Just say YO to drugs

[TheLoneGunman]

First of all, I have never used illegal drugs. That being said, I have two concerns:

1. Most "drug testing" is useless
a. Easy to defeat - Examples are even on this board where there was a big discussion of many ways to beat it.
b. not reliable - I personally know of many false positives that had serious consequences
c. Just for show - I saw signs at Home Depot and the grocery store that emphasized that they drug test all applicants. In reality, I would prefer that the person giving me gardening tips was growning his own private "garden" As far as the supermarket, are we afraid that the coke-head stockboy won't look like he eats enough of their products? Isn't he the safest guy since he won't be sampling the food?

2. "Just say no" is silly
a. Prohibition doesn't work - see Prohibition in the US
b. If "saying no" would cure the problem, then explain Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey, Jr.
c. We don't have a "just say no to eating paste" or "just say no to painting others with gold paint" yet most people grow out of the paste eating stage and only Aurius Goldfinger has painted someone with gold paint (and Mr. Connery took care of him)

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
2. "Just say no"

I think ou shouldn't be talking to drugs in the first place

[froggystyle]

hahahahahahaha

[Ice-9]

I'm not really sure why I'm replying to this, because I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Drugs are bad? Drugs are good? Current anti-drug strategies are ineffective? What exactly is your point?

Of course, despite my lack of understanding, I'm still going to argue with you.

Your examples of drug users seem random and fairly irrelevant. What I would be worried about is the firefighter or the ER doctor taking speed to get through his shift and having people's lives in his hands. Or the bus driver who smokes a bowl before his route so that the passengers don't get on his nerves as much and then doesn't notice that oncoming car quickly enough. So why exactly is drug testing useless?

I agree that the "just say no" slogan is ineffective, but where did you pull those points from? What do you mean by "explain Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey, Jr."? They obviously aren't saying no. And your third point? Excuse me for not understanding (once again), but what do eating paste and painting others have in common with doing drugs? TLG, this is one weird freakin' post.

[hoey222]

drugs are bad, mmmkay

[DizzyT]

But what about us "creative" types who have jobs that are based on our ability to think out of the box. Lucky for me my company (as many of you may remember I was looking for a job not so far back and was wondering how to beat a drug test) was bought out by a company out of the Netherlands. We have since stopped drug testing new applicants and since started fingerprinting them - why I dont know but thats their way of screening applicants. I feel that marijuana should be legalized. It has a lot of calming effects on the body - why else is it used for chemotherapy patients who are ill to their stomachs? It is an herb for Christs sake, we dont outlaw them! Of course I compely agree that it is not something I want my surgeon doing before working on me, I dont feel that its necessarily always bad.

I hear what you're putting out here TLG and I agree with your two points and your reasoning behind it. But I also wonder, was this thread just started to provoke conversation and prompt opinion or is there something that I am missing in this as well?

[froggystyle]

hes just putting out ideas....just like the movie A.I. it doesnt adress anything, but it does put some ideas out. i understand clearly what tlg is saying and i laughed and moved on

[zenbooty]

http://media.salon.com/mp3s/bhicks1.mp3

http://media.salon.com/mp3s/bhicks2.mp3

[Speedfreak]

Well, I think that all drugs that are illegal do nothing to help you if you are healthy.


The problem with a lot of people that start out smoking pot is becase someone told them it is "cool" to do. fucking BS if you ask me.

The reason cigarettes and aclcohol kills more people is becuase it is easier to get. Duh. If all illegal drugs were legal, then the numbers would change dramatically. Sure, there are some people who do it because it is against the law, but still. Cigarettes should be illegal, too. What good are they doing people? Sure let's go smoke some plant rolled up in paper. Hell, maybe we could go walking into a forrest fire and breath the smoke in for free. woohoo.

[Edited by Speedfreak on 07-11-2001 at 02:03 PM]

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Well, I think that all drugs that are illegal do nothing to help you if you are healthy.


The problem with a lot of people that start out smoking pot is becase someone told them it is "cool" to do. fucking BS if you ask me.

The reason cigarettes and aclcohol kills more people is becuase it is easier to get. Duh. If all illegal drugs were legal, then the numbers would change dramatically. Sure, there are some people who do it because it is against the law, but still. Cigarettes should be illegal, too. What good are they doing people? Sure let's go smoke some plant rolled up in paper. Hell, maybe we could go walking into a forrest fire and breath the smoke in for free. woohoo.

Oh Jeez.

Smoking cigarettes or pot doesn't make much sense to me, and doesn't do any good from what I can see, so lets just throw anybody who does it in prison!

