Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: SUCK IT on May 25, 2010, 04:04:55 PM
-
These are just a couple of examples from recent news stories of the effects of illicit drugs. But you want to make them more easily accessible, cheaper, and increasing strength and potency by legalizing them? Obviously people have access to them because they do them, but at least it keeps it down to a minimum. In a world of legalized drugs there would be a thousand times more of these disturbing news reports.
Man Castrates Himself Because His Balls Contain Monsters!
There appears to be some very nasty acid traveling the streets of Arcata, California, which has led police to issue a warning. It began April 18, when cops responded to an emergency call at the home of a 31-year-old man on a very bad trip...
It seems he'd gotten the idea that his balls contained "monsters," according to the Times-Standard. So he castrated himself and flushed his testicles down the toilet to rid himself of the supposed demons.
On May 8, weirdness took place again, as a 21-year-old man spent two days wandering in the forest without his shoes before returning home. And the day after that police were called to a hospital to subdue a 19-year-old suffering from nasty flashbacks from an acid trip he'd made two weeks earlier.
Two days later, police found an 18-year-old hurling himself to the pavement in the middle of the street.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/05/ ... tes_hi.php (http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/05/bad_acid_trip_man_castrates_hi.php)
Man Cuts his Friend's Heart out While he is Still Alive!!
A deputy arrived at the residence and reportedly saw Wyatt on the couch with Powell's body, which was covered in blood and had most of its face removed. A large incision in the chest could be seen, and other unspecified body parts had been removed. An eyeball was resting in the middle of the room, according to the statement.
Wyatt allegedly told the deputy that he'd cut Powell's heart out and thrown it into the fire.
Powell's death certificate reads that he died from having his heart removed while he was still alive, causing him to bleed to death. It also lists as significant blunt force trauma to the head and neck, and compression of the neck.
The deputy reported finding blood throughout the house, making the entire residence a crime scene. Large indentations in the sheetrock in the bathroom could be seen, the statement said, which appeared to have been made by the back of someone's head.
What appeared to be wild mushrooms were in the kitchen, the deputy reported. The deputy also discovered a marijuana garden in the house when he went to search for additional victims, the statement reads.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15123814 (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15123814)
-
I shaved my pubic hair, rolled a philly who banger, then smoked it. I got really high. Smoke weed every day.
-
The mental hospitals are full of peoplewho did the same (or worse), without any drugs at all. If you take the crime out of drugs, you take the criminals out too. If you want to sit in your house all day and smoke crack until everything is gone,
who cares. Just as long as you paid taxes on the crack. Just like the end of prohibition. How much revenue does alchcohol provide every year. Just think 10x - 50x - 100x that amount by legalizing and taxing them.
-
These are just a couple of examples from recent news stories of the effects of illicit drugs. But you want to make them more easily accessible, cheaper, and increasing strength and potency by legalizing them? Obviously people have access to them because they do them, but at least it keeps it down to a minimum. In a world of legalized drugs there would be a thousand times more of these disturbing news reports.
Man Castrates Himself Because His Balls Contain Monsters!
There appears to be some very nasty acid traveling the streets of Arcata, California, which has led police to issue a warning. It began April 18, when cops responded to an emergency call at the home of a 31-year-old man on a very bad trip...
It seems he'd gotten the idea that his balls contained "monsters," according to the Times-Standard. So he castrated himself and flushed his testicles down the toilet to rid himself of the supposed demons.
On May 8, weirdness took place again, as a 21-year-old man spent two days wandering in the forest without his shoes before returning home. And the day after that police were called to a hospital to subdue a 19-year-old suffering from nasty flashbacks from an acid trip he'd made two weeks earlier.
Two days later, police found an 18-year-old hurling himself to the pavement in the middle of the street.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/05/ ... tes_hi.php (http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/05/bad_acid_trip_man_castrates_hi.php)
Man Cuts his Friend's Heart out While he is Still Alive!!
A deputy arrived at the residence and reportedly saw Wyatt on the couch with Powell's body, which was covered in blood and had most of its face removed. A large incision in the chest could be seen, and other unspecified body parts had been removed. An eyeball was resting in the middle of the room, according to the statement.
Wyatt allegedly told the deputy that he'd cut Powell's heart out and thrown it into the fire.
Powell's death certificate reads that he died from having his heart removed while he was still alive, causing him to bleed to death. It also lists as significant blunt force trauma to the head and neck, and compression of the neck.
The deputy reported finding blood throughout the house, making the entire residence a crime scene. Large indentations in the sheetrock in the bathroom could be seen, the statement said, which appeared to have been made by the back of someone's head.
What appeared to be wild mushrooms were in the kitchen, the deputy reported. The deputy also discovered a marijuana garden in the house when he went to search for additional victims, the statement reads.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15123814 (http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15123814)
Those things are happening now with drugs being illegal? Wow! I thought if you made something illegal it would magically go away as soon as the proper magic incantations were made by our wise and honest representatives in congress!
