Ok I see you rpoint....I guess then it comes down to this:
It is not always ethical to commit acts that are, in and of themselves, ehtical or moral things.
It is ALWAYS unethical to commit immoral or unethical acts.
It is widely held (or at least commonly acknowledged that some people believe this) that it is unethical for a journalist to give up his sources.
That instantly makes "shareholders" a tangental issue. It is unethical, whether it causes shareholders to lose money or not. It should be treated as if there is no option.
> I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether > Slashdot should go to the same length to protect > sources
> Slashdot is now part of a public corporation > and some would argue that it would be unethical > for it to jeopardize the interests of its > shareholders
Well first of all.. slashdot is a web page, a part of an organization, not a journalist. When publishing stories the individuals who write the stories act as journalists.
It is the journalists themselves who generally follow such a "code of ethics" as not divulging sources. As in this case...the journalist is leaving his job rather than giving up his source.
As for being a public corp. Is it ethical to "jepordize the interests of shareholders" if NOT doing so requires an unethical act? I tend to think that this idea of "The interests of the shareholders" usurping all other metrics of morality is absurd.
Whether or not it is ethical or unethical for a journalist to protect his sources is certainly open to debate (this journalist obviously has strong convictions about the issue). However, 'the interests of shareholders' has nothing to do with it. Its a completely tangental issue.
I would argue that doing something unethical to protect the interests of shareholders is just as unethical as if there were no shareholders. -Steve
> I'm very upset you used your +1 bonus on this > pseudo-medical babble.
Well thats your right. However it is my bonus to use as I see fit. I saw fit. My opinion on this subject differs from yours, obviously.
> Now professionals that deal with addiction on > a daily basis use a slightly different > functional definition which is more like > "a continuance of a behavior despite worsening > consequences" usually with a few caveats.
This is much to broad of a definition for me. It sounds like an essentially worthless definition. What are "consequences" what is "Worstening"? This sounds like a value judgement to me. Someone who sees no value in the effect of a drug is likely then to make a determination completely differnt from one who does see a value in it.
by your definition, if I continue to masturbate even after my dick is sore from the friction, then I am addicted.
> There are very few drugs you can take that don't > have some sort of withdrawl symtoms.
I supose this brings you right down into what is withdrawl? There is a definite value judhgement going on here, but this one can't be avoided.
Caffeine and Heroin both have very specific and often rather acute forms of withdrawl. It is physical and easy to diagnose. Marijuana on the other hand, is much harder to see.
With something like marijuana, withdrawl is less evident. With most people its harder to finger and many who have used it heavily then suddenly stopped report no withdrawl.
Cocaine on the other hand has NO known withdrawl. There is a definite tendancy towards psycological dependance, which can itself make stopping quite hellish, but after the "crash" there is no further physical syndrome. (and, unlike marijauan, I am not speaking from personal experience here, my source is "Ending the Drug War a Solution for America" by Dirk Chase Eldrich - having lost my copy of the physical book...I can't say who he cites on this topic)
> Depression, real, actual, life-wrecking > depression is simply a specific CHEMICAL > IMBALANCE IN THE BRAIN. It's not a bad mood.
Im sorry....this I have to take issue with. it is simply NOT that simple. Yes depression is marked by a chemical imbalance, and that CAN be the cause. However I have found that it is seldom the sole cause (even though it is often treated as if it is).
Psycopharmacology is a fascinating feild. It is amazing and very useful. However it is very far from a total exlanation of how the mind works and how to solve its problems. Depression has every bit as much to do with how an individual aproaches and deals with problems in their life, and what their problems are, as it does chemical levels in the brain.
I know this first hand. I found myself extremely depressed the one year I was in colledge. It was the main reason I left at the end of the year and failed nearly all my classes. I got out of it on my own. I did it the old fashioned way. I suffered, and I suffered...then, when the time was right, I realized that the problem was me and I needed to change how I was doing things.
Sure not everyone can just do that... some need help with the chemical imbalance part. Definitly. However to say that depression IS a chemical imbalance is to trivialize the nature of the beast. (the tendancy to treat depression like some ailment that can just be blindly medicated away with drugs is a pet peeve of mine. ive seen it tried too many times)
Now off my soapbox...
My original point was simply this. Addiction specifically requires PHYSICAL withdrawl. Anything else (while possibly just as hard and agonizing to quit...if not more so) is psycological dependance.
Its alot like how police call every illegal drug a narcotic. Its simply incorrect terminology. Heroin is the ONLY common illicit drug that is also a narcotic.
I think the real problem is that Gas has been so cheap in the US for so long. We have had it WAY too good.
Plentiful supply, no shortages, cheap prices. Hell yes I enjoy it too. Even today with higher prices, gas is still fairly cheap.
Its cheap, its what we know. Whn the masses are confortable, there is no push to invest and research alternative fuels. Face it...any new system will need to be able to compete with the existing fuel infrastructure.
As for alcohol based cars....you can make your own ethanol and use it to power your car...many engines will run without modification (tho not well...much better to use a gas/alcohol mix). You can even get a licence to distil your own ethanol for fuel really cheap from the BATF. (in the US obviously).
Linday's Publications (http://www.lindsaybks.com) has a book on building a fuel alcohol still that talks about all this stuff. Really good book. Of course the MPG is less than Gas, but it burns ALOT cleaner....and thus keeps the engine cleaner.
I am personally of the belief that there is alot of potential in these feilds. I would like to get a Gas/electric hybrid (the honda insight beats the pants off even my motorcycle for MPG) and see it modified to run off Ethanol or methanol....now that would truely be a great car.
Actually....I would love to set something like this up. What would be really good if there was a way in HTTP to specify "don't parse this...hand it to me raw".
I would love such a thing.
Not only would it make it possible to read code, it would encourage good programming practices. No longer could people assume "This is invisible, I can be stupid and handle data insecurely and noone will ever know"
I agree that politicans have NO right to make any sort of decision about whether drug us is "OK". It is my solem belief that my body and my mind are just that...mine. Mine to use, mine to own, mine to rent out (thats what work is isn't it?), mine to alter (with drugs, meditation or what not), and mine to destroy (suicide).
However legalizing drugs is NOT the politicans making a decision about drugs. It is removing a legal restriction. It would mean them stepping back and saying "NO, we were wrong to do that".
Legalization doesn't mean asking them to say "Its ok to do drugs". Legalization is asking them to say "We wont hunt you down and throw you in a cell like some animal if you use drugs"
> From first hand experience I can tell you that > caffeine is addictive. I was addicted for > almost one entire school year, back in High > School.
