away the key' attitude - God, guns, and guts behind them. In Holland, they actually took a civilized approach more becoming of human beings. The Dutch decided that they would not tear apart lower income families by throwing most of their males in jail. And guess what? Surprise surprise! The sky isn't falling! In fact, the streets are all safe, millions of poor families aren't torn apart with half their members in jail, and law enforcement concentrates on more serious crimes. Hmmmm....where has America gotten with its approach. This is the type of stupidity that convinces me, and so many others outside America, that America will be a short lived empire. It will not be one of the great empires of history. While Greece, Rome, and the British Empire (ending its reign around WWII) all reigned in the hundreds of years, the American (world hegemonic) empire, is a paltry 50 years old and is already crumbling. With stupidity such as the simpleton drug war, is it any surprise?

[Guest]

i would say that almost all people are a drug user of some sort,
you have to distinguish bvetween them,,
alcohol is extremely unhealthy excepting small doses and widely abused.
cannabis. which seems to be the 'drug' of choice amoung these people (and myself) can hardly be called a menace to society, besides, as the second biggest cash crop in australia, its good for the economy because when you buy it over here, you're buying australian.

i have a rather right wing friend who smokes it, and i'm generally considered right wing myself so i could hardly generalise all people with leftist views
drug users.

Drifter,

[Edelweiss]

PDN, you are a blatant lier! Most what you wrote here is just bullshit. So much letters, and su much nonsense.
You are ignoring the facts. The Guest already mentioned Holland. In Holland less teens are smoking pot than in the US! This fact alone cracks most of your arguments. Or let's look at Switzerland, which had experimented with state controled distribution of Heroine to addictives. And guess what! The crime rates have fallen tremendously.
If you would be consistent with your arguments, alcohol and nicotine should be illegal too, alcohol does much more damage to your body than heroine. I think we all saw what happened when your country tried that. You founded the mafia in the US with that.

http://www.ac-company.org/en/country_en/ch...psystem_en.html (http://www.ac-company.org/en/country_en/ch_en/ch_helpsystem_en.html)

http://www.netaxs.com/~sparky/policy/dutch-stats.html

[Mazdak]

Execute drug traffickers....

As lenin's signature (the stalin quote)

"Death Solves everything, no man, no problem."

[STALINSOLDIERS]

to drug trafficars i say you liquidfy them burn them..they have no meaning to live..

[President Dick Nixon]

PDN, you are a blatant lier[SIC]!

Malte accuses me of lying, while proving NO such EVIDENCE that I have lied in anyway whatsoever.

Most what you wrote here is just bullshit. So much letters, and su much nonsense.

Once again, a cocktail of unsubstantiated opinion, nonsense, and argumentum ad hominem but for Malte nevertheless impressive.

You are ignoring the facts.

The burden of proof rests on he who asserts a positive. It has been asserted in this thread by others that legalizing hardcore drugs LOWERS drug abuse so lets take a look.

The Guest already mentioned Holland. In Holland less teens are smoking pot than in the US!

Well Malte, considering the fact the population of the United States is SEVENTEEN TIMES the size of Holland that sure is a shocking discovery.

The Netherlands

Population: 15,981,472 (July 2001 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/nl.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html)

United States

Population: 278,058,881 (July 2001 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/us.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

This fact alone cracks most of your arguments.

This retort alone demonstrates your reliance on the inductive logical fallacy of False Analogy.

Or let's look at Switzerland, which had experimented with state controled distribution of Heroine to addictives. And guess what! The crime rates have fallen tremendously.

From your website: Heroine substitution A new "scientific experiment" has started 1998: A small number of people with a long drug career has the opportunity to receive heroin as a substitution. The results of these programmes (improvement of health, less criminality, improvement of working condition etc.) were obvious and therefore the chances are very good that they become a definitive part of the official drug policy (see chapter: Betäubungsmittel-revision).At the present 1'250 people are in these substitution programme.

Absolutely no details of this “scientific experiment” are given whatsoever to examine. Even better, only 1,250 people have participated in this so called program. How Malte has derived crime rates have fallen tremendously from less criminality, especially amongst a program of ONLY 1,250 people REMAINS unknown.

