Everything you've heard about crack and meth is wrong

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/04/everything-youve-heard-about-crack-and-meth-is-wrong/

 

This is a really great article that attacks the fear mongering and propaganda pushed by prohibitionists. The vast majority of the personal and societal ills related to drugs are directly caused by prohibition and the black markets created by it.

[GlockSpock]

:rofl:

 

So all those times druggies have been stealing stuff to pawn they were actually just looking for a cash payout! 

 

EDIT: Yes, I'll admit that environment does play a very large role in it. There isn't a single thing in my life that I'd give up for the "thrills" of any drug, however I've been very blessed and have a great job and family. However, there are so many people that have neither and narcotics are seen as the only way "out".

Edited November 5, 2013 by CZ9MM

[Guest TankerHC]

Hate to disagree, but anyone who says that about crack and meth is an idiot. (The writer not the OP), I have personal experience with it. You can ask two of my 5 brothers, they are both in Huntsville State Prison in Texas, one who was perfectly normal until he got on that sheet (Meth) and is now an outright nutcase, will spend the next 35 years behind bars, the other will probably be doing life but as of right now he only has 20, he just hasnt gone to court on the other meth related charges. Or you can check with the families of their 5 diead friends just from this year, all meth related and nothing at all to do with prohibition on drugs.

 

Trying to justify legalization of marijuana is one thing. Trying to justify the legalization of meth and crack (Cocaine) is an entirely different thing altogether. I have seen the effects personally, both mental and physical and meth is nothing to play with.

 

"Hart is well aware of the hostility he is apt to provoke by challenging the myths underlying the war on drugs"

 

As he well should be, because there is plenty of proof beyond one guys opinion, and I know for a fact many right here on this Forum have seen it first hand.

[GlockSpock]

Time for someone to write a fancy book, quote this guy a lot, and call it "Breaking Bad Effects".

[Smith]

Does anyone remember how the drug culture got started in the 60's and 70's? Drugs were supposed to open our minds and give us depth we had never achieved before because we were stifled by the constraints of laws, rules, and "societal norms". Sound familiar? Didn't work too well for the hippies then and it won't work now no matter how you recolor the argument. Arguments made with a false premises are false arguments no matter how loud you yell it or how many people agree with you.

 

 As far as Mr. Hart he is using the same argument they have always made. Arguing the tree and ignoring the forest. The real question is why?

 

IMO - The drug culture of our society is as linked to medical/pharmaceutical and politics as anything else. By leading people to believe that all their problems can be solved by a simple pill or a single elected official has lead us to a dependent society. Whether that be drugs or government it is all a symptom of the same root cause of a lack of personal accountability. Even Hart's own study proves that when he talks about why low income folks are more subject to cocaine addiction and violence without the transition upwards. People in low income demographics are also proportionally and statistically to be low accountability people, which  accounts for the crime rates and imprisonment rates across those same socio-economic demographics. Folks who have less or nothing to loose tend to not care about the consequences of their action on themselves or others. It should be said that folks on the other end (high socio-economic demographic) also suffer from the same issues due to the same root cause - lack of accountability. They are just able to stay afloat longer due to their money and connection abilities.

[piercedan]

Not all drugs are created equal.

[bersaguy]

I remember the 60's and 70's quite well. I remember when music like Steppin Wolf glorified drugs with their music. I remember when LSD first came on the scene. It cause people to take wild and crazy trips to Never Never Land. Thing is and was the after effects of it. I know a few people to this day that have not touched it in many years that can still have effects from it and go to Never Never Land to this day spontaneously with no reason other than it really never leaves your system. It cause many suicides back then and is probably responsible for even some to this day. Many many lives were lost in Vietnam by friendly fire sue to the drug and Opium kitchens that were all over Nam. A gunnery crew would come out of the kitchens to do their shift on the artillery and when a fire order came in and they were given their firing co ordinance they would get it wrong and end up firing on our own troops instead. There is nothing positive about those type of drugs.............jmho  

[mikegideon]

Does anyone remember how the drug culture got started in the 60's and 70's? Drugs were supposed to open our minds and give us depth we had never achieved before because we were stifled by the constraints of laws, rules, and "societal norms". Sound familiar? Didn't work too well for the hippies then and it won't work now no matter how you recolor the argument. Arguments made with a false premises are false arguments no matter how loud you yell it or how many people agree with you.