My experience with addiction also came in HS. I was never one to get enough sleep at night so, I knew tea had caffeinew (actually has a few cousin chemicals of caffeine too - its somewhat more active - overall - than coffee). So...I drank nestea every morning before class. (there was a soft drink machine)
Every day I would have one...or two or three. Then of course one or two at lunch....and maybe one after school for good measure.
One day...I forgot to bring money to school. ALL day long I experienced hot flashes, cold sweats. I knew right away that I was an addict.
Ever since I have monitored my caffeine intake. I try to be very careful with it. I usually allow myself some tea in the morning...maybe one or two....but after noon no more. At night? never. As for soda, I switched to ginger ale.
All in all I have been much happier ever since. I sleep much better at night. I don't get headaches in the morning before my tea (and if I ever do...then I cut all caffeine out for a solid week). And of course...as little caffeine as possible on weekends...to give my body a rest.
Its really not hard to monitor caffeine intake, or ANY drug really. Its just a matter of knowing your body, knowing the drug, and knowing that you don't NEED any drug at all. (on a regular basis... ocasionally one NEEDs a stimulent for a short time like when sleep is not an option because the disk array got itself wedged in the night)
I think the reall problem is that our society doesn't teach this. There is little incentive to learn how to manage ones intake of drugs. Hell the most common drugs like alcohol and caffeine etc aren't even considered to be drugs by many.
Certainly laced pot exists. However it is extremely rare, in my experience, for a person to recieve laced pot without knowing it. There are people who LIKE pot laced with PCP and will pay extra for it.
However...alot of the "laced pot" stuff is myth. Face it...really high quality pot has a very differnt feel to it from cheap shwag. Pot *IS* a psychedelic in the proper quantity and in that quantity the high can be VERY uncomnfortable. That leads to alot of "Oh that shit had to have been laced" stories.
Thats not to say that no dealer has ever laced shitty pot and tried to pass it off as normal. Surely it has happend. Its just alot more rare than most people claim it to be.
Its not uncommon really. Any drug is effected as much by what you think about it as itself. Dance Safe has been asking people o send in "Ecstacy" pills. Of course people only tend to send in pills that they THINK are laced or somehoe wrong. Still only a small percentage contained any drug but MDMA (well larger than some would like to see but still smaller than one would expect to see).
Find someone who says they have had mescaline. They will say it was in a microdot. Then tell them it was LSD (because it was...you can't fit enough mescaline in a microdot that you would even feel it if it was real. 400 mg just wont fit in that small of a space). They will swear up and down "No way was that acid" and "Ive had acid before, this was WAY different" - its true...I am speaking not only from real conversations I have had with people I know - but also from talking with others who have had the same conversation....with completely differnt people.
> Alcohol is a drug in a way, because it can be > addictive. HOWEVER, this is my point, getting > addicted to it is far far far harder and > unlikely than getting addicted to heroin.
If addiction potential is the ONLY concern then yes, alcohol is less bad than heroin. However, its also more toxic to the body and does more damage to the body over time than heroin. (heroin withdrawl can't kill you. heroin will also not destroy your liver or any other organ of the body)
However heroin is one of the most addictive drugs there is. Cocain isn't addictive at all. I still wouldn't use it (well id do it once...kind of curious as to what it feels like. am told that to do it right you have to do lines off the body of a naked chick...never done it myself tho)
LSD isn't addictive at all...Ive done it. Will do it again. However...I wouldn't recomend it for most people. Its something you really have to be sure you want to do cuz...it does present certain dangers much worst than any addiction. As Grace Slick said "On one hand you hear me talk about it as this exsquisite revelation and on the other hand its 'watch out cuz you might jump out a window'"
> Saying that alcohol is a poison is ridiculous
Alcohol, even in recreational doses (ie the amount the average person drinks when they go to the local pub) is hepatoxic. This means it does real damage to the liver.
However the liver is capable of repairing itself. Alcohol can be toxic on short order if enough is imbibed. Though this is no different than rat poison...in the right quantity it will cause you to hemmorage internally and die....yet its commonly given to people with heart problems as a medication.
Its all a matter of quantity really. Of course you do realize that 90% of the entire population of france are clinical alcoholics? (which goes to show that just being addicted to a drug doesn't mean that it controls your life or you can't lead a normal life - most don't even know their addicted)
Actually getting addicted to anything is EASY. You just do it alot. Its really that simple. Its JUST as easy to get addicted to alcohol as ANY other drug.
The difference is addiction potential. Alcohol is right up there with many other drugs. Its withdrawl is just as bad as most anything too.
Many drugs (LSD, Cocaine (yes cocaine - no physical withdrawl syndrome and that includes crack) etc) are LESS addictive than alchol because they have no withdrawl syndromes and/or do not reinforce the action (I dunno about you...but after a 12 hour LSD trip I have NO desire to do it again right away...takes at least a week before I am even willing)
Bottom line: Alcohol is a drug, just like any other. Whether it is worst or better is a matter of personal opinion and values.
Personally I can't hardly drink the stuff due to a medical condition (can have a little now and again). So for me, marijuana is much safer (less likely to aggravate a stomac condition that could lead to eventual cancer) - its all drugs, and its all a matter of personal values.
> 1) No Medicinal Value - Gee, I guess that's why > it's one of the primary ingredients of Excedrin.
Heh its like giving heroin to a junkie.... most headaches are caused by mild caffeine withdrawl....so of course the most effective medicine for any withdrawl is the drug itself...
well that or ibogaine....but 24 hours of strong hallucination is a bit heavy of a remedy for a headache.
> Please explain the withdrawl symptoms (not > usually, if ever life threatening though)
It is...but not for coffee drinkers. I know of people who pop nodoz. They work themselevs up to several pills a day (equivalent of 2 cups of coffee per pill just about - and its all at once).
It is quite possible for a person to develop a life threatening dependance with caffeine pills.
You obviously have very little knowledge in the area of drugs. Caffeine is most certainly addictive. In fact...it is addictive in the true MEDICAL sense of the word (not the watered down definition used by the WoD)
Addiction, true medical addiction has 3 components:
1) Tolerance. Caffeine exhibits this. The more caffeine you ingest on a regular basis, the less effect it has. If you don't believe me...pop 2 nodoz (400 mg caffeine) today....see how it feels. Now pop 1 per day for 2 weeks...then do it again at 400 mg.
2) Positive Feedback. You take it, it feels good. There is action (take it), effect (stimulation).