The first article you mention brings up the issue of quality control. With drugs already illegal, there is no incentive for drug dealers and manufacturers to put their product through a rigorous testing phase. If they were legal, companies would want to avoid lawsuits and as a results would produce safer products (or products with sufficient warnings so people can make a more informed decision). Does regular plain acid do this? I wouldn't know for sure as I've never done it but I do know that going on any sort of psychedelic trip without a "sitter" present is dangerous. People who choose to take such risks, not the drugs themselves, are responsible for the consequences. Drugs don't do themselves. Bet the guy who cut off his balls (if he was not mentally unstable already) wishes he had a friend around as trip sitter to keep sharp objects out of reach and change his environment if he's having a bad trip.
In regards to your second article: Just because drugs were found at a crime scene does not mean the drugs somehow "caused" those crimes. I find it hard to believe somebody on Pot and Amanita or Psilocybin, would cut out somebody's heart if they were not already intent on doing so (and that's IF the person in question was on those drugs at the time). Then again it's hard to prove that because the government does not allow independent scientific research (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19marijuana.html?ref=us) (unless they approve of the pre-determined results) of the effects of marijuana or other drugs.
Same with mental illness (http://http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion18.htm). People with mental illnesses often self-medicate. It's dishonest to switch cause and effect around and say that people who are mentally ill and use drugs are mentally ill because they used drugs. Granted some drugs can mess up your brain and decrease functioning but so can alcohol or sports like boxing which we don't prohibit because we realize rightly that people have a right to take such risks with their bodes.
People own their bodies and if they want to damage them or take risks, it's their right. If somebody else is telling you want you can and cannot put in your body they own you. Even if it's a majority that wills it, it's still a violation of the most basic of rights.
If you get drunk and shoot somebody, nobody blames the alcohol (a drug). Somehow people have a different standard for drugs the government does not approve of. What I say is that you should hold people responsible for their actions, not what's in their bodies. Of course a person on trial for murder is going to say the drugs made him do it. Saps today believe it. What I ask is: who caused the drugs? Like I said they don't do themselves. If you do drugs and kill somebody under the influence, it's still your fault.
There is a first amendment argument to be made, both on grounds of religion and speech. Before the word comes the thought. To control the thought is to control the word. Therefore restricting the ways in which people can think and how they can explore their mind is in effect restricting speech. There are many other constitutional arguments that can be made, among which probably the most basic is that congress simply was never authorized to regulate a fraction of what it does today, justified by an extremely liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.
And finally: the practical arguments:
- The drug war has not, does not, and will never be effective for the simple reason that where there is a lucrative market and lots of demand there will be people willing to take the illegal risks necessary to supply that demand (often people willing to kill innocents who get in the way).
- Legalizing drugs would also introduce an age component like alcohol which would keep them out of the hands of kids. I find the "for the children" argument silly and misinformed considering kids today find it far easier to get pot than alcohol.
- It would free up our justice system from having to deal with millions of non-violent offenders of consentual "crimes". Look up statistics for yourself (http://http://www.drugwardistortions.org/NORML_Truth_Report_2005.pdf) (page 3 of that link, for example) on just how many people are locked up or prosecuted for simple possession of marijuana.
- It would eliminate the crime inherent to the black market which the drug trade (not drugs themselves) fosters, not just helping to reduce violent crime in this country but also in Mexico where the illegal industry to supply this country results in almost daily massacres and tales of horror.
- I'm not a fan of taxes but I realize the government rarely does anything for the people unless they benefit. Tax revenue, as none-ya notes, would indeed be significant. Bloated government needs a boost rather than learning to balance the budget properly? Taxes on drugs would definitely do that.
- Surveys taken show that were heroin legal, 99% of people would not choose to use it. (http://http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm) I certainly would not. Like ginger has been known to quip from time to time: find me the one person who is just dying to shoot some smack but is holding out simply because it's illegal. Drug use is greater today than it was before drugs were illegal.
- Heroin overdoses would drop significantly with an increase in quality. As is noted in the Stanton Peele article (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html) which probably prompted your tirade, lack in quality and education causes the majority of deaths which were almost unheard of back when when you could get Heroin over the counter at sears. The same applies to other drugs as well.
For just those seven above practical reasons, legalizing drugs is overwhelmingly a good idea. I believe that anybody who honestly and rationally examines this issue, no matter what they think of drugs themselves, will come to this conclusion.
-
your tirade
Wow thats quite a response, I'll have to read it when I have time.
:roflmao: also I didn't realize 4 sentences commenting about a couple news articles qualified as a tirade, especially when you go and post an entire essay on the subject.I'll help you out and teach you what the word means, a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.
-
I was legally forced to take 7 medications by the State of Wisconhell.
I said no to forced drugging.
I was given random U.A.'s to make sure I consumed no plants.
