are you trying the angle now that I can't know what the U.S is doing cause I don't live there? is that your responce to my last point?
Dude what are you doing even you must see the corner you've backed yourself into. Enough is enough trust me you'll feel better for it. All you have to do is say "well sure peloquin I still have my doubts about drugs and what is the best way to deal with the whole thing but I do see you made a few good points and have given me something to think about"
I'll settle for that. (holds out candy) c'mon c'mon I wont hurt ya...
Originally posted by homer_clone
yeah i agree with that however i still think drugs are bad yeah youve made some good points but some words of wisdom, anyone can win a fight....... with a rocket launcher. yeah i know not very good words but what do you expect?
There it is people...there it is. (bows) You should be proud of yourself Homer_clone you've taken your first step into a larger world. (puts arm on shoulder) You see all we want is the truth and we can get there faster with a little help. (Camera pans out, music starts) it's a big world out there my little friend a big world indeed and if you don't keep your wits about you you might end up in a place you can't get out of. (music fully takes off as the sunset fills the screen) For tomorrow is another day and another adventure waiting to be found. (fade to black roll credits)
The End.
The United States experimented with legalization and it failed. From 1919 to 1922, government-sponsored clinics handed out free drugs to addicts in hopes of controlling their behavior. The effort failed. Society's revulsion against drugs, combined with enforcement, successfully eradicated the menace at that time.[1]
California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[2] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[3] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem.[4]
1. Jill Jonnes, "Forgotten History of Legal Drugs," The Baltimore Sun 16 February 1995.
2. . Peggy Mann, Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs (Danvers: Committee of Correspondence, Inc., September, 1988)
3. Wayne J. Roques, "Decriminalizing Drugs Would Be A Disaster," The Miami Herald 20 January 1995.
4. Don Feder, "Legalizers Plan Harvard Pot Party," The Boston Herald 19 May 1994.
Dr. Herbert Kleber, prominent psychiatrist from Yale University, former Demand Reduction Deputy Director at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and currently with the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, stated in a 194 article in the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use would increase with legalization.
He said: "There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25 million...the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher...than the current number. When drugs have been widely available - as cocaine was at the turn of the century - both use and addiction have risen."
England's experience with widely available heroin shows that use and addiction increase. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts. There was an explosion of heroin use and by the mid-1980' s known addiction rates were increasing by about 30% a year. According to the Lancet, the respected British medical journal (Lancet, January 9, 1982), 2,657 heroin addicts were registered in 1970 compared with 5,107 in 1980.
This was a program in which heroin users needed a doctor's authorization to get their drug.
Legalization was given a lengthy try closer to home when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with a person's possession of marijuana in his home for personal use. Enforcement was permitted only when the quantity possessed exceeded four ounces - this in a state that, because of the long, sunny days of its brief growing season, produces extra potent marijuana.
The court's ruling was interpreted by many Alaskans as a signal to light up, and so they did, especially the young ones, even though the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group.
"The frequency with which marijuana was used within the current sample," the report on the study said, "suggests that it is not an experimental event for many students, but that it seems to have become well incorporated into the lifestyle of many adolescents."
Although they historically cling to their personal liberties, Alaska residents voted in 1990 to re-criminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay for increased personal liberties.
DEA (the Drug Enforcement Administration)
erm, I was asked by storm and fire to post something here, but I have absolutely not followed the discussion here, so I'll just post what they asked me to talk about and leave this thread again 😄
Q: in the states drugs were at one tiny point in history allowed and numbers of users skyrocketed. The Omega (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't agree with that.
A: The theory of the downward slope.
ie.: you are allowed 90 (km/h) on the freeway, and they control it strickly with severe punishments for those who don't listen to the rules. Everybody will follow those rules.
But than, they leave the punishments. So... if you don't get punished, what the hell drive 90? Sure, pay some money, that's it, nothing more.
Than, they stop controling it... why drive 90? no one is checking it nor do you have to pay or get a punishment... so you drive 120.
So, projecting that on drugs...
It's illegal, you get punished, throw in jail and such, so you don't use nor distribute it. But than, all of a sudden, those laws and punishments go away. It's not illegal anymore and you can do it openly, those who already did it, continue with it and convince others to do so too.
Those who doubted (that is, those who did not categorically disagree with the use) lose the point that it's illegal and that you get punished.
So what if you take a shot? So what if you get high on the street? It's legal, no punishments for that! Why not try it out once? or twice? perhaps continue to use it later...
What I mean is that like with that downward slope, if the borders get pushed further more and more people will follow it and go to "heavier" stuff, like from frequent use to distributing and stuff.
(difficult to explain since it's not even that easy in dutch)
that was it I think... carry on 😉