3) Withdrawl syndrome. Caffeine *IS* physically addicting. The vast majority of headaches experienced by humans are due to mild caffeine withdrawl. Severe cases can cause hot flashes, cold sweats and death. (yes, I know of people who were told flat out by doctors that if they stopped caffeine cold turkey, it would KILL them)
I have experienced caffeine withdrawl (hot flashes, cold sweats) first hand. It sucks. In fact...it is the reaosn that I list caffeine right along with marijuana....in fact caffeine is MORE addictive than marijuana (which is only very mildly addictive for most people) and cocaine which, believe it or not, is NOT medically addictive. (no physical withdrawl syndrome)
> Caffeine does not cause people to go rob > stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for > their next fix.
Right because its legal. Heroin on the other hand is much more addictive and high priced. If it were legal, there is *NO* reason heroin should cost any more than what tylanol currently costs.
Studies have shown that addicts who have a reasonably priced and safe access to their drugs do NOT go out commiting crimes and are quite capable of holding down jobs.
I know the US went through this in the 20s but I was speaking with an Iranian friend....when the Shah took over the government (mid 70s?) all the liquer stores were burned to the ground.
What happend? People started making their own liquer from grapes. However, being inexperienced, they forgot to remove the stems.
The stems of course fermented creating methyl Alcohol or methanol. Good for getting water out of your gas tank...not good for drinking. Alot of people went blind.
> HP - More "e" than letters in the Chinese > alphabet. It's difficult to read half a sentence > from HP these days without puking from overuse > of "e-this" and "e-that". HP is addicted to E. > And boy, does it show.
Well AFAIK E isn't addictive (habbit forming probably but not addictive - no withdrawl syndrome) However the irony is rich....
One of the Side effects of MDMA (especially if you take a high dose) - nausea:)
> I have no problem with marijuana and cocaine > being reclassified. They are only about as > dangerous for most people as liquor or tobacco > are. But don't confuse them with opiates. That > as a very different sort of game.
Oh I agree they are a differnt game. However... that is hardly the point. Prohibition doesn't work no matter what the game is. Limiting what a doctor can do legally, doesn't work either.
The Abortion pro-choice groups have a slogan, its one I like alot. "Keep your laws off my body" has a nice ring to it, if you ask me.
The thing about "a couple of shots to become addicted" is a little bit of bull. It depends alot on Dose, TIme period, and the persons own body chemistry.
Addiction is a combonation of physical and mental process. Physical dependance isn't enough, neither is mental dependance. BOTH are required for addiction (which is why pot is considered non-addictive by many...no physical withdrawl for most people).
As drugs go...heroin is actually less damaging to the body than Alcohol (though the lifestyle total junkies lead is even more harmful - but heroin is at least not hepatoxic).
As for nicotine addiction.....yea...ive seen more heroin success stories than nicotine.
In my experience I have to say that addiction has much more to do with the person than the drug. Dependance doesn't even need a drug to form (dependance is what you really mean, addiction is a very specific medical term and is used incorrectly about 90% of the time - no PHYSICAL WITHDRAWL - no ADDICTION)
I have seen a friend be totally dependant on drugs...not just marijuana but LSD, alcohol...anything he could get his hands on...then one day he stopped.
He started going to church. He became dependant on it. He exhibited the SAME behaviors towards church as he did towards drugs. He felt a NEED for it. He was dependant.
Real dependants tend to have deeper problems. Addiction and chemical dependance tend to be symptomes of underlying problems. (most of the time...caffeine addiction tends to be the exception...but only because it is so ubiquitous it is hard to NOT become addicted to it - and unlike most drugs caffeine is VERY addicting... withdrawls suck - been there, done that)
Now is marijuana 100% harmless? Nope. Nothing is. Not a single thing that you do in life will ever be 100% impossible to do harm to you. Even the water that you drink can contain bacteria that can put you in the hospital or kill you.
However harm is relative. Does it do brain damage? Depends who you ask...the jury is definitly still out (at least among the actual medical community). Does it cause lung cancer? It probably can. Of course...lung cancer is the product not of smoking but of chronic smoking for many years...most post smokers don't smoke anywhere NEAR the amount cig smokers do, for the ssame length fo time. So...there is very little real data
As for dancesafe....yes they are really good. Glad they are out there.
> First off, let me make it clear that while I > dispise drugs myself, I think they should make > it legal as a part of the survival of the > fittest act of 2000.
I thought that too, until I did some more research on the subject. I found out fairly quickly that it *IS* prohibition that makes drugs so dangerous. 85% of drug-related violent crimes are a direct result of prohibition and the black market it creates (turf wars, disputes with dealers - whens the last time someone shot the liquer store owner cuz he thought the soco was priced too high?)
Furthermore most drugs are extremely safe if used in moderation and correctly. ZStudies have shown that even heroin addicts who have access to reasonable priced and safe supplies of heroin are able to hold down jobs and lead otherwise normal lives. (currently prices are so high that resorting to selling or other illegal activites like stealing is almost a requirement to maintain a habbit - if legal it should cost little more than tylanol - right now it costs a little more than gold)
> while I'm no potential terrorist (despite the > persian ethnicity)
mmm I have a sudden urge for some kabob kubideh and some steamed basmatti rice.:) mmmm
> Lets make sure kids dont get sold to,
I started smoking weed when I was 17. Until the day I turned 21, it was MUCh easier to get weed than alcohol.
When alcohol was illegal, surprize surprize, one of the big issues was the fact that kids were drinking. In fact, there were cases of schools being closed down due to mass student drunkeness.
Legalization and regulation actually PREVENT kids from getting drugs. I mean...I only once saw a dealer refuse to sell to a kid cuz they were too young. However...it happens in convienece stores every day.
Seriously though. Alcohol is JUST as bad as ANY drug that is currently illegal. JUST like ANY other drug, there are people who use it, and people who abuse it. Marijuana is, if anything, less harmfull...hell my own medical doctor agrees with me on that one (so did my pediatrician when I told him back when I was 17)
In fact, my own mother worked at a hospital for 25 years. She asked around one day and was UNABLE to find a SINGLE medical doctor who thought marijuana was a terribly harmful drug...she even heard a doctor say "Hell i would rather my kid be smoking pot than drinking alcohol".
Well I certainly see your point. Yes, alot of drug problems ARE personal. I have seen people go down that path. However...throwing a person in jail doesn't exactly solve their problems...it just garauntees that they lose any job they had and makes it hard to get another one later. It garauntees to make their life worst.