[pennypinch]

Here's something I want to know: has anyone ever done studies on the long term effects of smoking weed? I mean, inhaling smoke of any type cannot be healthy in the true sense of the word; has there ever been any study on the effects of pot on the body?

I'm sure this'll receive it's share of "Oh, sure, but they're all biased towards [insert party here]". I have to agree with speedfreak here; I'm sure if widespread legalization of drugs took place, we'd all be lamenting the irresponsible use thereof. As it is, I think a lot of people probably self-censure drug use because it IS illegal. I don't think that's an especially bad thing. Some say we're losing the drug war, and badly. I think losing is better, in this case alone, than not fighting at all...

And for those who want to take the libertarian view of things: sometimes, we do need someone to tell us what's better for us. Case in point: without any air quality restrictions, I'd be driving a goddamn F1 car and wear a gas mask when I go walking. As it is, I can go out without overwhelming fear of developing lung cancer, and I can still haul decent ass in my SUV.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Oh Jeez.

Smoking cigarettes or pot doesn't make much sense to me, and doesn't do any good from what I can see, so lets just throw anybody who does it in prison! [/B]

No no no. Don't do me like that. I don't believe in prison. We have a 3 stikes law. Think about it. Prison is supposed to be punishment, so why the hell do we need a 3 strikes law. Do you mean that people actually go back??

Maybe we should stop giving them money for their food. Maybe make them PAY for it like anyone not in jail would have to do.. You know have a job, buy your food. Jeez... there are bums on the stree living worse than people in jail. Some bums commit crimes so they can go to jail and get some shelter and food. If they get away with the crime, then it is even better. what is there to risk?

[Ice-9]

I've heard that smoking a joint is equivalent, lung-damage-wise, to smoking 7 cigarettes. So a serious pothead is comparable to a several-packs-a-day cigarette habit. Pretty nasty.

If this discussion is about legalization, I'm a fence-sitter. I can certainly see the potential benefits of legalization - lower crime, more accessible treatment (although methadone over the counter like Nicorette scares me a little), etc. But pennypinch makes a good point. Even with drugs as accessible as they are, some people who don't do them now might try them if they were legal. Look at all the people who drink! I go to school with a lot of (supposedly) intelligent people, who know that it's unhealthy to go get completely wasted, who go get completely wasted every weekend. So while legality isn't a deterrent for a lot of people, it may help in some cases.

As for the effects of drugs, I'm not arguing that drugs are never therapeutic, entertaining, or sometimes even appropriate, I'm just saying that I'd rather not be treated by a doctor who just snorted a line so he can stay awake. In your situation, Dizzy, I have no problem with it at all, but I'm saying that there drug tests are warranted and necessary in some situations.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Ice-9
I've heard that smoking a joint is equivalent, lung-damage-wise, to smoking 7 cigarettes. So a serious pothead is comparable to a several-packs-a-day cigarette habit. Pretty nasty.

Nasty, perhaps. But nasty enough that it should be illegal? I don't agree.

Even with drugs as accessible as they are, some people who don't do them now might try them if they were legal.

And so what if they do? What's so wrong with it? Can't adults lead their own lives without a bunch of useless rules that serve no purpose but to keep drugs profitable for criminals? The only thing protected by drug laws are drug dealers' profits!

Look at all the people who drink! I go to school with a lot of (supposedly) intelligent people, who know that it's unhealthy to go get completely wasted, who go get completely wasted every weekend. So while legality isn't a deterrent for a lot of people, it may help in some cases.

Again, why have we determined that it is soooooo important to deter people from using drugs? What makes them wrong?

As for the effects of drugs, I'm not arguing that drugs are never therapeutic, entertaining, or sometimes even appropriate, I'm just saying that I'd rather not be treated by a doctor who just snorted a line so he can stay awake.

Same could be said for alcohol, but its legal. Why not other drugs?

In your situation, Dizzy, I have no problem with it at all, but I'm saying that there drug tests are warranted and necessary in some situations.

I feel a drug test is only permissable if someone is noticed to be behaving irrationally or dangerously while on the job. What a person does on his own time is his business, as long as he's hurting no one else.

[Ice-9]

I disagree. I used to be friends with a couple of guys who did a lot of meth, enough that I couldn't really tell when they were on or off of it - they didn't act irrationally or dangerously. Still, I wouldn't let them near me with a pair of tweezers, let alone a scalpel. You really want to test somebody after he or she has shown evidence of dangerous behavior? In any job with life or death responsibility on the line, I think drug tests are completely warranted. Even a corporation who entrusts its mission-critical application servers to a technician is probably justified in wanting to know whether that person might pull the power plug because his perceptions are a little bit off.

