Jump to content

Recommended Posts

recently the issue of "durgs" has been given a lot of publicity back at home. be it the use of medicinal pot, the push to decriminalize, the significance of opium trade to the survival of afgan insurgency, or the likelyhood of our current social conservative government cutting the funding to north america's first and only legal injection site. a site that has been proven to be effective in reducing heroin related overdoses, and decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS i might add.

 

i am curious, what are your thoughts on "durgs"? are they a social endemic, or are they just an other form of recreation with consequences not unlike tobacco, alcohol, gambling ect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Living in the Kootenays I have a new perspective on the "soft" drug

It's everywhere and you are hard pressed not to see it out in the open

And holy **** it's cheap

 

 

****in conservatives

The East End injection site has been needed for years. I hope it doesn't get scrapped

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah the harper government seems mentally conservative as well most of the time. but then again, that is their voter base.

 

as for the kooteneys, yeah it's like another form of currency, more popular than cash too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me the "durgs" issue is one that should be left up to the individual. i am not suggesting governments condone the indulgence, but would it not stand to reason that by making the the recreation illegal you are being denied the right to choose what you do or do not do to your body? can a government hold a neutral perspective on personal use, while at the same time punish trafficers and assist addicts?

the thing that frustrates me most about this is most countries will bend on the issue of personal liberty simply to win favor with a certain international police state. when thailand for instance announced their 'war on drugs' they impoverished thousands of indigenous hill tribe farmers who depended on the poppy crop as a livelihood yet provided not alternative means of subsistence. how does this promote people to change their ways of life? the same practice is taking place in afganistan, and throughout south america.

rather than a war on drugs, would our society not benefit more from a 'war on illiteracy', 'war on poverty', 'war on child labor', 'war on domestic abuse', 'war on human traficing'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that governments have is that durgs cost the taxpayer (who employ the polititians) an absolute fortune. I work in a profession with daily contact with people who exercise their 'right' to use 'recreational' durgs. They represent the majority of peopkle presenting to the ED and are a good proportion of those presenting to mental health units with acute psychosis needing admission.

Let me say this S L O W L Y so you get the message D R U G S A R E B A D !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok fair enough, cost to taxpayer. but by that rational, governments should be creating much more of a stink about tobacco, or booze. but they don't, they tax it, sometimes, but the taxes do not nearly cover the costs of care for victims of these two substances. by your rational governments should also make a war on junk food. where is the war on obesity? health care costs on obesity rival those of smoking related illnesses.

i never, if you actually read my posts, suggested that D R U G S A R E G O O D. but thank you for inferring that and giving me a child's type warning.

educating children, and unfortunately most adults as well, in a truthful manner about drugs is important. but foisting non substantiated propaganda(i'm not suggesting your point of mental health is as such) does nothing to create a healthy respect for substances of any sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean "non-substantiated propaganda"?

Have you stood waiting for a man crazed with amphetamines to stop swinging punches at the staff before suturing his self-inflicted wounds? Have you had to explain to a father that his 18 year old son is dead because walked in front of a train while he was off his head on LSD? Have you seen the old lady with multiple fractures after a teenager raped her while high on speed? This is not non-substantiated it is a daily reality.

There are a great many evils that we could declare war on but fair suck of the sauce bottle where should we start? By making a current problem even worse?

We tolerate alcohol and to a lesser extent tobacco because of their place in our history. But it should never be used to confer respectability or tolerance of other poisons.

Drugs are poisons and their use damages the body and mind. I refer to the poisons I prescribe as well. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary for the sake of our well being to use drugs. But in general the fewer chemicals we inflict on our delicate metabolisms the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossil, what exactly do you do for a living?

 

I'm sure mad people on drugs are worse than straight mad people, but would you say it was the drugs that drove them mad in the first place in the cases you mention?

 

Have you had many weed deaths or weed smokers swinging punches?

 

As for

> I refer to the poisons I prescribe as well.

have you seen the rather interesting articles at Counterpunch.org about informal surveys of doctors prescribing cannabis?

 

I don't want to sound antagonistic. I'm just curious.