As for personal drug use. I kno wplenty of people who use drugs socially. Alcohol, pot etc. I can personally attest to having some of my fammily relationships strengthened by drug use...the bond that comes from smoking a joint with someone. Time spent together.
How about Ken Keasy? The man apears to be about in his 90s last I saw him interviewed. He says he still uses LSD today. He said "I never would have been able to write that well (one flew over the cucues(sp?) nest) without it"
The thing is...you never see on the newspaper or on TV "Guy smokes pot, eats pizza" or "man drops acid, finds god...joins the church to help others" (not that I condone joining churches, I am an atheist, but a friend of mine dropped some acid once, and ended up deciding he disliked his life and joining a church because of it and finding "god"...much longer story than that but thats the "executive summary")
All in all...I have come to realise that its not about "drugs", its about relationships with drugs. ANY drug can be used safely, and without problem, by a person with a good relationship with drugs.
There is a HUGE difference between a person who NEEDs to start the day with a drink (or a toke, or any drug) and a person who sometimes has a drink...or a toke...or a line.
Its not about willpower. Its not about addiction. Its about outlook. Its about the relationship. It is about recognizing and accepting why one is using a drug. I drink coffee to be more alert at work. I can make it through a day of work without it.
I drink a beer with a friend because its fun...its part of the recreational activity for the evening...not because I need beer to feel good.
In fact....Cary Grant claimed to have taken LSD more than 100 times and said that no other therapy that he tried worked as well. (this is of course in a controlled setting)
I HIGHLY recomend "Getting High: A History of LSD" for a REALLY GOOD treatment of the subject of LSD and other drugs in general.
The point is made well...the ONLY thing that was ever stopped was legitimate use. Researchers can't even obtain samples of drugs to use in studies, unless their studies are specifically designed to show harm.
And even then the studies are usually done by people who can be "trusted" to skew the results.
> Are doctors to be banned from learning how to do > their jobs? > (This is not so far-fetched. For much of the > 1900's it was against the law for physicians > to explain anything about birth control to their > patients. Reflect on that for a bit...)
Doctors are prohibitied by law from doing their jobs actually. Ever since the early 1900s that is.
Today people are sitting in nursing homes in chronic, daily pain for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Their doctors are prohibited, by law, from prescribing them the amount of pain killers that they actually need.
In fact, doctors routinely undermedicate pain, because prescribing too many pain killers can lead to them losing their licence.
Even heroin (di-acytlmorphine) is verboten for them. Its a great (heroic) pain killer. One of the best anagesics known to man. However doctors arn't allowed to give it, even to their worst cases of chronic pain.
Other drugs? Ask a psychotherapist about MDMA (ecstacy) and it suse in treating patients. The psycotherapy community was elated with the stuff...there wer eall sorts of studies on it and showing promising results....until it was made illegal, even for them to study.
Marijuana? A doctor from the AMA was in congress and testified that making cannabis illegal was a bad idea. He was told by one of the congressmen "Doctor, if you don't have anything good to say about what we are doing here, then why don't you just go home".
Later on, when the bill went to the other house...debate can be litterally quoted in 4 lines.
A congressman asked "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana" Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of Narcotic I think" "Well does the AMA support making it illegal?" "Yes their doctor was here the other day, they support it 100%"
That is the ENTIRETY of the debate on the subject. (in fact when a researcher went to look that up in the library of congress it took months for them to find the transcript...it was so small it had fallen behind other volumes in the library)
Most all drugs really do take a chemist or someone who has some lab skill and has done some real work and study to make.
The notable exceptions are of course methamphetamine and anything that can be grown (marijuana), yet even these require signifigant time and learning investments.
Also most "drug dealers" that I have met are just ordinary users who sell drugs to pay for their drugs. Even studies have shown that the average heroin dealer holds a normal job and sells drugs to pay for their habbit.
Studies done in switzerland showed that when heroin is available legally, safely, and at a reduced price (ie a price comparable to what it would be if it were legal), that users led fairly normal lives, were able to hold down jobs, and that the percentage of their income that came from other illegal activites dropped signifigantly. (due to reduced need).
> I believe that these so-called recreational > drugs you mention are a scourge to all society > and I am not interested at all in fighting for > your "right" to engage in this kind of drug use.
"this kind". SO should we bann alcohol again?
Alcohol is a recreational drug with no medical use (well no common medical use anyway). Prohibition of drugs does NOTHING to stop actual drug use...in fact, if anything, all it does is stop legitimate use and research on drugs. (LSD, MDMA, and Heroin were all being researched for medical reasons and some even had acceptable medical uses right up till the day they were outlawed)
This law will merely stop aboveground discussion of drugs. It wont stop production. It wont stop use.
> So you don't think weed laced with opium can > lead to regular opium use which can lead to > Heroin?
I get the feeling your are either mis-informed or a provocateur. NOONE is going around selling "weed laced with opium" to anyone without telling them.
Why? Simple its just NOT economical. Weed is an incredibly cheap drug (as far as street drugs go). Lacing it with opium would raise the cost to the seller...which means he would have to somehow justify his price increase.
While theoretically your scenario is POSSIBLE. It is highly IMPROBABLE and in my experience (I am a drug user and know alot of drug users) it simple does NOT happen outside of the most isolated of incidents.
Also...were it legal...this wouldn't happen. See those who believe in legalization also believe in some form of regulation...much like medicine is now. Force them to put quantities and ingredients on everything.
> You don't think that E laced with coke leads > to regular usage of coke? Don't tell me > that it doesn't and don't point to studies. > I've lived it and the story is the same > everytime.
hmmm the more I read from you, the less I believe that you have "lived it". Dealers don't just go around randomly lacing things...and they don't go doing it for the purpose of "hooking" people.
They do NOT need to create more demand...they get PLENTY of buisness as it is. Secondly, coke is not physically addictive (only mentally) so "laced E" would not produce a real cocaine addiction.
Again, lacing would be illegal if drugs were legal and regulated. Just like it would be illegal for bayer to put acetominiphen (paracetamol for the brits) without adding it to the ingredients label.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok I see you rpoint....I guess then it comes down to this:
It is not always ethical to commit acts that are, in and of themselves, ehtical or moral things.
It is ALWAYS unethical to commit immoral or unethical acts.
It is widely held (or at least commonly acknowledged that some people believe this) that it is unethical for a journalist to give up his sources.
That instantly makes "shareholders" a tangental issue. It is unethical, whether it causes shareholders to lose money or not. It should be treated as if there is no option.