If I were to be found "self-medicating" with cannabis I would be constitutionaly fucked over for at least 30 days until I had a "revocation hearing" and bla bla to the tune of $1,000.00 per day at Hotel Winnebago.
I am no longer forced to be a zombie by THE STATE. 10 years 5 lawyers and 1 Judge.
Wisconhell has spent literally MILLIONS to torture my Children and I.
Hello Taxpayer :jawdrop: Suck This..............
Is my Medication legal yet?
-
You can thank people like Psy for supporting Psychiatry and medication as 'science based' while slandering voluntary non medication based treatment options such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The government is full of people like Psy, they know what's good for you better than you do.
-
You can thank people like Psy for supporting Psychiatry and medication as 'science based' while slandering voluntary non medication based treatment options such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The government is full of people like Psy, they know what's good for you better than you do.
Ya didn't address any of my arguments. When it comes to AA, I think it's ineffective and a dumb idea, yeah, but I never said I would try to make it illegal. People have a right to assemble and harm themselves if they want. And never, ever, did I say I would support psychiatry by force. People have a right to choose their doctors, treatment plans, and medicines, whether bona-fide or bunk. That idea is at the very core of the post you apparently didn't read.
-
I'm not a fan of taxes
Oh, come on now. We all know that's not true. How else would you finance your unnecessary yet voluntary adult stays at treatment centers?
My parents, unlike most who sent thier children there, did not have to pay for the program. Since my father was/is a State Department employee, my stay at that wonderful program was entirely compllmentary of the US taxpayer.
-
Ad hominem, and a lie at that, one that has been addressed many times. While my enrollment in a boarding school was voluntary, my stay in an unlicensed cult based program was not. There was no informed consent and I was deprived of my ability to sucessfully leave. Yes the government did pay, as education for kids was an employment benefit. Back then my views on taxes and government were different (i was more of a socialist). At that time I thought our government had some use. Experience, education, and age taught me better.
Care to address any of my arguments pertaining to the actual subject of the thread or you are going to just dance around because you can't?
-
Man Castrates Himself Because His Balls Contain Monsters!
That's the most awesome thing I've heard in a really long time. :notworthy:
If anything, this is an argument FOR legalization.
There are too many idiots in this world and there are too many laws in place to protect idiots. Result? Everyone else suffers.
Drugs help to thin the herd.
Besides, who the fuck does acid anymore? What an irrelevant substance. There''s much better shit out there.
-
Care to address any of my arguments pertaining to the actual subject of the thread or you are going to just dance around because you can't?
The only argument needed against your pro legalization is, if you legalize LSD then your kid might cut his balls off.
The drug war has not, does not, and will never be effective for the simple reason that where there is a lucrative market and lots of demand there will be people willing to take the illegal risks necessary to supply that demand (often people willing to kill innocents who get in the way).
Lucrative because prices are kept high by fighting the drug war which keeps people from using too much, that is part of the strategy. The higher the price the less people can use. If cocaine can be bought for $1 a baggy, or rocks of crack cocaine for 10 cents in extra strength pure version you don't think there will be extreme social consequences?
Legalizing drugs would also introduce an age component like alcohol which would keep them out of the hands of kids. I find the "for the children" argument silly and misinformed considering kids today find it far easier to get pot than alcohol.
It would free up our justice system from having to deal with millions of non-violent offenders of consentual "crimes". Look up statistics for yourself (page 3 of that link, for example) on just how many people are locked up or prosecuted for simple possession of marijuana.
This is completely hilarious! Alcohol is the number one used substance by far by underage minors. If drugs were legal and you could buy them at any store, more kids would do drugs. This is common sense. They have friends over 18 or 21 and if not have ways around it, or might steal from stores if necessary, as they do with alcohol all the time (I worked at a convenience store for years, so I know). In most states posession of marijuana is a minor, ticketable offense, the only people in jail are big time dealers. Look it up, the myth of millions of pot smokers caught with a small amount in jail is just that, a myth.
It would eliminate the crime inherent to the black market which the drug trade (not drugs themselves) fosters, not just helping to reduce violent crime in this country but also in Mexico where the illegal industry to supply this country results in almost daily massacres and tales of horror.
Take away their revenue from drugs and they will resort to kidnapping, and other forms of illicit activity that generate revenue that gangs have been conducting around the world regardless of drug laws. The impact of legalization on violence amongst gangsters would be negligible.
I'm not a fan of taxes but I realize the government rarely does anything for the people unless they benefit. Tax revenue, as none-ya notes, would indeed be significant. Bloated government needs a boost rather than learning to balance the budget properly? Taxes on drugs would definitely do that.