In normal jobs, I think drug testing is invasive and pointless, but in certain situations, I believe that pre-emptive screening and testing is completely justified.

Oh, and I wasn't arguing for weed being illegal because it damages your lungs, I was just saying that damn, that's a lot of lung damage. Glad I don't smoke much weed.

[Grimm]

The chances of a firefighter or surgeon being impaired allready exists, through the use of alcohol. The ones that are straight when they do their jobs now will still be straight when canibus is leagalized.
It will be the same as it is now. Find someone drunk or stoned on the job, can them. It's a non-issue.

Canibus has 5 times the carcenogens(sp) as tobacco. However the quantities used in a day are much smaller than 1/5th. So the net effect is that canibus is less harmful.

Ice-9, TheLoneGunmans initial statements are clear and already cover your questions. You are just experencing the knee-jerk anti-drug reaction that you were trained to. Please stop, backup, reread the topic slowly and carefuly with an open mind. Use your brain, don't be used.

The U.K. is seriously debating the legalization of canibus. They presently have an experement going on. In one neighborhood, the police are not making arrests for camibus possesion or use, they are just issuing warning tickets. Basicly if you are puffing a J on a corner they wil stop and tell you to put it out, then give you a ticket that costs you nothing. You don't even have to go to court. After they find the results in the neighborhood, the will likely decide if they can safely legalize it.

This isn't some splinter party doing this. This is the main central government. Way to go!!!

BTW: I don't use and I probably never will. Never even tried the stuff.

[pennypinch]

The main difference I see between, say, alcohol and smoking/drugs/weed is the issue of civil litigation. The big bugaboo with cigarettes is that they cause serious damage when used exactly as directed. Same with heroine, same with pot, same with meth. Alcohol manufacturers are able to sidestep the issue by saying that alcohol is meant to be consumed in moderate quantities, and indeed, alcohol has been shown to not have extreme consequences when consumed in sane amounts.

If the above is true about pot (i.e., 5x the amount of carcinogens) and what I don't think anyone disputes are the effects of H, coke, meth, etc., then they would cause similar damage when used as directed. This would open the door for massive litigation, jacking the price up, putting us right back where we were with drug-related violent crime (i.e., B&E, car theft, etc.)

'Course, the same argument (damage resulting from correct use) can be said about red meat, so I don't know where that leaves me.

[Ice-9]

Originally posted by evilcyclops
The chances of a firefighter or surgeon being impaired allready exists, through the use of alcohol. The ones that are straight when they do their jobs now will still be straight when canibus is leagalized.
It will be the same as it is now. Find someone drunk or stoned on the job, can them. It's a non-issue.

Canibus has 5 times the carcenogens(sp) as tobacco. However the quantities used in a day are much smaller than 1/5th. So the net effect is that canibus is less harmful.

Ice-9, TheLoneGunmans initial statements are clear and already cover your questions. You are just experencing the knee-jerk anti-drug reaction that you were trained to. Please stop, backup, reread the topic slowly and carefuly with an open mind. Use your brain, don't be used.

Excuse me? No knee-jerk reactions here, bub. I honestly don't understand TLG's stance on the issue - he says that he is concerned that drug testing and "just say no" are useless, but doesn't voice an opinion on what this means. Should these campaigns be strengthened or changed so that they are effective? Should the be dropped because they are not only ineffective, but also pointless? What is he trying to say? That was the first part of what I was asking.

The second part of my original post should have been an attempt to dispute his supporting points. After re-reading my post, my tone was definitely wrong (sorry, TLG), but I felt that his statements about drug testing did not adequately cover the topic, so I was presenting another side that I felt was important.

On the topic of canibus, I was relating hearsay, so if your numbers are definite, then I'll believe those over what I've heard.

And I'm not particularly concerned about the increase in drug use among surgeons and firefighters after the legalization of canibus - I have less trouble with pot than the harder drugs. But I do think that they should be screened and/or periodically tested while working in those capacities, because of their responsibility for other peoples' lives. Obviously, I think they shouldn't be drunk, either, but that's legal and harder to test for. So if the fact that drugs are illegal makes it easier to test for them, that would seem to be one argument against legalization. Was that better stated than before?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by pennypinch
The main difference I see between, say, alcohol and smoking/drugs/weed is the issue of civil litigation. The big bugaboo with cigarettes is that they cause serious damage when used exactly as directed. Same with heroine, same with pot, same with meth. Alcohol manufacturers are able to sidestep the issue by saying that alcohol is meant to be consumed in moderate quantities, and indeed, alcohol has been shown to not have extreme consequences when consumed in sane amounts.