> I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether
> Slashdot should go to the same length to protect
> sources
> Slashdot is now part of a public corporation
> and some would argue that it would be unethical
> for it to jeopardize the interests of its
> shareholders
Well first of all.. slashdot is a web page, a part of an organization, not a journalist. When publishing stories the individuals who write the stories act as journalists.
It is the journalists themselves who generally follow such a "code of ethics" as not divulging sources. As in this case...the journalist is leaving his job rather than giving up his source.
As for being a public corp. Is it ethical to "jepordize the interests of shareholders" if NOT doing so requires an unethical act? I tend to think that this idea of "The interests of the shareholders" usurping all other metrics of morality is absurd.
Whether or not it is ethical or unethical for a journalist to protect his sources is certainly open to debate (this journalist obviously has strong convictions about the issue). However, 'the interests of shareholders' has nothing to do with it. Its a completely tangental issue.
I would argue that doing something unethical to protect the interests of shareholders is just as unethical as if there were no shareholders.
-Steve
> I'm very upset you used your +1 bonus on this
> pseudo-medical babble.
Well thats your right. However it is my bonus to use as I see fit. I saw fit. My opinion on this subject differs from yours, obviously.
> Now professionals that deal with addiction on
> a daily basis use a slightly different
> functional definition which is more like
> "a continuance of a behavior despite worsening
> consequences" usually with a few caveats.
This is much to broad of a definition for me. It sounds like an essentially worthless definition. What are "consequences" what is "Worstening"? This sounds like a value judgement to me. Someone who sees no value in the effect of a drug is likely then to make a determination completely differnt from one who does see a value in it.
by your definition, if I continue to masturbate even after my dick is sore from the friction, then I am addicted.
> There are very few drugs you can take that don't
> have some sort of withdrawl symtoms.
I supose this brings you right down into what is withdrawl? There is a definite value judhgement going on here, but this one can't be avoided.
Caffeine and Heroin both have very specific and often rather acute forms of withdrawl. It is physical and easy to diagnose. Marijuana on the other hand, is much harder to see.
With something like marijuana, withdrawl is less evident. With most people its harder to finger and many who have used it heavily then suddenly stopped report no withdrawl.
Cocaine on the other hand has NO known withdrawl. There is a definite tendancy towards psycological dependance, which can itself make stopping quite hellish, but after the "crash" there is no further physical syndrome. (and, unlike marijauan, I am not speaking from personal experience here, my source is "Ending the Drug War a Solution for America" by Dirk Chase Eldrich - having lost my copy of the physical book...I can't say who he cites on this topic)
> Depression, real, actual, life-wrecking
> depression is simply a specific CHEMICAL
> IMBALANCE IN THE BRAIN. It's not a bad mood.
Im sorry....this I have to take issue with. it is simply NOT that simple. Yes depression is marked by a chemical imbalance, and that CAN be the cause. However I have found that it is seldom the sole cause (even though it is often treated as if it is).
Psycopharmacology is a fascinating feild. It is amazing and very useful. However it is very far from a total exlanation of how the mind works and how to solve its problems. Depression has every bit as much to do with how an individual aproaches and deals with problems in their life, and what their problems are, as it does chemical levels in the brain.
I know this first hand. I found myself extremely depressed the one year I was in colledge. It was the main reason I left at the end of the year and failed nearly all my classes. I got out of it on my own. I did it the old fashioned way. I suffered, and I suffered...then, when the time was right, I realized that the problem was me and I needed to change how I was doing things.
Sure not everyone can just do that... some need help with the chemical imbalance part. Definitly. However to say that depression IS a chemical imbalance is to trivialize the nature of the beast. (the tendancy to treat depression like some ailment that can just be blindly medicated away with drugs is a pet peeve of mine. ive seen it tried too many times)
Now off my soapbox...
My original point was simply this. Addiction specifically requires PHYSICAL withdrawl. Anything else (while possibly just as hard and agonizing to quit...if not more so) is psycological dependance.
Its alot like how police call every illegal drug a narcotic. Its simply incorrect terminology. Heroin is the ONLY common illicit drug that is also a narcotic.
I think the real problem is that Gas has been so cheap in the US for so long. We have had it WAY too good.
Plentiful supply, no shortages, cheap prices. Hell yes I enjoy it too. Even today with higher prices, gas is still fairly cheap.
Its cheap, its what we know. Whn the masses are confortable, there is no push to invest and research alternative fuels. Face it...any new system will need to be able to compete with the existing fuel infrastructure.
As for alcohol based cars....you can make your own ethanol and use it to power your car...many engines will run without modification (tho not well...much better to use a gas/alcohol mix). You can even get a licence to distil your own ethanol for fuel really cheap from the BATF. (in the US obviously).
Linday's Publications (http://www.lindsaybks.com) has a book on building a fuel alcohol still that talks about all this stuff. Really good book. Of course the MPG is less than Gas, but it burns ALOT cleaner....and thus keeps the engine cleaner.
I am personally of the belief that there is alot of potential in these feilds. I would like to get a Gas/electric hybrid (the honda insight beats the pants off even my motorcycle for MPG) and see it modified to run off Ethanol or methanol....now that would truely be a great car.
Actually....I would love to set something like this up. What would be really good if there was a way in HTTP to specify "don't parse this...hand it to me raw".
I would love such a thing.
Not only would it make it possible to read code, it would encourage good programming practices. No longer could people assume "This is invisible, I can be stupid and handle data insecurely and noone will ever know"
I agree with you...but you are wrong.
I agree that politicans have NO right to make any sort of decision about whether drug us is "OK". It is my solem belief that my body and my mind are just that...mine. Mine to use, mine to own, mine to rent out (thats what work is isn't it?), mine to alter (with drugs, meditation or what not), and mine to destroy (suicide).
However legalizing drugs is NOT the politicans making a decision about drugs. It is removing a legal restriction. It would mean them stepping back and saying "NO, we were wrong to do that".
Legalization doesn't mean asking them to say "Its ok to do drugs". Legalization is asking them to say "We wont hunt you down and throw you in a cell like some animal if you use drugs"
> From first hand experience I can tell you that
....but after noon no more. At night? never. As for soda, I switched to ginger ale.
> caffeine is addictive. I was addicted for
> almost one entire school year, back in High
> School.
