The "masks and vaccines are an affront to personal liberty" crowd continues policing what we can put into our bodies

[Noodlegawd]

Fine. Tell me how you think it should be. This...

It should be however any other lawful business is. Does the mafia distribute booze today? Do the Mexican cartels own Medmen?

...said to me that you think selling someone something they want shouldn't be against the law.

And? You must think you have a point.

 

[mrjurrs]

Good point, because there's no inconsistency in positions among the "you must wear a mask in a breezy outdoor restaurant (but only while walking to your table)" crowd.

Opposition to legalizing drugs might have something to do with the fact that the people pushing hardest for it are also pushing so hard for tons of funding to take care of addicts.

Personally, I'm all for legalizing everything but also think that if someone gets addicted, that's his/her problem and she/he should be held fully responsible for all his/her actions with no excuses considered.

Would you apply that to unvaccinated people getting covid? Do you believe the addicted are weak and other users strong?

 

[American]

Opium and cocaine products need to be legalized and supplied by the government at cost. Not to make life easier for addicts but to stop making vicious evil bastards rich and stop addicts from stealing from you and me to support their addiction.
Pot? There was never any reason to illegalize it.
Meth? Land with both feet on the heads of everyone involved.

Who's going to pay for this?

 

[Grand Mal]

OD'd? On pot?

No, junk. Heroin.

 

[Grand Mal]

Who's going to pay for this?

The addicts, when they buy their drugs.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Would you apply that to unvaccinated people getting covid?

In what way? If you choose not to get vaccinated and die of Covid as a result then yes, that's your problem.

Do you believe the addicted are weak and other users strong?

I don't have a belief one way or the other. My position on the issue has nothing to do with that. If I had to guess, I'd say that weakness or strength has little or nothing to do with whether one gets addicted after deciding to use a highly addictive drug. But the decision to use vs. not use it in the first place might be an indication of weakness or strength.

 

[Grand Mal]

It should be however any other lawful business is. Does the mafia distribute booze today? Do the Mexican cartels own Medmen?



And? You must think you have a point.

Well, if the government sells drugs at cost those drug dealers will be back to shoplifting cell phones for a living. That's what I was getting at.

 

[Cope]

Opium and cocaine products need to be legalized and supplied by the government at cost. Not to make life easier for addicts but to stop making vicious evil bastards rich and stop addicts from stealing from you and me to support their addiction.
Pot? There was never any reason to illegalize it.
Meth? Land with both feet on the heads of everyone involved.

I don't really disagree with this in theory but changing the rule of law simply because we have people not following the law is a rather absurd way of stopping people from breaking the law.
Pot in my book A-ok. I don't smoke but know plenty of people who do and go on to live rather fulfilling lives, daily.
Those who cannot, not me problem.
If we want to take the same approach to any and all drugs that people want legalized, I am A-ok with that too. As long as the addiction or their treatments aren't suddenly put upon me or the community to pay for.

The other thing I am unsure of is the ability of the government to produce ANY of the drugs, at cost, that is cheaper than a black market alternative.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I was a structural Ironworker for nearly thirty years and one of my best partners used to flash up a joint before breakfast, another at lunch time and run junk in the evening and he was rock-solid on the steel. If there was a decision to be made I had to make it but he was a good Ironworker. Which is not an easy thing to be.
Unfortunately he OD'd in Toronto when he was visiting his family.

When you see the pictures that people like to show of addicts, with the fit still stuck in their arm, lying dead in an alley, what they don't tell you is that it is REALLY difficult to OD on Heroin, but it is REALLY EASY to overdose on the crap that the drug dealers "cut" the junk with.

That trend started when the "civic minded" drug dealers became concerned that so many of their customers were dying from Yellow Fever (because they were sharing needles and passing it along amongst themselves) and started adding Quinine to the Heroin to "protect" the customers from Yellow Fever. Quinine is at lest two orders of magnitude more lethal than Heroin is and so a "small miscalculation" in the amount added, or a "slight irregularity" in the mixing has "unfortunate consequences". The trend continues with the addition of Fentanyl (only more so).

 

[Grand Mal]

I don't really disagree with this in theory but changing the rule of law simply because we have people not following the law is a rather absurd way of stopping people from breaking the law.
Pot in my book A-ok. I don't smoke but know plenty of people who do and go on to live rather fulfilling lives, daily.
Those who cannot, not me problem.
If we want to take the same approach to any and all drugs that people want legalized, I am A-ok with that too. As long as the addiction or their treatments aren't suddenly put upon me or the community to pay for.