If you would be consistent with your arguments, alcohol and nicotine should be illegal too, alcohol does much more damage to your body than heroine.

Heroin is a HIGHLY addictive drug Malte. You just don’t drink a beer and get addicted in the same way from snorting or smoking or injecting Heroin. Even most regular drug users that I know are AFRAID to get on Heroin. Heroin is not something you simply play around with, and it is NOT something you can compare to Nicotine.

Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

Reports from SAMHSA's 1995 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which collects data on drug-related hospital emergency room episodes and drug-related deaths from 21 metropolitan areas, rank heroin second as the most frequently mentioned drug in overall drug-related deaths. From 1990 through 1995, the number of heroin-related episodes doubled. Between 1994 and 1995, there was a 19 percent increase in heroin-related emergency department episodes.

According to the 1999 MTF, rates of heroin use remained relatively stable and low since the late 1970s. After 1991, however, use began to rise among 10th- and 12th-graders, and after 1993, among 8th-graders. In 1999, prevalence of heroin use was comparable for all three grade levels. Although past year prevalence rates for heroin use remained relatively low in 1999, these rates are about two to three times higher than those reported in 1991.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/heroin.html

I think we all saw what happened when your country tried that. You founded the mafia in the US with that.

Were you aware the Mafia was around before Prohibition? That’s what I thought.

In reference to your sources, the first one has already been addressed. The second website is LOL Sparky’s personal web page, how fitting, with statistics that supposedly come from the Netherlands embassy which cannot be found with the bunk link provided.

Nice argument, ROFL!

Thanks for being with me again today, America just hasn’t been the same since Dick Nixon.

(Edited by President Dick Nixon at 5:53 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[President Dick Nixon]

As for the Guest's worthless conjecture that will be dealt with shortly. I have to go walk Checkers. I will be back online this evening.

Ciao Malte!

(Edited by President Dick Nixon at 5:57 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[Edelweiss]

LOL, PDN. When I said that in the US more teens are smoking pot than in Holland, I was of course talking about percentages of the population. It remains a fact, and it's like I said, it cracks most of your arguments.
I don't know PDN, but obviesly you are not aware of the scientific significance of small experiments like there was in Switzerland. What evidence more do you demand??? The experiment succeeded, and soon Switzerland's drug policies will make the experiment officall drug policy of Switzerland.

[Edelweiss]

PDN, I know you'll be ignoring the facts until I'll found a source with a seal of Netherland's embassy, but here is one more source which proofs what I said:

http://www.taima.org/drugfacts/nl_usa.htm

[RedCeltic]

I have to go walk Checkers. I will be back online this evening.

You do know you're not the REAL Nixon right? Otherwise, there's a padded cell waiting for you in Belleview.

[Edelweiss]

One more for you, PDN:
http://www.lindesmith.org/library/tlcnr.html

[samaniego]

You've been watching far to many commercials.

[Edelweiss]

http://mondediplo.com/2001/01/18drugs
A PRAGMATIC PRESCRIPTION
Dealing with drugs the Swiss way

Had Switzerland's drug addicts not been injecting themselves in public places in broad daylight, the Swiss authorities would probably never have developed their unique pragmatic solution to the drug problem. Begun in 1994, it rests on the so-called "four pillars", of which the most controversial is the free distribution of heroin on prescription. This pragmatic approach is being watched from abroad with interest and scepticism.
by ANNE LEVY*

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


In the early 1990s Berne, along with other Swiss cities, achieved international notoriety when drug addicts began appearing in municipal parks injecting themselves in full view of the passing public. The American media coined the term "needle parks" to describe this much talked about phenomenon.

How had such a situation come about? The police and drugs welfare people had very different views of the addicts' presence in the cities but they agreed on one thing: having the addicts grouped together in the defined limits of a public park and left more or less to their own devices meant that they were not seen in other parts of town.

As a way of containing the drug problem, the city authorities decided this had something to recommend it. Drugs usage was no longer so visible to the public at large, and addicts could be given on-the-spot services and assistance. However, Swiss cities are relatively small communities and the problem could not be so easily contained.