My experience with addiction also came in HS. I was never one to get enough sleep at night so, I knew tea had caffeinew (actually has a few cousin chemicals of caffeine too - its somewhat more active - overall - than coffee). So...I drank nestea every morning before class. (there was a soft drink machine)
Every day I would have one...or two or three. Then of course one or two at lunch....and maybe one after school for good measure.
One day...I forgot to bring money to school. ALL day long I experienced hot flashes, cold sweats. I knew right away that I was an addict.
Ever since I have monitored my caffeine intake. I try to be very careful with it. I usually allow myself some tea in the morning...maybe one or two
All in all I have been much happier ever since. I sleep much better at night. I don't get headaches in the morning before my tea (and if I ever do...then I cut all caffeine out for a solid week). And of course...as little caffeine as possible on weekends...to give my body a rest.
Its really not hard to monitor caffeine intake, or ANY drug really. Its just a matter of knowing your body, knowing the drug, and knowing that you don't NEED any drug at all. (on a regular basis... ocasionally one NEEDs a stimulent for a short time like when sleep is not an option because the disk array got itself wedged in the night)
I think the reall problem is that our society doesn't teach this. There is little incentive to learn how to manage ones intake of drugs. Hell the most common drugs like alcohol and caffeine etc aren't even considered to be drugs by many.
Im just glad I learned my lessons early.
Certainly laced pot exists. However it is extremely rare, in my experience, for a person to recieve laced pot without knowing it. There are people who LIKE pot laced with PCP and will pay extra for it.
However...alot of the "laced pot" stuff is myth. Face it...really high quality pot has a very differnt feel to it from cheap shwag. Pot *IS* a psychedelic in the proper quantity and in that quantity the high can be VERY uncomnfortable. That leads to alot of "Oh that shit had to have been laced" stories.
Thats not to say that no dealer has ever laced shitty pot and tried to pass it off as normal. Surely it has happend. Its just alot more rare than most people claim it to be.
Its not uncommon really. Any drug is effected as much by what you think about it as itself. Dance Safe has been asking people o send in "Ecstacy" pills. Of course people only tend to send in pills that they THINK are laced or somehoe wrong. Still only a small percentage contained any drug but MDMA (well larger than some would like to see but still smaller than one would expect to see).
Find someone who says they have had mescaline. They will say it was in a microdot. Then tell them it was LSD (because it was...you can't fit enough mescaline in a microdot that you would even feel it if it was real. 400 mg just wont fit in that small of a space). They will swear up and down "No way was that acid" and "Ive had acid before, this was WAY different" - its true...I am speaking not only from real conversations I have had with people I know - but also from talking with others who have had the same conversation....with completely differnt people.
food for thought.
> Alcohol is a drug in a way, because it can be
> addictive. HOWEVER, this is my point, getting
> addicted to it is far far far harder and
> unlikely than getting addicted to heroin.
If addiction potential is the ONLY concern then yes, alcohol is less bad than heroin. However, its also more toxic to the body and does more damage to the body over time than heroin. (heroin withdrawl can't kill you. heroin will also not destroy your liver or any other organ of the body)
However heroin is one of the most addictive drugs there is. Cocain isn't addictive at all. I still wouldn't use it (well id do it once...kind of curious as to what it feels like. am told that to do it right you have to do lines off the body of a naked chick...never done it myself tho)
LSD isn't addictive at all...Ive done it. Will do it again. However...I wouldn't recomend it for most people. Its something you really have to be sure you want to do cuz...it does present certain dangers much worst than any addiction. As Grace Slick said "On one hand you hear me talk about it as this exsquisite revelation and on the other hand its 'watch out cuz you might jump out a window'"
> Saying that alcohol is a poison is ridiculous
Alcohol, even in recreational doses (ie the amount the average person drinks when they go to the local pub) is hepatoxic. This means it does real damage to the liver.
However the liver is capable of repairing itself. Alcohol can be toxic on short order if enough is imbibed. Though this is no different than rat poison...in the right quantity it will cause you to hemmorage internally and die....yet its commonly given to people with heart problems as a medication.
Its all a matter of quantity really. Of course you do realize that 90% of the entire population of france are clinical alcoholics? (which goes to show that just being addicted to a drug doesn't mean that it controls your life or you can't lead a normal life - most don't even know their addicted)
Actually getting addicted to anything is EASY. You just do it alot. Its really that simple. Its JUST as easy to get addicted to alcohol as ANY other drug.
The difference is addiction potential. Alcohol is right up there with many other drugs. Its withdrawl is just as bad as most anything too.
Many drugs (LSD, Cocaine (yes cocaine - no physical withdrawl syndrome and that includes crack) etc) are LESS addictive than alchol because they have no withdrawl syndromes and/or do not reinforce the action (I dunno about you...but after a 12 hour LSD trip I have NO desire to do it again right away...takes at least a week before I am even willing)
Bottom line: Alcohol is a drug, just like any other. Whether it is worst or better is a matter of personal opinion and values.
Personally I can't hardly drink the stuff due to a medical condition (can have a little now and again). So for me, marijuana is much safer (less likely to aggravate a stomac condition that could lead to eventual cancer) - its all drugs, and its all a matter of personal values.
-Steve
> 1) No Medicinal Value - Gee, I guess that's why
> it's one of the primary ingredients of Excedrin.
Heh its like giving heroin to a junkie....
most headaches are caused by mild caffeine withdrawl....so of course the most effective medicine for any withdrawl is the drug itself...
well that or ibogaine....but 24 hours of strong hallucination is a bit heavy of a remedy for a headache.
> Please explain the withdrawl symptoms (not
> usually, if ever life threatening though)
It is...but not for coffee drinkers. I know of people who pop nodoz. They work themselevs up to several pills a day (equivalent of 2 cups of coffee per pill just about - and its all at once).
It is quite possible for a person to develop a life threatening dependance with caffeine pills.
You obviously have very little knowledge in the area of drugs. Caffeine is most certainly addictive. In fact...it is addictive in the true MEDICAL sense of the word (not the watered down definition used by the WoD)
Addiction, true medical addiction has 3 components:
1) Tolerance.
Caffeine exhibits this. The more caffeine you ingest on a regular basis, the less effect it has. If you don't believe me...pop 2 nodoz (400 mg caffeine) today....see how it feels. Now pop 1 per day for 2 weeks...then do it again at 400 mg.
2) Positive Feedback. You take it, it feels good. There is action (take it), effect (stimulation).