 

 As far as Mr. Hart he is using the same argument they have always made. Arguing the tree and ignoring the forest. The real question is why?

 

IMO - The drug culture of our society is as linked to medical/pharmaceutical and politics as anything else. By leading people to believe that all their problems can be solved by a simple pill or a single elected official has lead us to a dependent society. Whether that be drugs or government it is all a symptom of the same root cause of a lack of personal accountability. Even Hart's own study proves that when he talks about why low income folks are more subject to cocaine addiction and violence without the transition upwards. People in low income demographics are also proportionally and statistically to be low accountability people, which  accounts for the crime rates and imprisonment rates across those same socio-economic demographics. Folks who have less or nothing to loose tend to not care about the consequences of their action on themselves or others. It should be said that folks on the other end (high socio-economic demographic) also suffer from the same issues due to the same root cause - lack of accountability. They are just able to stay afloat longer due to their money and connection abilities.

 

The "mine expanding" deal was about pot, LSD, and other hallucinogenic drugs, none of which are NEAR as harmful as Cocaine or meth.

[Raoul]

I remember the 60's and 70's quite well. I remember when music like Steppin Wolf glorified drugs with their music. I remember when LSD first came on the scene. It cause people to take wild and crazy trips to Never Never Land. Thing is and was the after effects of it. I know a few people to this day that have not touched it in many years that can still have effects from it and go to Never Never Land to this day spontaneously with no reason other than it really never leaves your system. It cause many suicides back then and is probably responsible for even some to this day. Many many lives were lost in Vietnam by friendly fire sue to the drug and Opium kitchens that were all over Nam. A gunnery crew would come out of the kitchens to do their shift on the artillery and when a fire order came in and they were given their firing co ordinance they would get it wrong and end up firing on our own troops instead. There is nothing positive about those type of drugs.............jmho  

 

That must have been some really stupendous LSD.

[mikegideon]

That must have been some really stupendous LSD.

 

At least SOMEBODY got the fashbacks they were promised  :rofl:

[Smith]

The "mine expanding" deal was about pot, LSD, and other hallucinogenic drugs, none of which are NEAR as harmful as Cocaine or meth.

True, but the argument was for them then was/is the same root as now and they are all essential designed to do the same thing. Detach from reality and escape from normalcy. Just because you drive a 4x4 at 10 mph towards a cliff or a sports car at 100mph towards the cliff ... you're still eventually going to drive over the cliff.

[TMF]

Huffing gas and spray paint is pretty destructive to one's health, yet I can still get a gallon of gas for less than a gallon of milk.

Any half wit with access to the Internet can take legally bought items and turn them into dangerous drugs (or bombs). I'm not convinced those types of people would be clean no matter what you outlawed. They will always be a skid mark in society's undies. Why criminalize an inanimate object for the sins of the person who abuses it? They will be an addicted waste of oxygen either way, committing crimes to support their habit and doing nothing to be productive, however, decriminalizing the inanimate object comes with a cheaper price tag to society. A least then we could focus on locking up the lawbreakers who commit crimes with actual victims as opposed to prosecuting people for having certain chemicals.

[Chucktshoes]

I used more than a few drugs back in my younger years, I'm no worse for the wear from the experience. I know plenty of folks who can say the same. I also know quite a few who managed to completely screw up their lives (almost exclusively due to legal troubles) and some who ended up dying from drug use. Most folks who try drugs, including the big bad scary "hard" drugs don't become addicts and fiends. They use them recreationally and then move on to different things as they mature and have different priorities. Ultimately, the amount of harm drugs do or do not do to the individual has never been the root of my argument for legalization. It is a liberty and property rights issue for me. The article was posted as more of a food for thought and conversation starter. As Doug Stanhope puts it so well, if you don't own anything else, you own your own meat. If I truly do own my own meat, my body, then I should be at liberty to treat it however I want. If I want to treat my body excellently and never ingest anything harmful, eat well and exercise that is my right to make that choice. If I want to treat my body like a rental car and eat fast food, sit on my ass, drink to excess, smoke and even take drugs, that too should my right to take my choice. 

