it works

[srijantje]

as we have known in Holland for a long time,IT WORKS

[/url]

there's nothing to be proud of that the use of marihuana is going down,it should go up

[billy]

i've actually quit the dope +/- a month ago...

good for you.

i gave it up about 8 years ago.

cigarettes were much harder for me to give up

[mrmod]

there's nothing to be proud of that the use of marihuana is going down,it should go up

But it's not all about Marijuana. All drugs have been decriminalized. I think that if the use of drugs like heroin is going down then it's not really that bad, even if marijuana is not nearly as bad for you as tobacco.

It's also good that teenagers will not be so phased about it.

[srijantje]

tobacco is probably the hardest one to give up,it was for me for sure

[billy]

i'm really impressed with the source material

[srijantje]

shit,what happened

[billy]

what does "reinforcement" mean in that context?

how it affects the brain in triggering you into wanting another cig in order to get nicotine.

unlike dependence which triggers the brain into mentally needing it.

physical dependence is something else altogether.

the graph shown has many flaws, it doesn't take into account availability,
prohibitive cost, etc etc.

for instance if you were on a no smoking plane for 48 hours you may sweat a little and feel a bit anxious but that would be it

for a heroine addict to go 48 hrs without a fix would be exponentially more painful both physically and mentally.

[billy]

thanks, billy!

it's a lot more complicated than that but its a general consensus

[mrmod]

SJ, may I ask where the source or the statistics of the image are? :angel:

[mrmod]

These statistics:




Edit: There were some clues written at the bottom, that I missed out, soory for my ignorance

Here is the .pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenw...epaper.pdf

Very interesting .

[srijantje]

yes,that's the thing i posted but it disappeared again

[billy]

sorry guys but it's a contrived fallacy.

to explain;

we decriminalize heroin addicts. this means we don't prosecute an addict for having an amount deemed to be for personal use. in truth it means that addict often don't get booked or charged with the crime of possession. so yes of course the they can say the number of known users has gone down. of course drug usage rates have decreased, the reason is that they no longer have any kind of statistical data to show otherwise.

in reality what they're doing is the same thing magicians do. it's called the art of misdirection. they take away the crime and hide it with one hand, while the other hand is showing you it no longer exists.

the same with weed, grass etc. no records of offense = no crime statistics of substance, the only crimes are placed against those who sell. in Holland they'll tell you weed smokers are big business. (they can estimate the amount sold legally through coffee houses where it's sold. from this they can work out an approximation of how much is sold illegally. the population i think can grow up to 8 plants at a time (not sure exactly how many)each giving off a few ounces.

so yes if you decriminalize something of course you'll have less crime related to it. you'll even have less trafficking crime because once it's decriminalized trafficking becomes a murky area and some get away with it where as normally they wouldn't.

if drug related disease decreases ( by how much?)usually with heroin users, it's because decriminalization usually means more places where clean needles can be acquired free of charge for the addict. (no sharing needles means no spread of disease.)

in a nutshell it's a success because the crimes have been stricken from the law. it's no longer a crime thats contested.

what often happens now as well is many people go to hospital as an addict and don't get treated as an addict. they get treated as suicide or attempted suicides.

an added thought. decriminalizing dug abuse is no where near the same as legalizing it.

if legalizing it was such a good idea don't you think it would be legal to buy and sell heroin. why do you think trafficking is till illegal??????

[srijantje]

by giving away free heroin you might actually decrease crime because the junkies don't have to rob people anymore to get their fix,might make a big difference

[mrmod]

by giving away free heroin you might actually decrease crime because the junkies don't have to rob people anymore to get their fix,might make a big difference

Then almost certainly teenagers would be able to get a hold of it, and that is something you really do not want.

[billy]

by giving away free heroin you might actually decrease crime because the junkies don't have to rob people anymore to get their fix,might make a big difference

i agree. though by giving it away you make it more accessible and open up a healthcare system to enormous costs. re rehabilitation etc. sometimes if you can remove a person from the supply he has better chance of not re using. if an addict knows he can get heroin free. then he's never going to quit for good. crimes committed by heroin addicts are at best, soft crimes. ie, shop lifting, stealing from family etc. (in the uk at least) instead of giving heroin away you pay each person who gives up a dealer 1000 dollars on conviction. you stop addicts getting gear and get the heroin dealers off the street. if you amputate the hands of convicted drug dealers you get very few drug dealers coming up through the ranks. one hand for the first offense etc. 2nd hand, then testicles. drug dealing won't actually last that long as an illegal activity. if you're going to deal with it. then deal with it.

[srijantje]

that's what they've been trying to do,look at mexico,they're killing eachother like flies,take the value out of the stuff i'd say and see what happens,some different approach has to be tried

[billy]

yes but then you'd be creating more junkies than already exist.
the uk isn't mexico so harsh punishments could work. and a lot of the killings in mexico are between rival drug lords.

[billy]

so what you're saying is decriminalizing heroin won't make a difference?


With opium and other drugs becoming global commodities and the pharmaceutical industry making opiates the drugs of mass abuse in big European and American cities, an estimated 5 out of 6 working class English families used opium on a regular basis in Victorian England. With alcoholism denounced as one of the most notable sins of the lower classes looking for an escape from a dreary existence, opium’s effects were actually preferred because it never produced the aggression or the violence that were usually associated with alcohol.

source;

Widespread narcoticism seems anomalous in Victorian England, a culture esteemed for its moral rectitude and strong family values. Yet, both early and mid-Victorian adults consumed staggering amounts of opium, and child drugging was commonplace in this environment. In some areas and among some income groups, opium feeding was nearly ubiquitous.

source;

[billy]

there in lays the problem

"rationing" most opiate based drugs are of high tolerance, the more you take, the more you need to take to get the same effect. an opiate is a narcotic. unlike coke it doesn't give you extra vim. it depletes it lol.

opiates are also very very addictive. some cough medicines which were legal over the counter now need a prescription because of the addictive side effects.

coke...i'd say yes. weed, i'd say yes. heroin, i'd have to say never.