If the above is true about pot (i.e., 5x the amount of carcinogens) and what I don't think anyone disputes are the effects of H, coke, meth, etc., then they would cause similar damage when used as directed. This would open the door for massive litigation, jacking the price up, putting us right back where we were with drug-related violent crime (i.e., B&E, car theft, etc.)

'Course, the same argument (damage resulting from correct use) can be said about red meat, so I don't know where that leaves me.

So...
Lets legalize drugs, and kill all the lawyers! Sounds like a nice start to me!

[Burzhui]

I say LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED LEAGALIZE WEED
the end

P.S. LEAGALIZE WEED

[Edited by Burzhui on 07-11-2001 at 09:24 PM]

[hapoo]

I say no to drugs... BUT THEY DONT LISTEN!!! j/k

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by hapoo
I say no to drugs... BUT THEY DONT LISTEN!!! j/k

I dare you to say NO to BMW.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by zenbooty
http://media.salon.com/mp3s/bhicks1.mp3

http://media.salon.com/mp3s/bhicks2.mp3

those are great Zen

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Here's something I want to know: has anyone ever done studies on the long term effects of smoking weed? I mean, inhaling smoke of any type cannot be healthy in the true sense of the word; has there ever been any study on the effects of pot on the body?

my psychopharmacology class said, in a nutshell: breathing in the smoke of pot is nowhere near as bad for you as breathing in tobacco smoke (duh), firewood smoke, candle smoke, or just about any other kind of smoke. pot is about as innocuous as it gets from the neck down.

as for longterm effects on the brain, it's hard to say: people who smoke absolutely mind-boggling amounts of the stuff for decades do wind up a tad unhinged, but that is merely correlation, and not causation (it is just as likely that you would have to already be good and unhinged to decide to chain smoke joints all day every day.) there probably are long-term effects, but they are mild and hard to isolate.

there was a good essay in newsweek a few weeks ago that was pro-current drug policy. this guy was saying, no, we're not stopping hard-core users, but, by keeping drugs illegal, we are making them more difficult to get - you can get them, but you have to go out of your way, devote some time to geting them, take some risks, and that keeps a lot of casual users from really getting into it. you use them at parties, but you don't have a steady supply on hand, then you get married, have a few kids, stop going to parties, and your occasional drug use just kinda dries up. it's an interesting perspective. there are disadvantages to the current us drug policy, but there are advantages, too.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by evilcyclops

Canibus has 5 times the carcenogens(sp) as tobacco. However the quantities used in a day are much smaller than 1/5th. So the net effect is that canibus is less harmful.

i'm not buyin it. you'd have to find me a journal publication to back that up before i'll believe it. marijuana burns cleaner than white pine.

also, you can't go by what is in plain ole tobaccy like what you pluck off a plant. that's not what goes in a cigarrette. cigarrettes are highly engineered, with over 250 additives. it may be that plain ole tobacco isn't that bad, but what you buy in a pack at the piggly-wiggly is chock-full of nastiness.

[Grimm]

I do not recall the source of my information. It is just something that stuck in my head. I think it is "as much as 5 times" which means compared to an additive free cigarette (most likely). The trick being, canibus is used in much smaller quantities. The net effect is that it is less dangerous than tobacco.
Exactly how clean does white pine burn?

Why isn't canibus legal? Cotton farmers. They didn't want the competition from hemp farmers and so lobbied to make it illegal based on canibus's qualities as a drug.

Why is it still illegal? Unlike tobacco hemp can grow just about anywhere with no serious adverse effects to the soil. Tobbaco poisons the soil with nicoteen, to prevent other plants from growing, and it requires a specific type of climate to do well.
Anyone can grow their own weed easily. It can't be tightly controlled by a big greedy profitmaking corporation. Why do they want the competition? Keep it illegal.

[froggystyle]

Here is the problem with pot. It stunts your mental growth. When you become a pothead, you loose your short term memory. By doing so you effectually stop learning for the most part. This is why the general consensus is that pot smoking by teenagers in their most developmental stage is the worst. after you have more or less stoped developing pot smoke doesnt do much as far as mental effects. My friends little brother started smoking pot when he was 12...he is now 19 years old. He just recently made his first comment about a girl. until then he had never mentioned any interest in the opposite sex and has never even seen a girl let alone has ever had a girlfriend. His brother started smoking when he was 17 he is now 22 and has the mentality of a fifteen year old as far as relationships and responsibility and the likes. Pot smoking deters your ability to develope mentaly. I have no problem with people smoking pot once they have developed (20 or so years and above). But before that, the effects are too detrimental to mental health. Its just like chef says "theres a time and a place for everything...and thats college"