Drugs

[Sprite]

Here is how I see it.

Small time drug users pot heads smoke and get high, the money paid for this habit though goes towards much more harmful things. Plus as in the case of my brother who now has a serious criminal record and no longer lives with us, Smoked weed for years and years, this led to the habit making him paranoid, but also to keep himself going he started to take Speed thus having a manic persona so during the day he would sleep and smoke and by night he was hopped up on speed creating all sorts of havoc for us. This lead to him dealing and our house been raided by the police and tearing what I consider a perfectly normal family apart. So having a Paranoid and manic crazy person isn't a good thing.

So all things considered been a drug user however casual you may think has its own repercussions. Why anyone would want to do that to themselves and their family is beyond me. Smoking, Heavy Drinking and Drug use are social problems at the worse and I think need to be cut out and stopped by governments and the population as a whole, but how to do it without effecting peoples liberties is another thing.

Just on a lighter note I thought you guys may like a bit of humour for christmas. I will give the link to the youtube page as I think posting it here on GTP directly may break AUP.

**Warning Comedic Discussion of drugs in a Christmas setting - May Offend Drug users**

 

[TVC]

Don't know how to delete posts here...

 

[Glanza-V]

I think weed/hash should be legal .. maybe yolks(xtc)..
If they were legazied, things like hash wouldn't have plastic in it and yolks werent full of other chemicals.

 

[Sureboss]

Because it's the plastic in it that is the problem? Right...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Because it's the plastic in it that is the problem? Right...

No less than the white spirit in the vodka. So yes, it is a problem. What he's basically saying is if you legalize it you can control and standardise it. Rogue batches of drugs are a huge menace.

 

[Sureboss]

Yes, but that's not why they are banned.

 

[Famine]

But why are they banned?

If it's a question of harmfulness, why are there more harmful substances and practices which are still legal?

 

[Sureboss]

Agreed. The law is daft. But then put people in silly wigs and what do you expect?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Substances are banned because they are believed to have a negative effect on society.

Consumption of alcohol has long, long been accepted into society and yes when consumed to excess it has adverse effects. But bare in mind that (weak) alcoholic drinks were once the main source of hydration in many cities it shouldn't surprise you it's legal. And it's only after many years of studying smokers that it dawned on people it was an issue. And lets be fair, how many of our offices would be productive before 12pm if it wasn't for caffiene.

 

[Gil]

I don't care for drugs and or the use of drugs,unless for medicinal purposes only.

Now I have a question about alcohol :

Why is is that our government can take an 18 year old " kid ",put him in uniform,send his ass across the pond to fight for our country,get shot,killed,but he cannot "legally" have a beer / drink until he's 21 ? Whats more dangerous,being shot at,or having a beer ?

In truth, when you are in the military, you can drink at 18 if you are at one of the on base enlisted clubs.

You can not drink hard liquor, but beer is indeed legal.

And having had both things happen to me, I'd rather have a beer than be shot at.👍

 

[Mark T]

A few of my friends partake in drug taking, one of them is a fireman. Now this may seem crazy as he holds alot of responsibilty in his job. When I asked him about drug testing in the fire service he said they do have tests once a month. I believe the drug he takes in MDMA (I believe this is a crystallised form of ecstacy). He only does it when he is on his seven day break and he is sensible when doing it (drinks water regularly). I should also note that he only does it when clubbing. He has a good reason aswell. Half a gram of MDMA is about £25, he argues that he would spend more than £25 if he was drinking alcohol, he would most likely have a hangover the next morning and when drunk he isn't in control of his actions.

When I have been out with him when he has been on MDMA you can see that he is very energtic but not bouncing off walls. He is also perfectly normal to talk to, can see when he's doing something wrong (knocking someone on the dance floor etc) and is capable of getting home by himself. The effects also seem to wear off completely after about 6=7 hours. That's not to say that everyone will be as cautious, some will do over a gram of a substance and get completely wasted, then drive, which is unacceptable.

The trouble with making drugs illegal is that there is no control over the substance (no manufacturing or health and safety guidelines) so no one really knows what they are taking. If it was government controlled regulations could be put in place, taxation could provide a welcome addition to the economy and it may help to bring down the crime and violence involved with the illegal distribution of drugs.

You then have to consider which drugs should be made legal. Would you really want heroin, crack and crystal meth to be legal? Or would the drugs that are considered to be "too dangerous" still be outlawed?