It wouldn't even be enough to pay for all the extra drug rehabs that would have to open to deal with the massive influx of addicts into society. You can't honestly think that crack cocaine, heroine, PCP, LSD, and other dangerous drugs should be available to buy at the store like alcohol and not have severe unintended side effects of this naive and utopian philosophy? Do you realize how many people die and are injured from DUI accidents? You have a 1 in 3 chance of being a victim in your life. Why increase the chances by promoting the use of even more mind altering chemicals?
Surveys taken show that were heroin legal, 99% of people would not choose to use it. I certainly would not. Like ginger has been known to quip from time to time: find me the one person who is just dying to shoot some smack but is holding out simply because it's illegal. Drug use is greater today than it was before drugs were illegal.
But what about quality control? Now that Phizer can take over recreational heroin production, wouldn't that lower the fear of people to use it? What about all the commercials on TV about how the pretty people and cool kids use crack cocaine? Corporate drug promotion would make today's drug dealers appear amateurish compared to their ability to peddle dangerous drugs to all sorts of people. Marketing is an effective tool. You promote the full legalization of drugs, that means it will be in the financial interest of large companies to expand their market and promote the use of the drugs they produce. How can you honestly expect there to not be many more users? Are you really that naive?
Not to mention people are afraid to shoot heroin because needles are scary, and gross. How about when a corporate heroin producer produces pills you can pop that do the same thing? Or heroin tainted cigarettes? Or any other form of ingesting that is easier, safer and more palatable than shooting it with a needle? Full legalization right? That means you can buy OxyContin in bottles just like vitamins. That's what you want, right?
Heroin overdoses would drop significantly with an increase in quality. As is noted in the Stanton Peele article which probably prompted your tirade, lack in quality and education causes the majority of deaths which were almost unheard of back when when you could get Heroin over the counter at sears. The same applies to other drugs as well.
Nobody was keeping statistics back then, and medical care wasn't what it is today. If someone was sick and took an elixir with heroin too much and died, who would of recorded that? Obviously there was big problems with these over the counter snake oil medicines because they were made illegal for a reason. If you really believe that you could sell over the counter crack, cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all the other dangerous drugs and not have extreme social consequences beyond your imagination then you are terribly naive. But it fits with your strange world view where there is no drug addiction, AA is a fraud, and all drugs being legal would lead to some utopian deficit free, crime free continent. It won't work!
As far as the people claiming crazy people cut their balls off and flush them down the toilet, and that crazy people cut their friend's live heart out and cut their face off and they live in mental hospitals, what the hell kind of argument is that? Let's create more of these psychos by feeding them brain altering chemicals as cheap as water because it's legal now? WTF is wrong with you people? But hey maybe you can use your precious tax revenue from drugs to build a new mental hospital in every neighborhood to house these people after they commit a violent act against themselves or others? No thanks!
-
FREE THE PLANT
-
Care to address any of my arguments pertaining to the actual subject of the thread or you are going to just dance around because you can't?
The only argument needed against your pro legalization is, if you legalize LSD then your kid might cut his balls off.
That happened anyway and is far more likely to happen when kids can get it easily and what chemicals compose the "LSD" are unknown. The cops are warning people about this because it's not just LSD. It's tainted LSD. I also didn't say drugs were safe or that kids should use them. I said consenting adults should have the freedom to make the choice.
Even when they're illegal, people are going to use drugs, just like kids in high school are going to have sex. If you want to protect them, do what is done with condoms and teach people how to do them as safely as is possible (in LSD's case, a trip sitter experienced with the drug). Preaching an absolutist method such as abstinence or prohibition only makes the acts popular (as dare did). However, the fact that where there is education both kids and adults do wear condoms tells me that education does work and can while drug use or sex can never be eliminated, they can be made safer.
Lucrative because prices are kept high by fighting the drug war which keeps people from using too much, that is part of the strategy.
No. They buy as much. They just spend more to get it, and sometimes do extreme things to get money to pay for it. And even if they did buy more, unless you're a socialist, the health of private individuals is not the government's business. Take a look at the Switzerland study I cited just below as well. How is it that heroin addicts with free drugs are quitting more?
The higher the price the less people can use. If cocaine can be bought for $1 a baggy, or rocks of crack cocaine for 10 cents in extra strength pure version you don't think there will be extreme social consequences? [/b]
Absolutely the consequences would be extreme. "Addicts" would no longer feel the "need" to resort to crime to feed their habits. In Switzerland where heroin is given away by the government (http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html) (not that i'm advocating that, cheap drugs would do the same), drug related crime has ground to a halt, functioning "addicts" are able to get and keep jobs, and more people are spontaneously quitting as their lives improve (one of the main causes of habitual behavior is stress and depression... drug abuse is often a symptom, not causal disease).
The same has happened in other countries where this has been tried and it costs a fraction of what the drug war costs. Who'd have thought: more drugs equals less usage. Of course this is unconscionable in our arrogant society where we feel we can legislate and beat human desires away.