The other thing I am unsure of is the ability of the government to produce ANY of the drugs, at cost, that is cheaper than a black market alternative.

I don't get why those drugs are illegal in the first place. When did heroin and cocaine become against the law, 1924 or so? After WW1, anyway. Far as I know there was no huge addiction problem when you could buy laudnum off the shelf in the drugstore. Certainly not like today, under prohibition.

 

[mrjurrs]

In what way? If you choose not to get vaccinated and die of Covid as a result then yes, that's your problem.



I don't have a belief one way or the other. My position on the issue has nothing to do with that. If I had to guess, I'd say that weakness or strength has little or nothing to do with whether one gets addicted after deciding to use a highly addictive drug. But the decision to use vs. not use it in the first place might be an indication of weakness or strength.

People don't incur expenses as they die? Or use health care resources if they don't?

Addiction is a health issue. Not everyone that uses drugs gets addicted, and we lose far more lives, economic power and social construct to legal drugs than illegal drugs.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I think that word is about 16 months old.

Only if 1986 is only 16 months ago. Of course, I suspect that neither one of us is organic chemistry gossip addicts, so we probably missed its use in the locker room.

 

[snakestretcher]

Opium and cocaine products need to be legalized and supplied by the government at cost. Not to make life easier for addicts but to stop making vicious evil bastards rich and stop addicts from stealing from you and me to support their addiction.
Pot? There was never any reason to illegalize it.
Meth? Land with both feet on the heads of everyone involved.

Portugal has enjoyed success with their approach.

Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?

The long read: Since it decriminalised all drugs in 2001, Portugal has seen dramatic drops in overdoses, HIV infection and drug-related crime

www.theguardian.com

Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer

In 2001, it became the first country to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.

time.com

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform

transformdrugs.org

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I find it hard to imagine that heroin and opium are anything close to safe or non-addictive, given the current wave of opioid deaths among older Americans. Do you have a source for "medical grade" heroin being safe from anything more... recent?

You might want to take a look at the situation regarding "Heroin overdoses" in those countries which have legalized its use and possession.

In April 2021, the Centre for Disease Control has estimated that the number of people in the USA who had died from overdose in the 12-month period to the end of September 2020 was 90,237.

...

There were 4,393 drug poisoning deaths registered in England and Wales in 2019 – the highest since comparable records began in 1993.


“Almost half of all drug-related deaths involved opiates such as heroin and morphine. However, cocaine deaths rose for the eighth consecutive year to their highest level,” the Office for National Statistics’ report said.
[SOURCE]
​

That makes the US rate around 270/million and the "England+Wales" rate around 74.26/million. I'd say that a reduction in deaths by about 72.5% indicates that there is some "slight" correlation - wouldn't you?

Or you might want to read "How Europe’s heroin capital solved its overdose crisis" to see how Portugal dealt with a drug addiction problem that was even worse than the one in the US.

PS - Did you know that, when Bayer resurrected CR Alder Wright's morphine diacetate in its search for synthetic Cocaine. When tested in the Bayer labs, NONE of the test subjects became addicted to the new drug (which Bayer patented under the trade name of "Heroin") and it was sold "over the counter". At that time it was not known that there is a percentage of the population that is "Heroin Addiction Immune" and it just happened that all of the test subjects that Bayer used fell into that category (drug tests were conducted on MUCH smaller test populations in those days).

PPS - None of the above should be taken to mean that Heroin is NOT addictive, it is. It just isn't the crushing killer that the media like to portray it as.

PPPS - Drug addiction, like alcohol addiction, IS a "coping mechanism" because it allows the addict to [1] forget about their underlying problem(s) for a while, and [2] blame the substance that they are addicted to for their inability to cope with their underlying problem(s). Addiction, however, is NOT a very productive "coping mechanism". "Going dry" WITHOUT dealing with the underlying problem(s) generally results in the substitution of one (non-productive) "coping mechanism" for another.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

You might want to take a look at the situation regarding "Heroin overdoses" in those countries which have legalized its use and possession.

​

In April 2021, the Centre for Disease Control has estimated that the number of people in the USA who had died from overdose in the 12-month period to the end of September 2020 was 90,237.​

​

...​

​

There were 4,393 drug poisoning deaths registered in England and Wales in 2019 – the highest since comparable records began in 1993.​

​

​

“Almost half of all drug-related deaths involved opiates such as heroin and morphine. However, cocaine deaths rose for the eighth consecutive year to their highest level,” the Office for National Statistics’ report said.​

[SOURCE]​

​

That makes the US rate around 270/million and the "England+Wales" rate around 74.26/million. I'd say that a reduction in deaths by about 72.5% indicates that there is some "slight" correlation - wouldn't you?