3) Withdrawl syndrome. Caffeine *IS* physically addicting. The vast majority of headaches experienced by humans are due to mild caffeine withdrawl. Severe cases can cause hot flashes, cold sweats and death. (yes, I know of people who were told flat out by doctors that if they stopped caffeine cold turkey, it would KILL them)
I have experienced caffeine withdrawl (hot flashes, cold sweats) first hand. It sucks. In fact...it is the reaosn that I list caffeine right along with marijuana....in fact caffeine is MORE addictive than marijuana (which is only very mildly addictive for most people) and cocaine which, believe it or not, is NOT medically addictive. (no physical withdrawl syndrome)
> Caffeine does not cause people to go rob
> stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for
> their next fix.
Right because its legal. Heroin on the other hand is much more addictive and high priced. If it were legal, there is *NO* reason heroin should cost any more than what tylanol currently costs.
Studies have shown that addicts who have a reasonably priced and safe access to their drugs do NOT go out commiting crimes and are quite capable of holding down jobs.
As for moonshine....
I know the US went through this in the 20s but I was speaking with an Iranian friend....when the Shah took over the government (mid 70s?) all the liquer stores were burned to the ground.
What happend? People started making their own liquer from grapes. However, being inexperienced, they forgot to remove the stems.
The stems of course fermented creating methyl Alcohol or methanol. Good for getting water out of your gas tank...not good for drinking. Alot of people went blind.
> HP - More "e" than letters in the Chinese
:)
> alphabet. It's difficult to read half a sentence
> from HP these days without puking from overuse
> of "e-this" and "e-that". HP is addicted to E.
> And boy, does it show.
Well AFAIK E isn't addictive (habbit forming probably but not addictive - no withdrawl syndrome) However the irony is rich....
One of the Side effects of MDMA (especially if you take a high dose) - nausea
-Steve
> I have no problem with marijuana and cocaine
> being reclassified. They are only about as
> dangerous for most people as liquor or tobacco
> are. But don't confuse them with opiates. That
> as a very different sort of game.
Oh I agree they are a differnt game. However... that is hardly the point. Prohibition doesn't work no matter what the game is. Limiting what a doctor can do legally, doesn't work either.
The Abortion pro-choice groups have a slogan, its one I like alot. "Keep your laws off my body" has a nice ring to it, if you ask me.
The thing about "a couple of shots to become addicted" is a little bit of bull. It depends alot on Dose, TIme period, and the persons own body chemistry.
Addiction is a combonation of physical and mental process. Physical dependance isn't enough, neither is mental dependance. BOTH are required for addiction (which is why pot is considered non-addictive by many...no physical withdrawl for most people).
As drugs go...heroin is actually less damaging to the body than Alcohol (though the lifestyle total junkies lead is even more harmful - but heroin is at least not hepatoxic).
As for nicotine addiction.....yea...ive seen more heroin success stories than nicotine.
Yet my own sister smokes daily....and alot. has for years. What did she do while smoking that much?
She dropped out of High School as a sophmore, got a GED, entered Colledge a year before her old HS classmates...then maintained a 3.5 GPA.
Not bad for a total pothead.
I have said it before, I say it again..."amotivation" "dependance" etc all have alot more to do with the user than the drug.
In my experience I have to say that addiction has much more to do with the person than the drug. Dependance doesn't even need a drug to form (dependance is what you really mean, addiction is a very specific medical term and is used incorrectly about 90% of the time - no PHYSICAL WITHDRAWL - no ADDICTION)
I have seen a friend be totally dependant on drugs...not just marijuana but LSD, alcohol...anything he could get his hands on...then one day he stopped.
He started going to church. He became dependant on it. He exhibited the SAME behaviors towards church as he did towards drugs. He felt a NEED for it. He was dependant.
Real dependants tend to have deeper problems. Addiction and chemical dependance tend to be symptomes of underlying problems. (most of the time...caffeine addiction tends to be the exception...but only because it is so ubiquitous it is hard to NOT become addicted to it - and unlike most drugs caffeine is VERY addicting... withdrawls suck - been there, done that)
Now is marijuana 100% harmless? Nope. Nothing is. Not a single thing that you do in life will ever be 100% impossible to do harm to you. Even the water that you drink can contain bacteria that can put you in the hospital or kill you.
However harm is relative. Does it do brain damage? Depends who you ask...the jury is definitly still out (at least among the actual medical community). Does it cause lung cancer? It probably can. Of course...lung cancer is the product not of smoking but of chronic smoking for many years...most post smokers don't smoke anywhere NEAR the amount cig smokers do, for the ssame length fo time. So...there is very little real data
As for dancesafe....yes they are really good. Glad they are out there.
> First off, let me make it clear that while I
:) mmmm
> dispise drugs myself, I think they should make
> it legal as a part of the survival of the
> fittest act of 2000.
I thought that too, until I did some more research on the subject. I found out fairly quickly that it *IS* prohibition that makes drugs so dangerous. 85% of drug-related violent crimes are a direct result of prohibition and the black market it creates (turf wars, disputes with dealers - whens the last time someone shot the liquer store owner cuz he thought the soco was priced too high?)
Furthermore most drugs are extremely safe if used in moderation and correctly. ZStudies have shown that even heroin addicts who have access to reasonable priced and safe supplies of heroin are able to hold down jobs and lead otherwise normal lives. (currently prices are so high that resorting to selling or other illegal activites like stealing is almost a requirement to maintain a habbit - if legal it should cost little more than tylanol - right now it costs a little more than gold)
> while I'm no potential terrorist (despite the
> persian ethnicity)
mmm I have a sudden urge for some kabob kubideh and some steamed basmatti rice.
> Lets make sure kids dont get sold to,
I started smoking weed when I was 17. Until the day I turned 21, it was MUCh easier to get weed than alcohol.
When alcohol was illegal, surprize surprize, one of the big issues was the fact that kids were drinking. In fact, there were cases of schools being closed down due to mass student drunkeness.
Legalization and regulation actually PREVENT kids from getting drugs. I mean...I only once saw a dealer refuse to sell to a kid cuz they were too young. However...it happens in convienece stores every day.
Seriously though. Alcohol is JUST as bad as ANY drug that is currently illegal. JUST like ANY other drug, there are people who use it, and people who abuse it. Marijuana is, if anything, less harmfull...hell my own medical doctor agrees with me on that one (so did my pediatrician when I told him back when I was 17)
In fact, my own mother worked at a hospital for 25 years. She asked around one day and was UNABLE to find a SINGLE medical doctor who thought marijuana was a terribly harmful drug...she even heard a doctor say "Hell i would rather my kid be smoking pot than drinking alcohol".
food for thought.