Moreover, the possibility of open drugs usage was attracting drug users not only from smaller surrounding towns and villages, but also from abroad. The growing numbers meant that they soon exceeded their allotted space and became visible on the streets again, and people were up in arms. The tourist industry in particular was concerned that this would threaten Switzerland's image as a "clean and orderly" society.

Just as alarming, as the number of addicts grew, their health began to deteriorate. At that point, Switzerland began looking for long-term solutions. Several cities set up committees of experts where, for the first time, organisations from outside the public sector sat together with people from the municipal authorities. Realising that the idea of achieving a drugs-free society was illusory, they opted for pragmatism and sought to develop a model to take into account the needs of all concerned. Abandoning preconceived ideas and seeking to improve communications between the various partners, they adopted the now-famous "four pillars" approach :
- reduce the numbers of new consumers (prevention);
- increase the rate of successful drug rehabilitation (treatment);
- lessen the damage to health and work to reduce the exclusion of drug users
(survival aid/risk reduction);
- protect society from the consequences of drugs usage, and combat organised crime (repression) (1).

On prevention, the four pillars approach does not distinguish between legal and illegal drugs and assumes that the reasons for their consumption are identical (2). The aim of prevention is to strengthen the self-confidence of both adults and adolescents, to get them off drugs and to encourage them into a way of life that is not health-threatening. In addition, it aims to make contact with occasional users in the hopes of preventing them from becoming regular users.

On repression, the approach focuses on drug dealing and the laundering of drugs money, and in 1998 new laws were introduced to deal with this. This means that police efforts are no longer centred on drug users as such. "The consumers … are no longer at the centre of police interest" (3). The police's main interest is in preventing a return to the scenes of open drugs usage.

The aim of treatment is to provide health care for addicts, to encourage them to give up drugs and to help reintegrate them into society. There are no generally applicable treatments for drug addiction, and this means that a broad range of options has to be offered. Experience shows that it takes on average 10 years and several attempts before a user succeeds in giving up. The main factor is a person's desire to kick the habit.

So the social worker's job is basically to encourage the drug user to accept treatment. The possibility of acceptance is increased by the fact that treatment also reduces the associated risks. To this end, Switzerland has decided to offer a whole range of treatment options, from rehabilitation clinics and medical treatment to methadone on prescription, as well as provision of shelter, work and training. Heroin is also made available on prescription, on the basis that this is a valid aspect of treatment, as well as an aid to survival. In any event, it is only one of the several treatments on offer.

Medical and social monitoring

Heroin on prescription was launched in 1994 as part of a nationally-based research project and is today recognised as a vital part of official policy (4). It was driven by the recognition that numbers of addicts were living in situations of increasing wretchedness; Aids, hepatitis and other sexually transmittable diseases were rampant within this group; and existing treatments were not reaching large numbers of the most vulnerable addicts. So a new form of treatment had to be found for Switzerland's addicts.

The criteria for acceptance for treatment are extremely rigorous: applicants have to be adults, drug-addicted for at least two years, and must have started and dropped out of at least two other courses of treatment. They must have social and health problems, and are required to sign a written form of consent. Obviously the people accepted into the programme are a very difficult group, and the eventual results will have to be viewed in this light. Completing a course of treatment and maintaining a status quo in terms of health and social situation are enough in themselves to constitute success (5).

This programme has achieved an improvement in the psychological and physical health of its patients, and a rapid and verifiable decrease in their illegal consumption of heroin and cocaine (6). The researchers' report concludes: "Since the percentage of addicts pursuing the programme is above average, we are getting significant results in terms of health and life-style, which sometimes continue beyond the period of the treatment. A noticeable reduction in anti-social behaviours has also been noted."

Even a highly critical report by the World Health Organisation concluded that a heroin-based treatment as practised in Switzerland is feasible. It points to the improvement in the state of the patients' health and social reintegration, as well as a decline in levels of criminality and illegal consumption of heroin.