This is completely hilarious! Alcohol is the number one used substance by far by underage minors. If drugs were legal and you could buy them at any store, more kids would do drugs. This is common sense. They have friends over 18 or 21 and if not have ways around it, or might steal from stores if necessary, as they do with alcohol all the time (I worked at a convenience store for years, so I know).
Right now they can buy them at their high school with no ID at all. The reason more choose alcohol is out of preference. they rarely use heroin or coke out of common sense and preference. How else do you explain that it's easier to get pot and yet more choose to use alcohol (http://http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/)? On these grounds alone, decreasing the availability of pot by requiring the same standards as alcohol couldn't possibly increase use.
In most states posession of marijuana is a minor, ticketable offense,
Sorry. Very few states are decrim (http://http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516). Check the sources I cited below to see just how many people have been arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for marijuana posession.
the only people in jail are big time dealers. Look it up, the myth of millions of pot smokers caught with a small amount in jail is just that, a myth.
No, it's not.
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/NORML ... t_2005.pdf (http://www.drugwardistortions.org/NORML_Truth_Report_2005.pdf) (see page 3 or the sources they cite)
Want to see what can happen when they get to jail? Take a look at this training video for COs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6UFG3BI ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6UFG3BIhbc&feature=player_embedded)
And in some states anything over a very very small amount can constitute "intent to distribute". See the map I cited.
Take away their revenue from drugs and they will resort to kidnapping, and other forms of illicit activity that generate revenue that gangs have been conducting around the world regardless of drug laws. The impact of legalization on violence amongst gangsters would be negligible.
They do those things anyway, as much as they can whenever they can, and i'd have to disagree that removing 90% of their profits overnight would somehow be "negligible".
It wouldn't even be enough to pay for all the extra drug rehabs that would have to open to deal with the massive influx of addicts into society. You can't honestly think that crack cocaine, heroine, PCP, LSD, and other dangerous drugs should be available to buy at the store like alcohol and not have severe unintended side effects of this naive and utopian philosophy? Do you realize how many people die and are injured from DUI accidents? You have a 1 in 3 chance of being a victim in your life. Why increase the chances by promoting the use of even more mind altering chemicals?
I've already made a strong case that use would not increase. Because of that, DUIDs (which are illegal already) would not increase either... but even if they did increase, imagine the reduction in crime and death that would dwarf such a minute increase.
But what about quality control? Now that Phizer can take over recreational heroin production, wouldn't that lower the fear of people to use it?
Maybe, but the fear of dependency is still there. The social stigma of being a junkie is still there. I don't think you can glamorize crack or heroin as much as you're suggesting. People already know it can mess you up. I don't think anybody would argue any differently.
What about all the commercials on TV about how the pretty people and cool kids use crack cocaine?
Create your own commercials... Persuade people, don't force them. In the case of crack it's more likely that powder cocaine or the coca plant itself would become dominant for those who like the particular drug.
Corporate drug promotion would make today's drug dealers appear amateurish compared to their ability to peddle dangerous drugs to all sorts of people. Marketing is an effective tool.
And yet I don't go out and buy everything I see on TV. If you're limiting marketing, if you're limiting persuasion, you're limiting free speech. People can make their own choices about what to put in their bodies. They don't need you or moral busybodies like you to (try and) force them.
All that being said, it is very very unlikely that a congress that forbids Tobacco advertising on TV would allow an ad for Crack cocaine. I might not agree with it but in this society, if drugs were legalized, you can guarantee you would not see ads for them.
You promote the full legalization of drugs, that means it will be in the financial interest of large companies to expand their market and promote the use of the drugs they produce. How can you honestly expect there to not be many more users? Are you really that naive?
Like I said. A congress that forbids tobacco commercials is not likely to allow that.
Not to mention people are afraid to shoot heroin because needles are scary, and gross. How about when a corporate heroin producer produces pills you can pop that do the same thing? Or heroin tainted cigarettes? Or any other form of ingesting that is easier, safer and more palatable than shooting it with a needle? Full legalization right? That means you can buy OxyContin in bottles just like vitamins. That's what you want, right?[/b]
If you're of age, yes. What problem do you have with making drug use safer? Is it your wish to keep drugs unsafe, causing deaths? Are you willing to cause death to force your private morality onto others?
Nobody was keeping statistics back then, and medical care wasn't what it is today. If someone was sick and took an elixir with heroin too much and died, who would of recorded that? Obviously there was big problems with these over the counter snake oil medicines because they were made illegal for a reason. If you really believe that you could sell over the counter crack, cocaine, heroin, PCP, and all the other dangerous drugs and not have extreme social consequences beyond your imagination then you are terribly naive. But it fits with your strange world view where there is no drug addiction, AA is a fraud, and all drugs being legal would lead to some utopian deficit free, crime free continent. It won't work!