 

[Danoff]

If it was government controlled regulations could be put in place, taxation could provide a welcome addition to the economy and it may help to bring down the crime and violence involved with the illegal distribution of drugs.

First of all, taxation is not an addition to the economy, it's an addition to government revenue - which is fairly useless. Secondly, making drugs legal would necessarily bring down crime and violence involved with drug distribution. Third, government regulations are unnecessary in this instance. The quality of drugs right now are suspect because they're illegal. If companies, with trademarks to protect, advertising, and marketing, were to compete when offering drugs, we'd have only the finest quality.

When was the last time someone died while smoking a Marlboro because it was cut with bleach or laced with rat poison?

 

[Sureboss]

Regulate things like that and it's easier. Sex trafficking would work in the same way. These things will always happen, always, you will not stop it, so make the best of it.

 

[Danoff]

Regulate things like that and it's easier.

My point is that legal competition ensures quality products. No regulation required.

 

[FoolKiller]

My point is that legal competition ensures quality products. No regulation required.

There is one flaw in your argument: Government exists, thus regulation is required by the physical laws of stupidity which dictate the natural progression of government.

 

[Danoff]

There is one flaw in your argument: Government exists, thus regulation is required by the physical laws of stupidity which dictate the natural progression of government.

That's what limitations on government are for. You remember those... we used to have some.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's what limitations on government are for. You remember those... we used to have some.

I think they're under that smudged bit a little over midway down on the right.

 

[opelgt1969]

My point is that legal competition ensures quality products. No regulation required.

Can you say "Peanut Butter"? Great quality on the goverments behalf on that!

 

[Sureboss]

i feel sorry for the poor labourers who have to milk the peanuts in the first place, poor blighter's.

 

[Mark T]

First of all, taxation is not an addition to the economy, it's an addition to government revenue - which is fairly useless.

Well the taxation (VAT in the UK) would be charged on top of would be included in the retail price. Legalsing drugs would create various companies who would be offering to sell the drugs. Obviously the factory would need employees, machinery, health and safety officials maybe even testers (I think it may give Amy Winehouse a future career alongside being photographed in the gutter).

I'm just trying to say that the legalisation would create thousands of jobs worldwide thus stimulating the economy, even if it will all go to bailing out greedy bankers.

 

[YSSMAN]

So, California is taking on a measure to legalize the sale of Marijuana for use by citizens 21 and over. It being one of the largest cash crops in CA, they stand to make a lot of money off of it. According to the article, as much as an extra $1.3 Billion per year.

With the promised "relaxing" of federal enforcement on drug raids, and an increase in interest for at least medical marijuana, how far are we from seeing this pass? Not just in California, but across the country?

 

[Flerbizky]

So, California is taking on a measure to legalize the sale of Marijuana for use by citizens 21 and over. It being one of the largest cash crops in CA, they stand to make a lot of money off of it. According to the article, as much as an extra $1.3 Billion per year.

With the promised "relaxing" of federal enforcement on drug raids, and an increase in interest for at least medical marijuana, how far are we from seeing this pass? Not just in California, but across the country?

The government here in DK is discussing legalizing hash and hence making a small profit.. Thing is, if they legalize it, the criminals selling it, will have to find other ways to make money..

I'm all for it !...

Note: I do not smoke anything apart from cigarettes, but as alcohol (and cigarettes) are legal, I see no reason hash shouldn't be as well...

 

[Glanza-V]

Its easier to get contaminated hash(plastic etc ..)hash ..that should make it safer if it is legalized.

 

[YSSMAN]

Note: I do not smoke anything apart from cigarettes, but as alcohol (and cigarettes) are legal, I see no reason hash shouldn't be as well...

That, I assume, will be the only trip-up here in the US should California pass it, and others later follow suit. Make it a 21+ deal, I think they'd do alright. It would bring in a lot of business, certainly, and most-definitely undercut a lot of the drug lords down in Mexico that are stirring up trouble along the border.

 

[RacingGameFan22]

I'm thinking about writing this movie in which the main character (along with a few secondary characters) is a cokehead.

Personally, I think that pop culture glamorizes Drug Use. I know that I'm literally feeding a monster with this (not-so surprising) Plot structure, but apparently that what sells tickets. people come to see movies just for cigarette smoking and drug use. it has pretty much been the theme for the LAST 25 YEARS.