 

While I think people should be able to do what they want if they don't harm others, I'm fast coming around to your delicate metabolism point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

once again, i don't think you have read my post well, and instead have responded with a standard knee jerk 'prescription'. as stated before, i am not suggesting that drugs are not dangerous, nor did i attempt to discredit your remark about mental illness. my remark about unsubstantiated propaganda is in regards to the standard type of scare tactics employed by those opposed to drugs much like your inference that what happens to some, they will happen to all.

 

i don't mean any disrespect, but did speed make that teenager rape that women? i find that unlikely, rather, you have an already disturbed individual committing a gruesome act while on speed. is it not likely that this person would commit the same act sober?

 

history? marijuana only became illegal in the USA in 1937. herododus alludes to it in his account of the persian empire. indigenous societies have been using drugs for millennia with a healthy level of respect and reverence for their power.

 

my point in this post is not to defend drugs, but rather to suggest that the current model of 'war on drugs' is flawed. mainly because it does not respect the average person's ability to make responsible choices. people will do drugs whether or not authorities approve of it. an honest debate about the realities and dangers of drugs is certainly needed. but obviously trying to scare kids away from all of them is not working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you classify a durg? Does it cause you to become addicited to it? Can it kill you the first time? Is it liquor courage to speak to a girl, or cause you to get in a fight? Is it that pack of cigs in your pocket where you need to smoke bc youre stressed?

 

All illegal and legal substances seemed to be group by the way the powers that be want them to. Cigs and alcohol are legal, yet all of you smoking cigs CANT quit, or have a very difficult time of of it with withdrawal symptoms. Thats not dangerous? A substance that YOU CANT FREAKING QUIT or kick the habit?

 

Alcohol leads to how many deaths each year in some way or another? Alcohol leads to how many domestic violence cases each year? Alcohol leads to how many barfights, fights and sporting events, etc?

 

Now what durgs are we talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think fossil is referring to the so-called hard drugs rather than weed right? I read an interesting article on weed in an Australian science magazine (Cosmos). It was a lengthy article that gave quite a fair airing of both sides. The verdict seemed to be that from a strictly scientific point of view the jury is very much out, and there are many scientists who don't agree that it is as harmful as some claim. However, and this also applies to many other drugs, they do generally tend to acknowledge the fact that it can tip otherwise mentally healthy people into psychosis etc. They did say that some people are more predisposed to this, but wouldn't have manifested if not for the catalyst of the drugs. I knew a guy back in Aus who completely messed up his own life, and those around him, because he was one such guy who was tipped over the edge by the drugs messing with how his body/brain worked. He ended in up an instituion. Daver, he wasn't a guy who would have done the crazy things normally. I reckon if not for the drugs he most likely would have lead a very normal life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

irrelevant. Legal or not they would have messed him up. The only possible way it may have affected things would have been that the attraction MAY have been less had they been legal. Regardless, even if legal, I'm sure they would have the same effect on others with similar dispositions. The biggest thing for me about the whole thing was not so much how much it messed him up (although that was extremely sad), but how much it screwed up his family and friends trying to cope with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not irrelevant at all. There's supposed to be a reason for drugs being illegal. One of the reasons given is that it's for our own protection. But that protection isn't there. So should they be illegal on that ground? I think not.

 

If drugs were not illegal, people could then freely demand the same quality control and health information they expect for say, margerine or cough mixture. Your acquaintance might then have been better informed about the risks he was running.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i am certain that fossil is referring to harder drugs. but i am too. i don't have to deal with the tragedies of drug use on a daily basis like fossil, and for that i am thankful. but i have witnessed personal friends transform from decent respectable people to thieves and prostitutes to support their cocaine, crack, and heroin dependencies. i have witnessed friends become raving lunatics at the hands of excessive LSD use. none of these things are pleasant to witness. but i have always tried to keep a fair opinion as to why these things have happened to them but not others. i have many other friends that have survived, live normal healthy lives, yet still indulge in the odd trip here or there.

 

did drugs change and for ever ruin my friends? yes. but did the current system of drug prevention do anything to advert this from happening? no. these people had personalities and personal histories that made them prone to tempting fate and pushing limits. some of them had tendencies for self destruction. but one thing that they all had in common was a lack of respect for their vices. it was something they needed for a variety of reasons stemming from before their addictions took hold, rather than something they enjoyed. of course once their addictions took hold it was too late. i have witnessed friends' lives destroyed by alcohol abuse as well. just as i know man a normal person that becomes a utter mad man after a few too many shots of whiskey.