Or you might want to read "How Europe’s heroin capital solved its overdose crisis" to see how Portugal dealt with a drug addiction problem that was even worse than the one in the US.

PS - Did you know that, when Bayer resurrected CR Alder Wright's morphine diacetate in its search for synthetic Cocaine. When tested in the Bayer labs, NONE of the test subjects became addicted to the new drug (which Bayer patented under the trade name of "Heroin") and it was sold "over the counter". At that time it was not known that there is a percentage of the population that is "Heroin Addiction Immune" and it just happened that all of the test subjects that Bayer used fell into that category (drug tests were conducted on MUCH smaller test populations in those days).

PPS - None of the above should be taken to mean that Heroin is NOT addictive, it is. It just isn't the crushing killer that the media like to portray it as.

PPPS - Drug addiction, like alcohol addiction, IS a "coping mechanism" because it allows the addict to [1] forget about their underlying problem(s) for a while, and [2] blame the substance that they are addicted to for their inability to cope with their underlying problem(s). Addiction, however, is NOT a very productive "coping mechanism". "Going dry" WITHOUT dealing with the underlying problem(s) generally results in the substitution of one (non-productive) "coping mechanism" for another.

Interesting. That's an enlightening post for sure, but I don't think I have the courage to die on the legal opium hill yet. Thank you for expanding my understanding of this issue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Interesting. That's an enlightening post for sure, but I don't think I have the courage to die on the legal opium hill yet. Thank you for expanding my understanding of this issue.

As an aside, you might find that there is some slight chance of a connection between the time that Marijuana was (effectively) "made illegal" - it wasn't actually made illegal until 1970, but it was so heavily taxed that no one could afford to pay the taxes and purchase the stuff.

When the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed, the "epidemic" of Heroin use had almost been totally eliminated and the drug police were faced with the possibility of major layoffs. Looking around, the administrators of the drug police discovered Marijuana (the use of which was largely confined to "Blacks" and "musicians" [two groups with {shall we say} "slightly less social clout than the majority of Americans". That made Marijuana an "ideal" new enforcement target so as to preserve the jobs of the drug police (and, naturally, the administrators of the drug police).

 

[Brochacholomigo]

As an aside, you might find that there is some slight chance of a connection between the time that Marijuana was (effectively) "made illegal" - it wasn't actually made illegal until 1970, but it was so heavily taxed that no one could afford to pay the taxes and purchase the stuff.

When the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed, the "epidemic" of Heroin use had almost been totally eliminated and the drug police were faced with the possibility of major layoffs. Looking around, the administrators of the drug police discovered Marijuana (the use of which was largely confined to "Blacks" and "musicians" [two groups with {shall we say} "slightly less social clout than the majority of Americans". That made Marijuana an "ideal" new enforcement target so as to preserve the jobs of the drug police (and, naturally, the administrators of the drug police).

Dang, that explains the drive a few years ago to find new drugs to criminalize, like kratom. And here I'd thought I already knew all the reasons to hate policemen.

 

[Razoo]

Opium and cocaine products need to be legalized and supplied by the government at cost. Not to make life easier for addicts but to stop making vicious evil bastards rich and stop addicts from stealing from you and me to support their addiction.
Pot? There was never any reason to illegalize it.
Meth? Land with both feet on the heads of everyone involved.

excellent comment and practical ........

 

[Razoo]

Pot needs to be legalized at the national level, as some far right wing states will keep arresting people for decades to come.

absolutely

 

[Noodlegawd]

Well, if the government sells drugs at cost those drug dealers will be back to shoplifting cell phones for a living. That's what I was getting at.

They'll also be back to shoplifting cell phones if you can get heroin at Whole Foods.

 

[Grand Mal]

They'll also be back to shoplifting cell phones if you can get heroin at Whole Foods.

What's Whole Foods?
Way I see it, the government scores the raw materials for the drugs, pays labs to produce the final product and sells it to addicts at cost. A very small fraction of what the dealers are charging, reliable quality control and there's no more addicts B&E'ing apartments, no more addicts being resuscitated in alleys and transported to ER's and no more drug gangs shooting up neighbourhoods over turf.
Sounds good to me.
My beef with putting the whole process into private business hands is they might want to increase their market. And don't say It wouldn't happen. I'm old enough to remember cigarette ads.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Dang, that explains the drive a few years ago to find new drugs to criminalize, like kratom. And here I'd thought I already knew all the reasons to hate policemen.