The treatment consists of between one to three injections of heroin a day, and medical, psychiatric and social monitoring. The patients no longer have to go looking for their drugs on the black market, and, in a further positive effect, they are accepting a long-term therapy that will provide future follow-up.

In the area of risk-reduction, the aim is to prevent further deterioration in the addicts' state of health and to stabilise their social integration. This has benefits for the rest of society: this "pillar" reduces the transmission of infectious diseases, and makes for savings in future social and health spending. Also, when their state of health and social integration are not declining - and are in fact improving - thanks to this helping hand, drug users are more likely to set themselves the objective of returning to a drugs-free life.

The key elements of this policy of risk-reduction are the night shelters, contact centres, and the possibility of getting new syringes at any time of day or night. Most towns in German-speaking Switzerland now have contact centres. These provide an injection room, a dining room, a bathroom and a counter where used needles can be exchanged. In the injection room, which is monitored by qualified personnel, the addicts are able to inject the drugs that they have brought, and do so in hygienic conditions. These contact centres were initially a source of violent controversy, but they are now viewed as indispensable, and this infrastructure has led to a considerable improvement in the state of the addicts' health.

From the police point of view, the existence of these facilities makes a return to scenes of open drugs use less likely; injecting in public places has decreased significantly and the population feels safer. The effect of the 10 years of this experiment has been a levelling-off in the number of addicts. Also, the rise in the average age of addicts suggests that the number of new addicts is decreasing. City parks can be given back to the public; the numbers of drugs-related deaths have dropped significantly; the rate of Aids infection among drug users has fallen, and their general state of health has improved.

Results such as these have encouraged other countries to follow the Swiss model. Contact centres for drug addicts have been set up in Germany, and a pilot experiment in heroin-prescribing is under way in Holland.

However some problems remain unresolved. Illegal trafficking in drugs is flourishing and remains well organised. And while young people may be consuming less heroin, they are also turning to legal drugs (alcohol and nicotine), cannabis, and synthetic drugs (ecstasy and amphetamines). So far no prevention measures have been adopted to deal with these.

Some of the programme's infrastructures, particularly in the area of risk reduction, are threatened by budget cuts and the new drugs-management approach is ahead of legislation. So a revision of federal laws on narcotics is eagerly awaited.


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2002 Le Monde diplomatique

[PunkRawker677]

"Recent surveys showed only 1 in 10 cocaine users become addicted. I'm not sure of the source, but you'll have to trust me. As for other drugs. "

Cocaine IS addictive, and very much so. Almost all people who have done cocaine more than 3 times in six months will be heavily addicted. PDN is right on this.

LSD: Not addictive

While LSD is not addictive, PDN is again right. LSD can ahve terrible side effects. A couple years ago i did LSD a few times. The last time i did it, i had a bad trip. I spent about 4 hours throwing up which dehydrated my body to a dangerous level. I personally know someone who jumped off my schools roof and died while they were on LSD.

Marijauna. Not addictive.

Marijuana, for me, has never been physically addictive. It is mentally addictive though. The feeling is great, and therefore is craving. I support legalization, because of the small amounts of side effects associated with this drug.

[Moskitto]

There was this guy who took LSD when he was 12 and it didn't work so he thought it was shit so never used it again. Then when he was 40 he was driving in a car with his family and had a flashback.

There was this other guy who took LSD and a monster came it to his house so he picked up an axe and started bashing it lots. Then when he came out of the trip he discovered that the monster was his wife and the axe was a red hot poker.

There was this other guy who was afraid of snakes and while he was taking LSD someone said to him "don't think about snakes" (yeah, that's a real clever thing to say isn't is) and he though he was filled with snakes and cut himself open.

And yeah, Cocaine (especially Crack) is very addictive.

Often people who take Ecstacy take 1 and don't get a high so next time they take 2 and don't get a high, so they take 3 which are pure and the dose kills them.

The same thing happens with heroin but people know their dose but if a purer batch comes along they overdose.

Heroin the first few times isn't addictive, the first time you take it it's basically like being in the ultimate sea of tranquility and people like that feeling so take it again and get a similar feeling but not as great. But they keep taking it and it becomes addictive. Then the dealer jacks up the price.