I never said that drug addiction did not exist. I said it doesn't fit the definition of a disease as it's a behavior (a compulsive one, yes, but not one that overpowers free will). Proof: One cannot quit cancer. People can and do quit drugs (much of the success of this has to do with treating the causes of these symptoms). Many addiction professionals would agree with this... but that's besides the point and mostly irrelevant to my arguments.
{b}As far as the people claiming crazy people cut their balls off and flush them down the toilet, and that crazy people cut their friend's live heart out and cut their face off and they live in mental hospitals, what the hell kind of argument is that? Let's create more of these psychos by feeding them brain altering chemicals as cheap as water because it's legal now? WTF is wrong with you people? But hey maybe you can use your precious tax revenue from drugs to build a new mental hospital in every neighborhood to house these people after they commit a violent act against themselves or others? No thanks!
[/b]
Everything you're saying assumes drug use would increase. Something that hasn't a shred of evidence other than your speculative fearmongering to back it up. There are lots of arguments besides mine to the contrary. Read:
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm (http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm)
-
I'm going to "weigh in" here
I have done acid, and it was terrible. Not because it was acid, but because it was cut with strychnine and methamphetamine.Read up on neuro effect, this ain't a dissertation.
Suck it (what's in a name?) You seem enamored of AA. Why?
Re: legalization. Look backward in history to when it was, look forward to now.
See the horror. See the horror people like you create.
You twist bizarre event to support your psycho- social-agenda.
A really instructive exercise is to research absinthe, maybe you're not up to that.Maybe think about removing the plank from your own eye? leave the rest of us alone, or maybe that's your compulsion. To Meddle, until something breaks, then say " but, I Meant well!"
J.O.M.
-
Two separate couples in Oregon let their 16 year old son and 15 MONTH old daughter die a painful death from a very easily treatable infection because of their religious beliefs. OUTLAW THE BIBLE!!!!!
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/ ... 265231487/ (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/03/Parents-guilty-in-faith-healing-death/UPI-61431265231487/)
OREGON CITY, Ore., Feb. 3 (UPI) -- An Oregon couple have become the first members of a faith-healing church to be convicted for allowing a child to die without medical care.
Jeffrey and Marc Beagley were found guilty Tuesday of criminally negligent homicide in the 2008 death of their son, Neil, The (Portland) Oregonian reported. Neil Beagley, 16, died of a congenital urinary blockage.
The Beagleys are members of Followers of Christ, an Oregon church that treats medical problems with prayer, anointing and laying on of hands. While other children have died in recent years, the Beagleys are the first to be found guilty of causing a child's death.
"This is a signal to the religious community that they should be on notice that their activities will be scrutinized," said Steven K. Green, head of the Center for Religion and Democracy at Willamette University.
The maximum sentence for criminally negligent homicide is 10 years, but the Beagleys, as first-time offenders, are likely to receive no more than 18 months. Steve Lindsey, Marci Beagley's lawyer, said he would ask for probation under a state law that creates an exception for parents motivated by religious belief. He said counseling, medical supervision for the couple's daughter and cooperation with child welfare officials would educate members of the Followers of Christ on their legal responsibility to their children.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/)
OREGON CITY, Ore. - A couple whose church preaches against medical care are facing criminal charges after their young daughter died of an infection that authorities said went untreated.
Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted Friday on charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their 15-month-old daughter Ava. They belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a history of treating gravely ill children only with prayer.
Ava died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. The state medical examiner’s office has said she could have been treated with antibiotics.
Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, said the child’s breathing was further hampered by a benign cyst on her neck that had never been medically addressed, The Oregonian reported.
Laws passed in the 1990s struck down legal shields for faith-healing parents after the deaths of several children whose parents were members of the fundamentalist church.
Since those laws took effect in 1999, “We haven’t seen any cases of significant medical neglect ... until now,” said child abuse Detective Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.
The Worthingtons could face more than six years if convicted on the manslaughter charges and up to a year on the mistreatment charges, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney. They were released on $250,000 bail, he said.
Horner said he didn’t know whether the couple had lawyers to speak for them. A number listed for the couple was disconnected. A man who answered the phone at the church Monday would not identify himself and said: “We’ve been told ’No comment.”’
The Worthingtons also lost a baby boy in 2001, but an investigation was closed after family members told police the child was stillborn. Several other Followers of Christ children have also been stillborn or died during home births in recent years, and none of the deaths resulted in criminal charges, authorities have said.
-
Let's talk mathematics, that's science based, right? Let's say you are a parent of a troubled youth and you are crunching the numbers. What are the chances, mathematically speaking, that your kid will use and possibly become addicted to illicit dangerous drugs? What might the chances be that the troubled youth might consider or even attempt to take their own life, mathematically speaking? These numbers can be found. Then calculate the chances of the troubled youth being injured or killed while in a treatment program. Which of these scenarios, has the greatest chances? Which of these the least? Let's do this honestly, mathematically, science based calculation. What is the result? Keep your answers in mind as you read ahead.