It isn't the "line policemen" that caused the situation, it was the upper echelons of the "police administration" who had the clout to actually do something that would protect their "administrative areas" and who exercised that clout for their own benefit that did it. "Joe Streetnarc" has about as much direct say in what drugs are made (il)legal as you or I do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

absolutely

Pot needs to be legalized at the national level, as some far right wing states will keep arresting people for decades to come.

That isn't as simple as you think it might be. In fact, the government(s) do NOT "make things legal".

What the government(s) do is "make things illegal" or "not make things illegal". This comes from the "British System" where "If it is NOT prohibited, it is permitted." (as opposed to the "German System" where "If it is not permitted, it is prohibited.").

If the FEDERAL government rescinded all of the laws/regulations that made possession of Marijuana a "not permitted activity" that would NOT stop the individual states from enacting their own laws/regulations that made possession of Marijuana a "not permitted activity".

Of course the way around that is to pass a constitutional amendment along the lines of

A well contented and relaxed populace, being necessary to the serenity of a free State:

1. the right of the people to keep and consume Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, shall not be infringed by either Congress or any state legislature or both acting in concert;
2. no taxes that aggregate more than 10% of the retail price of Marijuana shall be levied on Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana;
3. no level of government may levy taxes on Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that exceed 2.5% of the retail price of Marijuana;
4. no government may enact regulations on the conduct of the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more restrictive than the regulations on the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more stringent than the regulations on the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of alcoholic substances intended for human consumption;
5. no government may enact regulations on the quality or composition of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more stringent than the regulations on the quality or composition of alcoholic substances intended for human consumption.

but that sure ain't gonna happen.

 

[Helix]

That isn't as simple as you think it might be. In fact, the government(s) do NOT "make things legal".

What the government(s) do is "make things illegal" or "not make things illegal". This comes from the "British System" where "If it is NOT prohibited, it is permitted." (as opposed to the "German System" where "If it is not permitted, it is prohibited.").

If the FEDERAL government rescinded all of the laws/regulations that made possession of Marijuana a "not permitted activity" that would NOT stop the individual states from enacting their own laws/regulations that made possession of Marijuana a "not permitted activity".

Of course the way around that is to pass a constitutional amendment along the lines of

A well contented and relaxed populace, being necessary to the serenity of a free State:

1. the right of the people to keep and consume Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, shall not be infringed by either Congress or any state legislature or both acting in concert;
2. no taxes that aggregate more than 10% of the retail price of Marijuana shall be levied on Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana;
3. no level of government may levy taxes on Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that exceed 2.5% of the retail price of Marijuana;
4. no government may enact regulations on the conduct of the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more restrictive than the regulations on the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more stringent than the regulations on the production, processing, transportation, advertising, sale, or possession of alcoholic substances intended for human consumption;
5. no government may enact regulations on the quality or composition of Marijuana, or any product produced using Marijuana, that are more stringent than the regulations on the quality or composition of alcoholic substances intended for human consumption.

but that sure ain't gonna happen.

If the federal government legalizes it, that's more pressure on backwards states to stop losing money by prohibiting it.

 

[Simpletruther]

4-5 years ago, I passed through Colorado and had a budtender tells me he believed weed would be legal nationwide in 4-5 years. I laughed as I asked him if he'd even been to the Bible Belt.

Kentucky is on its way to making sure Delta-8 is illegal. The justification? "Intoxication."

“The main point of this bill, sir, is to resolve, sweep aside any ambiguity and make clear as a matter of state law, from this point forward intoxicating substances like Delta-8 THC remain prohibited in the Commonwealth,” Bilby said, speaking to GOP State Sen. Jason Howell.

Ky. senate committee advances bill banning ‘intoxicating’ Delta-8 THC derived from hemp

A Kentucky senate committee advanced legislation Tuesday that aims to ban intoxicating products derived from hemp, including a compound getting nationwide attention called Delta-8 THC.

www.wkms.org

Can't wait to see their bill also banning alcoholic beverages.

The "don't tread on me" crowd (if you're not familiar with KY politics, they're some of the biggest "don't tread on me" crowd there is) treading on lots of people with this one.

Valid point.