Also there's big problems caused by taking ecstacy and speed together. In Holland at nightclubs they test the PHP of tablets which dealers want to sell there so they avoid this problem.

And I wouldn't take drugs because i'm liable to drug tests.

[j]

To whoever claimed that legalization of drugs will hurt impoverished areas:

It is very easy to get drugs (crack, heroine, etc.) in impoverished areas. Hell, I can walk down the block and buy some crack right now if I wanted to--right outside the damn liquor store.

Do you know what the war on drugs is doing to these impoverished areas? Living in poverty means the loss of hope for many. The desire to escape is increased and thus the need for drugs and alcohol is increased. When you can't pay your bills and the threat of the street is on your mind 24-7, sometimes drugs make the most sense. I am not condoning the use but understand why many poor people abuse drugs. Illegal drugs are the main reason for street gangs. The bloods, the crips, etc. operate in all of our major cities and their business is drugs and the shit that goes along with them. People are getting shot in gang crossfire. People in gangs are getting killed. Young men are being put in jail because they can make a quick dollar selling or running drugs. When you are poor and living in unbearable conditions the fantasy of "living the American Dream" is a reality. The only way for many young people is through illegal ways. Minimum wage won't let you get ahead. The schools are in shambles, the number of mentally ill out on the streets is rising. Mentally ill people are some of the highest users of drugs. Without socialized medicine these people are not being treated. They therefore self-medicate with illegal drugs.

I am not saying the legalization of drugs will end the problems of our inner cities. In fact, drug use may increase as well as the number of domestic violence issues that are DIRECTLY related to poverty. But legalization would slow down the brutality of the gangs and the stranglehold they have on America's cities.

Drug use has a direct correlation to the state of affairs we find ourselves in. Capitalism aides drug use. Because capitalism fosters the development of an underclass, that underclass will always have the need for drugs. Don't you see how socialism would eliminate the underclass and therefore reduce the need for drugs?

You can not talk about legalization of drugs without talking about the economy that accompanies it.

j

[Moskitto]

Apparently concaine is very easy to get in my town and my town is also the biggest town for heroin in the biggest county for heroin in the UK.

[new democracy]

i am against any kind of drugs. but to be honest, one time when some girl that i like told me that i have as-face, i was so depresd so i snifed tipex. but i did it only once.

[Moskitto]

I was using some Dunlop glue which is really nasty stuff that you can't buy unless you're over 18 and you have to go and ask for it behind the counter. And apparantly people like to sniff it.

Well when I was using it, it released the vapours and it was like "urm, why the fuck would anyone want to sniff that?" It smelled absolutly foul, a sort of caustic smell, the stuff itself had a very interesting consistancy, sort of solid, until you mix it around a bit then it's like a gel, and it makes you feel really nausious.

But the glue, it was just the best. It sticks anything, and it's waterproof. It's the digger's choice as far as glue goes.

[Guest]

mikel de panama has never had sex..i doubt hes ever felt the breath of a girl in 5 miles of him.........anonamous user.

[Michael De Panama]

Okay. If you say so.

By the way, I don't think someone can feel the breath of a girl five miles away, smart guy.

[Stormin Norman]

Well, i consider myself right-wing liberalist.
I believe capitalism is a good system (when developed properly, under certain conditions), but I must say I do support the legalisation of all drugs.
Why? Bcos
a.) Legalisation would cut the money to the terrorists like Al-Quaeda.
b.)It would also cut crime by about 60-80% (a personal guess, but think about it. Most organised criminal groups like the mafia thrive off drug-dealing. Heroin addicts rob for money to get it, etc etc). this would lead to a significantly more peaceful society, and therefore capitalism would flourish under these conditions.
c.) Think how much profit could be made off of taxation, especially of marijuana. More jobs and buisnesses could be created.
d.) Legalising would remove the social stigma, so we could educate children about them. Also, with all drugs being legal, kids wouldn't want to rebel and take drugs, beacuse it would be socially accepted. In other words less people would take them bcos it wouldn't be 'naughty' anymore.
e.) The war on drugs is unwinnable. We have been trying for years with laws against them, and drug use has increased. The laws are just seeming to make them worse.....Although I don't think people should take drugs such as cocaine, and certainly not heroin, I do think they should be legalised, bcos it would solve the many problems the drug laws cause.
f.) I smoke cannibas and very very occasionally take ectasy.