Posters here on fornits argue that adolescent treatment centers are a danger to youth. Therefore they should be heavily regulated by government, or preferably banned outright, a total and complete prohibition of adolescent treatment center. I'm not making this up, most of the regular posters here have this view*. But when it comes to illegal drugs, these same people make the argument that they should be at every convenience store. You should be able to buy bottles of OxyContin as easily as vitamins, or a dozen rocks of pure crack cocaine as easily as you would buy milk. But, mathematically, science based look at the numbers will inevitably yield the result that drugs are statistically much more likely to harm a troubled youth than a treatment center. Self injury is also statistically much more likely to occur to a troubled youth than harm done to them by employees or peers at a treatment center.
Keeping all of these facts in mind, how does a typical lets ban all the programs poster reconcile this hypocrisy? It would appear the only explanation is the typical anti treatment fornits extremist suffers from severe cognitive dissonance, either intentionally or perhaps they are brainwashed into the group think of the fornits regulars. It's sad to see this is the case, and this thread is evidence of this uneven calls for prohibitions depending on what it is you are prohibiting. It's not based on what is truly dangerous to a troubled youth, it is based solely on your own singular experience which you attempt to blackmail the world with your bitternes and use an experience many go through fine as an excuse to live in perpetual victim hood, all the while blaming others for your own bad choices. Take some accountability for once in your life and realize you created your own path and only have yourself to blame. Programs are needed and aren't going anywhere despite the whining on this forum, bet on it.
*The exception to this of course would be Psy. As someone who voluntarily signed themselves into an adult, state regulated treatment facility no amount of regulation could ever keep that from happening. So I can imagine that Psy has a somewhat different view of how necessary regulation might be, since as all fornits posters inevitably do, shape their view of an entire industry around their own singular experience.
-
Let's talk mathematics, that's science based, right? Let's say you are a parent of a troubled youth and you are crunching the numbers. What are the chances, mathematically speaking, that your kid will use and possibly become addicted to illicit dangerous drugs? What might the chances be that the troubled youth might consider or even attempt to take their own life, mathematically speaking? These numbers can be found. Then calculate the chances of the troubled youth being injured or killed while in a treatment program. Which of these scenarios, has the greatest chances? Which of these the least? Let's do this honestly, mathematically, science based calculation. What is the result? Keep your answers in mind as you read ahead.
Dunno....what are they? Let's see 'em.
Posters here on fornits argue that adolescent treatment centers are a danger to youth.
Some adolescent treatment centers. Mostly, the one's using the TC approach with the extreme isolation from everyone including family, peer pressure environment and the level system.
Therefore they should be heavily regulated by government, or preferably banned outright, a total and complete prohibition of adolescent treatment center.
Some centers.
I'm not making this up, most of the regular posters here have this view*.
Yes you are.
But when it comes to illegal drugs, these same people make the argument that they should be at every convenience store. You should be able to buy bottles of OxyContin as easily as vitamins, or a dozen rocks of pure crack cocaine as easily as you would buy milk.
Another strawman. I don't think anyone's advocated selling oxycontin alongside the beer. The marijuana?? Sure, you bet! What we have been advocating (those of us that believe in legalization) is in line with what these guys believe:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php) Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is a non-profit, international, educational organization comprising former and current police officers, government agents and other law enforcement agents who oppose the current War on Drugs.
LEAP Statement of Principles
1. LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition.
2. LEAP advocates the elimination of the policy of drug prohibition and the inauguration of a replacement policy of drug control and regulation, including regulations imposing appropriate age restrictions on drug sales and use, just as there are age restrictions on marriage, signing contracts, alcohol, tobacco, operating vehicles and heavy equipment, voting and so on.
3. LEAP believes that adult drug abuse is a health problem and not a law-enforcement matter, provided that the abuse does not harm other people or the property of others.
4. LEAP believes that adult drug use, however dangerous, is a matter of personal freedom as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others.
5. LEAP speakers come from a wide divergence of political thought and social conscience and recognize that in a post-prohibition world it will take time to strike a proper regulatory balance, blending private, public and medical models to best control and regulate “illicit drugs.” LEAP speakers are free to advocate their view of better post-prohibition stratagems without toeing a LEAP “party line.”
6. LEAP recognizes that even in a post-prohibition world, still, drugs can be dangerous and potentially addictive, requiring appropriate regulation and control. Even in a free-market economy, reasonable regulation for the purposes of public health is a long-standing, accepted principle. Such regulation must not allow casual, unfettered or indiscriminate drug sales.
7. LEAP believes that government has a public health obligation to accurately ascertain the risks associated with the use of each “illicit drug” and a duty to clearly communicate that information to the public by means of labeling and warnings similar to what is done regarding food, tobacco, alcohol and medicine.