Hell, look at Anne Hathaway. she was nominated for a Academy Award for playing a junkie. A JUNKIE. WHO SMOKED CIGARETTES AND ACTS NERVOUSLY FOR A GOOD PORTION OF THE FILM. (By the way, I grew up in a family of smokers, so I found this kind of hot [as I stated in another thread]. In fact, I tried to look around for a picture of her smoking but can't find one. if you know where to get one or have one, PM me. Also, I haven't seen the movie yet, [I have it] but that's the impression i got from the previews.)

So, "What Your Point", you may ask?

well, let me put it to you this way; Parents need to protect their children from drugs. but how in the hell can you when your children go to see movies about drug use? or the lead character is smoking? what kind of message is it sending to your children?

 

[FoolKiller]

Personally, I think that pop culture glamorizes Drug Use. I know that I'm literally feeding a monster with this (not-so surprising) Plot structure, but apparently that what sells tickets.

Yeah, because Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Spiderman were full of drug use. Um, it seems to me that good movies sell tickets.

people come to see movies just for cigarette smoking and drug use. it has pretty much been the theme for the LAST 25 YEARS.

OK, I don't even know of a poorly done study that says that. Can you back this up? I can find plenty of stuff that says having it in films makes kids want to do it, but not that they go see movies just for that.

Hell, look at Anne Hathaway.

I'd rather not.

she was nominated for a Academy Award for playing a junkie. A JUNKIE. WHO SMOKED CIGARETTES AND ACTS NERVOUSLY FOR A GOOD PORTION OF THE FILM.

I thought she was nominated for her acting skills, and portraying a recovering addict well.

well, let me put it to you this way; Parents need to protect their children from drugs. but how in the hell can you when your children go to see movies about drug use? or the lead character is smoking? what kind of message is it sending to your children?

I know how parents can, don't let your kids go see those movies. 💡

Oddly enough they have these ratings that detail these activities so that parents can make judgments like that and protect their children in whatever way they see fit.

Don't blame the media.

 

[RacingGameFan22]

Oddly enough they have these ratings that detail these activities so that parents can make judgments like that and protect their children in whatever way they see fit.

ff-topic rant coming:

you know, you bring up a very good topic. In fact, that reminds me of something....

a couple of years ago, I happened to be riding in a car of a friend who's a conservative Republican (he claims he's a independent but........whatever) and he was listening to the Laura Ingraham show. and Laura proved :liberal democrat talk: how narrow-minded people like her and Rush Limbaugh and Mike Gallacher really are :liberal democrat talk ended: Anyway, she had some movie family watchdog rating...person on, and she (meaning Laura) made the most narrow-minded comment about any form of pop culture I had (or will ever) hear.

she actually said that the MPAA don't say during movie ads what constuted the rating for any (read: ANY) film

:jaw drop:

literally, the sound of my jaw dropping to the floor could be heard up in Mars.

seriously, Laura? Seriously?

I felt like reaching into the stereo and stabbing ms. ingraham's neck with a pen just like Joe Pesci did to that unlucky shumck who made fun of Robert DeNiro in "Casino".

Really, Laura? Really?

apparently she forgot that the majority of movies at the time that she made this comment (2006) had a content descriptor that said the content of which the movie had (language, sex, violence, drugs, alcohol, etc.) just like the ESRB have. it shows it at the bottom of the rating descriptor (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) and also it is shown in full view at the very beginning of all trailers and movies if you're watching at home or at the theatre.


and do you know the most shocking thing about all this is?

the movie family watchdog rating....person ACUTALLY AGREED WITH HER.

seriously, b:censored:? seriously. are you conservative too? are you really sipping her Kool-Aid? or are you just said yes out of fear?

Wow, talk about a 'yes-woman'.

anyway, does this disgust you like it does me? I mean, I don't care which side of the political game you sit on, you have to be outraged by this, right?

ff-topic rant ended:

 

[Prosthetic]

Outraged about pot being legalized? You don't even live in the state...

 

[Zrow]

Pot should be legal, because it's not going to make that much of a difference anyway when it comes to things like use and testing. You'll probably still have to take a drug test when applying for jobs that test now. You still won't be able to drive while high. Stoners are still going to be looked at as stoners. There will still be anti-marijuana commercials and groups.

Honestly, legalizing pot is a total no brainer and almost not even worth debating.

 

[Max Powers]

Hell, look at Anne Hathaway. she was nominated for a Academy Award for playing a junkie. A JUNKIE. WHO SMOKED CIGARETTES AND ACTS NERVOUSLY FOR A GOOD PORTION OF THE FILM.

Holy crap! Stop the presses, she SMOKED in the movie, and still won an academy award?