P.S sorry if i went off the point a bit there!

Nice post, Imperial Guardian.

In response to Malte who replied, "Wow, this is one of the most progressive posts I ever saw here by a cappie. I entirely agree with you, IG!":

Yeah, I believe I said, more or less the same thing in the chit chat forum. I guess you chose to ignore it because you don't like me very much. I have seen some of your posts Malte and they are not very thoughtful at all. It's no wonder you're a communist, as you engage in selective thinking.

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:21 pm on Aug. 13, 2002

Well, i consider myself right-wing liberalist.
I believe capitalism is a good system (when developed properly, under certain conditions), but I must say I do support the legalisation of all drugs.
Why? Bcos
a.) Legalisation would cut the money to the terrorists like Al-Quaeda.
b.)It would also cut crime by about 60-80% (a personal guess, but think about it. Most organised criminal groups like the mafia thrive off drug-dealing. Heroin addicts rob for money to get it, etc etc). this would lead to a significantly more peaceful society, and therefore capitalism would flourish under these conditions.
c.) Think how much profit could be made off of taxation, especially of marijuana. More jobs and buisnesses could be created.
d.) Legalising would remove the social stigma, so we could educate children about them. Also, with all drugs being legal, kids wouldn't want to rebel and take drugs, beacuse it would be socially accepted. In other words less people would take them bcos it wouldn't be 'naughty' anymore.
e.) The war on drugs is unwinnable. We have been trying for years with laws against them, and drug use has increased. The laws are just seeming to make them worse.....Although I don't think people should take drugs such as cocaine, and certainly not heroin, I do think they should be legalised, bcos it would solve the many problems the drug laws cause.
f.) I smoke cannibas and very very occasionally take ectasy.

P.S sorry if i went off the point a bit there!

Nice post, Imperial Guardian.

In response to Malte who replied, "Wow, this is one of the most progressive posts I ever saw here by a cappie. I entirely agree with you, IG!":

Yeah, I believe I said, more or less the same thing in the chit chat forum. I guess you chose to ignore it because you don't like me very much. I have seen some of your posts Malte and they are not very thoughtful at all. It's no wonder you're a communist, as you engage in selective thinking.

Well, at least my posts are more thoughtfull than yours. Although I admit that not all posts of me are "thoughtfull", especially in Chit Chat. And I don't read every thread in Chit Chat, so I just don't have seen it.

[IzmSchism]

Malte are you like Jat Gatsby, from the novel, "The Great Gatsby." Do you admire your guests from afar? What is the deal. I would figure to see you post more often, and post more in this forum rather than 'chit chat?'

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from IzmSchism on 11:10 pm on Aug. 13, 2002
Malte are you like Jat Gatsby, from the novel, "The Great Gatsby." Do you admire your guests from afar? What is the deal. I would figure to see you post more often, and post more in this forum rather than 'chit chat?'

Hey, I'm not only posting in Chat Chat. That's not true!

[komsomol]

Malte has things to do.

[glamgirl610]

left handed ppl dont all do drugs. hehe i kno we're talking bout leftists, but i dont kno wat that is, so i'll think about lefties. hehehe
~Dana~

[Felicia]

Quote: from glamgirl610 on 7:39 pm on Aug. 16, 2002
left handed ppl dont all do drugs. hehe i kno we're talking bout leftists, but i dont kno wat that is, so i'll think about lefties. hehehe
~Dana~

oh my god :(

[suffianr]

Oh come on, this sort of shit gets old really fast...enough already, this is really boring the fuck out of me...STOP POLITICIZING DRUGS!

To anyone who still wishes to keep on floggin' a dead horse, "May the curse of Mary Murphy and her nine blind illegitimate children chase you so far over the hills of Hell that God herself couldn't find you with a Radio Telescope!"