 

so my point, hence my initial reference to vancouver's east end injection site, is that the drug issue is one that deserves more respect than simply, "these things are bad and must be eradicated along with their supporters". a dynamic approach to drugs in our society, be it legal or non-legal, is needed. one that addresses the very real dangers of drug use, while at the same time truthfully teaches the science, history, social dilemmas, and possible benefits from drug use; one that works to prevent abuse and promote safe healthy lives, yet also addresses the social scenarios that tend to develop drug dependency. a dynamic system would approach drug prevention from a realistic stance; it would understand that trying to scare kids off pot is not likely to work, and instead would concentrate its efforts on educating kids about the very real dangers of crystal meth amphetamine.

the current system does none of this. the current system does nothing more than alienate and further victimize people with legitimate problems in need of our help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in favour of realistic drug education but on the other hand, in Japan to this point, a stupidly blunt, one dimensional 'drugs are bad' policy seems to be working. Maybe ignorance is bliss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean11:
I think any of the drugs that Creek Boy likes should be banned, and savage punishments inflicted.
IMHO, I think if you want to participate in this thread, O11, you should respect the language and spelling of the person who started it. So stop talking about "DRUGS", the word is "durgs"!
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by daver:
but i have always tried to keep a fair opinion as to why these things have happened to them but not others. i have many other friends that have survived, live normal healthy lives, yet still indulge in the odd trip here or there.

did drugs change and for ever ruin my friends? yes. but did the current system of drug prevention do anything to advert this from happening? no. these people had personalities and personal histories that made them prone to tempting fate and pushing limits. some of them had tendencies for self destruction. but one thing that they all had in common was a lack of respect for their vices.
Well I don't think that really applies to all cases Daver. If we are talking addictive substances which chemically alter how our brain operates, then even if you have a healthy respect of your vices it's gonna be very difficult to pull out of the activity. That is the nature of drug addiction. No doubt a lot of people with drug addiction have a very healthy respect for their vices but can't resist it because of both the physical and psychological addiction created.


 Quote:
Originally posted by daver:
so my point, hence my initial reference to vancouver's east end injection site, is that the drug issue is one that deserves more respect than simply, "these things are bad and must be eradicated along with their supporters". a dynamic approach to drugs in our society, be it legal or non-legal, is needed. one that addresses the very real dangers of drug use, while at the same time truthfully teaches the science, history, social dilemmas, and possible benefits from drug use; one that works to prevent abuse and promote safe healthy lives, yet also addresses the social scenarios that tend to develop drug dependency. a dynamic system would approach drug prevention from a realistic stance; it would understand that trying to scare kids off pot is not likely to work, and instead would concentrate its efforts on educating kids about the very real dangers of crystal meth amphetamine.
the current system does none of this. the current system does nothing more than alienate and further victimize people with legitimate problems in need of our help.
Regardless of my views stated above, I tend to agree with you that policies do need to be looked at closely and more effective strategies put in place. I'm not so sure that legalization (not talking about weed) is the answer though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Bushpig:
Well I don't think that really applies to all cases Daver. If we are talking addictive substances which chemically alter how our brain operates, then even if you have a healthy respect of your vices it's gonna be very difficult to pull out of the activity. That is the nature of drug addiction. No doubt a lot of people with drug addiction have a very healthy respect for their vices but can't resist it because of both the physical and psychological addiction created.
i can't back up this assumption with any medical authority so i understand i could very well be wrong. but it always seemed to me that these people wouldn't have allowed themselves to become addicted in the first place if they started their adventure(for lack of a better word) off with respect for the drugs they were taken along with respect for themselves.

some might insist that if they had respect for the drugs and themselves in the first place, they simply would choose not to do them. this might be the case with many people. but the simply "drugs are bad" approach certainly doesn't offer any semblance of respect. it only offers fear. there are many people who are not willing to take "no" as an unequivocal truth. drugs, hard ones as well, can and do offer some very valuable opportunities to learn about your self, some are good, and some are bad, some i can fairly say i would not have had with out their aid. should i not have the freedom to make the educated choice as i do not damage or bring harm to others? and if i do so, should i not suffer the consequences just the same as i would suffer the consequences of any other anti social act?
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...