Well I certainly see your point. Yes, alot of drug problems ARE personal. I have seen people go down that path. However...throwing a person in jail doesn't exactly solve their problems...it just garauntees that they lose any job they had and makes it hard to get another one later. It garauntees to make their life worst.
As for personal drug use. I kno wplenty of people who use drugs socially. Alcohol, pot etc. I can personally attest to having some of my fammily relationships strengthened by drug use...the bond that comes from smoking a joint with someone. Time spent together.
How about Ken Keasy? The man apears to be about in his 90s last I saw him interviewed. He says he still uses LSD today. He said "I never would have been able to write that well (one flew over the cucues(sp?) nest) without it"
The thing is...you never see on the newspaper or on TV "Guy smokes pot, eats pizza" or "man drops acid, finds god...joins the church to help others"
(not that I condone joining churches, I am an atheist, but a friend of mine dropped some acid once, and ended up deciding he disliked his life and joining a church because of it and finding "god"...much longer story than that but thats the "executive summary")
All in all...I have come to realise that its not about "drugs", its about relationships with drugs. ANY drug can be used safely, and without problem, by a person with a good relationship with drugs.
There is a HUGE difference between a person who NEEDs to start the day with a drink (or a toke, or any drug) and a person who sometimes has a drink...or a toke...or a line.
Its not about willpower. Its not about addiction. Its about outlook. Its about the relationship. It is about recognizing and accepting why one is using a drug. I drink coffee to be more alert at work. I can make it through a day of work without it.
I drink a beer with a friend because its fun...its part of the recreational activity for the evening...not because I need beer to feel good.
Sure...hell LSD was used for therapy too.
In fact....Cary Grant claimed to have taken LSD more than 100 times and said that no other therapy that he tried worked as well. (this is of course in a controlled setting)
I HIGHLY recomend "Getting High: A History of LSD" for a REALLY GOOD treatment of the subject of LSD and other drugs in general.
The point is made well...the ONLY thing that was ever stopped was legitimate use. Researchers can't even obtain samples of drugs to use in studies, unless their studies are specifically designed to show harm.
And even then the studies are usually done by people who can be "trusted" to skew the results.
> Are doctors to be banned from learning how to do
> their jobs?
> (This is not so far-fetched. For much of the
> 1900's it was against the law for physicians
> to explain anything about birth control to their
> patients. Reflect on that for a bit...)
Doctors are prohibitied by law from doing their jobs actually. Ever since the early 1900s that is.
Today people are sitting in nursing homes in chronic, daily pain for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Their doctors are prohibited, by law, from prescribing them the amount of pain killers that they actually need.
In fact, doctors routinely undermedicate pain, because prescribing too many pain killers can lead to them losing their licence.
Even heroin (di-acytlmorphine) is verboten for them. Its a great (heroic) pain killer. One of the best anagesics known to man. However doctors arn't allowed to give it, even to their worst cases of chronic pain.
Other drugs? Ask a psychotherapist about MDMA (ecstacy) and it suse in treating patients. The psycotherapy community was elated with the stuff...there wer eall sorts of studies on it and showing promising results....until it was made illegal, even for them to study.
Marijuana? A doctor from the AMA was in congress and testified that making cannabis illegal was a bad idea. He was told by one of the congressmen "Doctor, if you don't have anything good to say about what we are doing here, then why don't you just go home".
Later on, when the bill went to the other house...debate can be litterally quoted in 4 lines.
A congressman asked "Mr Speaker, what is marijuana"
Speaker: "I don't know. Some kind of Narcotic I think"
"Well does the AMA support making it illegal?"
"Yes their doctor was here the other day, they support it 100%"
That is the ENTIRETY of the debate on the subject.
(in fact when a researcher went to look that up in the library of congress it took months for them to find the transcript...it was so small it had fallen behind other volumes in the library)
Well it really depends on the drug.
Most all drugs really do take a chemist or someone who has some lab skill and has done some real work and study to make.
The notable exceptions are of course methamphetamine and anything that can be grown (marijuana), yet even these require signifigant time and learning investments.
Also most "drug dealers" that I have met are just ordinary users who sell drugs to pay for their drugs. Even studies have shown that the average heroin dealer holds a normal job and sells drugs to pay for their habbit.
Studies done in switzerland showed that when heroin is available legally, safely, and at a reduced price (ie a price comparable to what it would be if it were legal), that users led fairly normal lives, were able to hold down jobs, and that the percentage of their income that came from other illegal activites dropped signifigantly. (due to reduced need).
> I believe that these so-called recreational
> drugs you mention are a scourge to all society
> and I am not interested at all in fighting for
> your "right" to engage in this kind of drug use.
"this kind". SO should we bann alcohol again?
Alcohol is a recreational drug with no medical use (well no common medical use anyway). Prohibition of drugs does NOTHING to stop actual drug use...in fact, if anything, all it does is stop legitimate use and research on drugs. (LSD, MDMA, and Heroin were all being researched for medical reasons and some even had acceptable medical uses right up till the day they were outlawed)
This law will merely stop aboveground discussion of drugs. It wont stop production. It wont stop use.
> So you don't think weed laced with opium can
> lead to regular opium use which can lead to
> Heroin?
I get the feeling your are either mis-informed or a provocateur. NOONE is going around selling "weed laced with opium" to anyone without telling them.
Why? Simple its just NOT economical. Weed is an incredibly cheap drug (as far as street drugs go). Lacing it with opium would raise the cost to the seller...which means he would have to somehow justify his price increase.
While theoretically your scenario is POSSIBLE. It is highly IMPROBABLE and in my experience (I am a drug user and know alot of drug users) it simple does NOT happen outside of the most isolated of incidents.
Also...were it legal...this wouldn't happen. See those who believe in legalization also believe in some form of regulation...much like medicine is now. Force them to put quantities and ingredients on everything.
> You don't think that E laced with coke leads
> to regular usage of coke? Don't tell me
> that it doesn't and don't point to studies.
> I've lived it and the story is the same
> everytime.
hmmm the more I read from you, the less I believe that you have "lived it". Dealers don't just go around randomly lacing things...and they don't go doing it for the purpose of "hooking" people.
They do NOT need to create more demand...they get PLENTY of buisness as it is. Secondly, coke is not physically addictive (only mentally) so "laced E" would not produce a real cocaine addiction.
Again, lacing would be illegal if drugs were legal and regulated. Just like it would be illegal for bayer to put acetominiphen (paracetamol for the brits) without adding it to the ingredients label.