 

As a society we didn't learn anything from alcohol prohibition apparently. We still seem to think that it is ok to trample on civil liberties, spend insane amounts of money on law enforcement and prisons and create a large black market that will guarantee the involvement of some of the most unsavory and violent people all just to tell a small minority of the population that they can't put something into their own body. It is just downright dumb. 

[Oh Shoot]

Hey, the mayor of the 4th largest city in North America smokes crack. But he's not addicted and only has done it during "one of my drunken stupors".

 

So, see there?

 

('bout to have a news conference, again, maybe)

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57610914/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-admits-smoking-crack/

 

Also has a bit in common with Walt Kowalski:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DRjPugLCw4

 

- OS

Edited November 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

Hey, the mayor of the 4th largest city in North America smokes crack. But he's not addicted and only has done it during "one of my drunken stupors".

 

So, see there?

 

('bout to have a news conference, again, maybe)

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57610914/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-admits-smoking-crack/

 

- OS

 

Where did he get the crack? I thought the government kept him safe from that. Must have bought it at a gun show

[Oh Shoot]

Where did he get the crack? I thought the government kept him safe from that. Must have bought it at a gun show

 

He doesn't remember, says he needs to see the video. The drunken stupor twinkie defense or something.

 

Cat is really some piece of work, can't believe I haven't heard of some of his antics before.

 

Check out FOX, they're gonna air it any minute if he shows. Shep is having a ball with it. I gotta leave, will miss it, dammit.

 

- OS

Edited November 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

I have worked with a guy who had previously done meth. He was pretty together. Also an old friend use to do ecstasy in his clubbing days. No apparent ill effects. I take any drug information provided by the authorities with a *big* pinch of salt what with all the BS about MJ that was put around. Always research for yourself. It's easier now than ever.

 

I'm all for legalization but my drug of choice is the perfectly legal yet terribly lethal CH3CH2OH.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It is non-controversial that too many drugs are bad for you, at least unless you happen to be the founder of a huge computer company, mayor of a big city or a recent president. :)

 

However it is controversial (apparently) whether society as a whole is better or worse off to squander zillions of dollars persecuting not only addicts, but ordinary non-drug-taking citizens, in the name of "helping" them.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

It is non-controversial that too many drugs are bad for you, at least unless you happen to be the founder of a huge computer company, mayor of a big city or a recent president. :)
 
However it is controversial (apparently) whether society as a whole is better or worse off to squander zillions of dollars persecuting not only addicts, but ordinary non-drug-taking citizens, in the name of "helping" them.

Kinda backwards, eh? I might wanna buy a dime bag of a harmless plant that grows naturally, but in order to get it I would have to consort with potentially dangerous drug dealers. I'm glad the gov is looking out for me.

[BigK]

I love the War On Drugs vs Legalize It conversations. I kind of straddle the fence on the issue, so I tend to agree with most of them on both sides.

 

I think 99.99% of the WOD propaganda about marijuana is pure BS. At the same time, I know a lot of dead beat geniuses with a lot to contribute to the world, but they can't put down the bong and the "Legalize It" picket sign long enough to accomplish anything. That's their choice to make, though.

[RobertNashville]

Ending the "war on drugs" may or may not be appropriate in terms of public policy.

 

However, anyone who downplays the life-destroying effects of drug use and addiction (especially rock cocaine and meth) is an idiot no matter how many letters comes after his/her name. Moreover, how addicting and/or destructive drug use/abuse is not, in my opinion, relevant to public policy discussion of whether or not it should be "illegal".

[TMF]

At the same time, I know a lot of dead beat geniuses with a lot to contribute to the world, but they can't put down the bong and the "Legalize It" picket sign long enough to accomplish anything. That's their choice to make, though.

And what do you suppose would be different if it was legalized?

[Chucktshoes]

And what do you suppose would be different if it was legalized?

I can think of something! They wouldn't stink up the public square anymore with the smell of patchouli and BO when they go picketing.  :hyper:

Edited November 6, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[dlmeadows]

Tell the parents of a good friend of mine that meth isnt a harmful drug especially when it caused him to commit suicide one night. Ive witnessed the effects of these "scary drugs" and anyone who thinks they are harmless is insane. Ive unfortunately lost more than one friend from suicide because of these drugs. before they were addicts they were great people that would do anything possible too help a friend and this was the end result.

[tnguy]

It should also be noted that the current legal structure makes it difficult for people to obtain help.