8. LEAP believes that an inordinate number of people have been misguidedly incarcerated for violation of zero-tolerant, nonviolent, consensual “drug crimes.” The end of drug prohibition will allow those persons to be promptly released, to have their record of conviction expunged, and their civil rights completely restored. However, the repeal of drug prohibition does not imply the exoneration from charges for connected offenses, such as violent crimes, gun crimes, theft, or driving under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, LEAP believes that people using alcohol or other drugs must be held accountable for any misbehavior, which harms other people or property of others, while under the influence of mind-altering substances.
9. LEAP believes that persons suffering from drug abuse afflictions and addiction, who want help, should be provided with a variety of help, including drug treatment and drug maintenance, even for uninsured addicts. LEAP believes that with an end to drug prohibition and regained control of criminal justice expenditures, a fraction of those savings would be more than sufficient to pay for expanded addiction services.
10. LEAP recognizes that different “illicit drugs” pose differing risks of harm. As such, in a post-prohibition world, LEAP recognizes that an appropriate set of regulations and control for one substance may not be a suitable or sufficient regulation and control for another substance. LEAP believes that the nation states of the world and various states within the United States must be given the regulatory latitude to try new models that wisely balance the notions of freedom over one’s own body with the need for common sense regulation of drugs to reduce death, disease, addiction and harm.
But, mathematically, science based look at the numbers will inevitably yield the result that drugs are statistically much more likely to harm a troubled youth than a treatment center. Self injury is also statistically much more likely to occur to a troubled youth than harm done to them by employees or peers at a treatment center.
Citation please. Also depends on what kind of treatment center your talking about and whether or not it was forced or voluntary.
Keeping all of these facts in mind, how does a typical lets ban all the programs poster reconcile this hypocrisy?
It's only hypocritical in your narrow view of the world, dearie.
and this thread is evidence of this uneven calls for prohibitions depending on what it is you are prohibiting.
Uhhh, yeah. You'd want to blanketly prohibit everything? I prefer to take a look at things and decide if there's an inherent danger.
It's not based on what is truly dangerous to a troubled youth, it is based solely on your own singular experience which you attempt to blackmail the world with your bitternes and use an experience many go through fine as an excuse to live in perpetual victim hood, all the while blaming others for your own bad choices.
In your narrow world view, maybe but not in the real world.
Take some accountability for once in your life and realize you created your own path and only have yourself to blame.
You're assuming a couple of things here. That we don't take responsibility, which you have no way of knowing and that there was anything "wrong" with us in the first place that would have required the "treatment" that we received at these hellholes.
Programs are needed and aren't going anywhere despite the whining on this forum, bet on it.
Maybe....but hopefully they won't be as prolific (we're seeing evidence of that now in decreased enrollments, closing/combining of schools etc.) and maybe they'll be a bit safer.
*The exception to this of course would be Psy. As someone who voluntarily signed themselves into an adult, state regulated treatment facility no amount of regulation could ever keep that from happening. So I can imagine that Psy has a somewhat different view of how necessary regulation might be, since as all fornits posters inevitably do, shape their view of an entire industry around their own singular experience.
Underhanded dig at someone who sought help and received abuse. Classy.
-
You obviously do not have the ability to be honest with yourself.
What is more likely to happen to a troubled youth?
1. They use illegal drugs
2. They attempt to harm themselves
3. They are injured or killed in a treatment center
If you were truly interested in protecting troubled youth you could not possibly be for the legalization of all drugs, while proposing heavy regulation or prohibition of treatment centers. It doesn't equate logically, but I know that is something that is lacking on this forum. Two points for your effort though.
-
You obviously do not have the ability to be honest with yourself.
What is more likely to happen to a troubled youth?
1. They use illegal drugs
2. They attempt to harm themselves
3. They are injured or killed in a treatment center
4. None of the above (added by Anne Bonney)
I pick 4.
If you were truly interested in protecting troubled youth you could not possibly be for the legalization of all drugs, while proposing heavy regulation or prohibition of treatment centers. It doesn't equate logically, but I know that is something that is lacking on this forum.
It is logical. Take a look how it's worked out in countries that have done it. Drug use, specifically among teens, has actually dropped and the number of those that voluntarily sought treatment went up.
Research before you speak.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
-
Couldn't have said it better, Anne. And as a side note it's worth noting that I personally do not support regulation of the industry (or just about anything). SUCK IT knows this but decided to lie about it anyway. I have my reasons for this which i've explained over and over. I've never been against voluntary anything (so long as it's truly voluntary meaning informed consent). All I have a problem with and what should be abolished is forced treatment of all forms. This isn't so much a regulation as it is an affirmation of the existing right of each person to self ownership and the right to choose their own medical treatment. My beliefs couldn't be more consistent.
-
Underhanded dig at someone who sought help and received abuse. Classy.
FWIW, i wasn't seeking and did not need any help. I wasn't abusing drugs or drinking to excess and even it I was it still wouldn't have justified what they did. It was abuse, not treatment.