The Sad Drug War Is Necessary

[Chip]

Keep reading..........​

Here the pro-pot sympathiser (perhaps a druggie himself) references a pro-pot site that is run of, by and for the druggies themselves.

Obviously, since druggies cannot be trusted to tell the truth because addiction, by nature, is associated with denial ...

... Their sites also cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and these sites will either lie outright or downplay the harsh truth that can be found on credible sites elsewhere.

When a druggie links to a pro-druggie site, the right thing to do is to just tell him, "No!" ...

... And demand that he link only to obviously unbiased sites presenting relevant valid authorities in the scientific matter.

 

[Pandora]

Since by now it's obvious that Popeye nor any of the other pro-pot "sympathisers" are going to answer your question ...

... The primary drug in pot is tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly referred to as THC.

More on pot in general from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

THC is addictive, as these two links I previously posted present: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15450100 and http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v143/n2/full/0705931a.html




Pot is highly addictive.

As the previous two links attest, the mechanism for addiction is the same method for all substances, whether the substance is THC, nicotene or whatever the substance is that's addictive by nature.

The method that makes a substance addictive is that the substance binds to receptor cells in the body, receptor cells that were, by design, to receive neurochemicals from a more natural systemic process of human neurochemistry in balance, not from an outside artificial source and in extreme imbalance to the rest of normal neurochemical function.

The origin of pot being "less" addictive stems from the fact that the receptor cells to which THC binds were more difficult to find than, say, the receptor cells for nicotene. Scientists have only more recently isolated the THC receptor cells in our body. During the time of their mystery, pot-addicts irrationally concluded there was no such binding and they erroneously stated that pot wasn't addictive.

Then when scientists discovered the THC receptor cells, the pot-addicts compromised, saying that pot was "less" addictive, and there are measuring scales some appeal to that purport to measure the "more or less" addictive nature of a given substance.

There is really no value, however, in the "more or less" ratings as if a substance is addictive, then it is addictive, and those who appeal to the supposed "less" addictive rating of pot only use that as an excuse to continue their pot-addict behavior ... so I question whether it's therefore really less addictive ... .

These THC-binding receptors utilize more complex neurochemicals than the more foundational and famous ones like serotonin, norepinephrine/noradrenaline, dopamine, and acetlcholine (acetlcholine being the neurochemical whose production is extremely stimulated by nicotene which is a primary agonist of acetlcholine.), and so druggies often refer to this fact when attempting to downplay the addictive nature of pot.

Ah, thank you for the information. I knew it had THC in it but I never knew what that meant except it got you high.

I think you win the argument with proof of it being addicting. I really don’t care if people smoke it but I do care very much if they are high and driving a car, or if they are high and running a forklift and could hurt someone or doing what ever job they do... high. and so far there is no way to prove someone is high like you can do with beer or wine.

I would hate to see us go the way of some other places, making heroin legal exc. That is so sad that any country would go down that road...we seem to be the dumb followers of every stupid European idea so I guess we will some day but I really do hope we do not!



The news is talking about a new drug out there in the mint family called Salvia, I guess I didnt name them all after all

 

[Popeye]

Since by now it's obvious that Popeye nor any of the other pro-pot "sympathisers" are going to answer your question ...

... The primary drug in pot is tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly referred to as THC.

More on pot in general from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

THC is addictive, as these two links I previously posted present: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15450100 and http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v143/n2/full/0705931a.html




Pot is highly addictive.

As the previous two links attest, the mechanism for addiction is the same method for all substances, whether the substance is THC, nicotene or whatever the substance is that's addictive by nature.

The method that makes a substance addictive is that the substance binds to receptor cells in the body, receptor cells that were, by design, to receive neurochemicals from a more natural systemic process of human neurochemistry in balance, not from an outside artificial source and in extreme imbalance to the rest of normal neurochemical function.

The origin of pot being "less" addictive stems from the fact that the receptor cells to which THC binds were more difficult to find than, say, the receptor cells for nicotene. Scientists have only more recently isolated the THC receptor cells in our body. During the time of their mystery, pot-addicts irrationally concluded there was no such binding and they erroneously stated that pot wasn't addictive.

Then when scientists discovered the THC receptor cells, the pot-addicts compromised, saying that pot was "less" addictive, and there are measuring scales some appeal to that purport to measure the "more or less" addictive nature of a given substance.

There is really no value, however, in the "more or less" ratings as if a substance is addictive, then it is addictive, and those who appeal to the supposed "less" addictive rating of pot only use that as an excuse to continue their pot-addict behavior ... so I question whether it's therefore really less addictive ... .

These THC-binding receptors utilize more complex neurochemicals than the more foundational and famous ones like serotonin, norepinephrine/noradrenaline, dopamine, and acetlcholine (acetlcholine being the neurochemical whose production is extremely stimulated by nicotene which is a primary agonist of acetlcholine.), and so druggies often refer to this fact when attempting to downplay the addictive nature of pot.

Continuing to lie, huh Chip?.. While at the same time discounting any evidence not favorable to your argument..questionable tactics to say the least, but very telling.

Q. Is It Physically Addictive?

A. No, it is not,15 although some minor dependency can develop. According to the IOM: "Although few users of marijuana develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs." The typical pattern of social cannabis usage begins with experimental use in the late teens and peaks in the early adult years, followed by a period of leveling off, and a gradual reduction in use.

http://www.fcda.org/tenthings.html

And more..

Marijuana is not physically addicting.

http://www.spencerrecovery.com/marijuana-addiction.html

again..

marijuana itself is not physically addictive.

http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/addiction.htm

The last 2 are sites I'm sure you would approve....now how is Mr. Just Say No going to avoid the truth this time?

 

[Pandora]

Continuing to lie, huh Chip?.. While at the same time discounting any evidence not favorable to your argument..questionable tactics to say the least, but very telling.



http://www.fcda.org/tenthings.html

And more..



http://www.spencerrecovery.com/marijuana-addiction.html

again..



http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/addiction.htm

The last 2 are sites I'm sure you would approve....now how is Mr. Just Say No going to avoid the truth this time?

Popeye, you dont thing THC is addictive ?

Do you think tystick is? or hash?

spelling sorry

 

[Chip]

Continuing to lie, huh Chip?.. While at the same time discounting any evidence not favorable to your argument..questionable tactics to say the least, but very telling.

Here the druggie simply continues to lie, falsely accusing the truth-teller of lying, to divert via attack.

Notice that the druggie does not attempt to refute the truth of THC physical addiction the truth-teller previously posted twice.

No, the druggie won't touch those posts because the druggie knows that state-of-the-art science has discovered the THC-binding receptors that presents the reality of the physically addictive nature of pot.

These two sites: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15450100 and http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v143/n2/full/0705931a.html present scientific information circa 2004 that proves the physical addictive nature of pot.

It's no longer a matter for rational conjecture.

But the druggie, steeped in denial, will not address these two posts.

That's because he knows they are correct.

Instead, all he will do is pretentiously refer to lying pro-pot sites and obviously erroneous likely out-dated sites that have yet to catch up with the four year-old scientific reality that pot is physically addictive.

He knows the sites he references are not telling the truth.

But, he doesn't care.

He is in denial.

And lying is his stock in trade.

So come on, druggie, read these two scientific sites I've presented and comment on them, I dare you!

http://www.fcda.org/tenthings.html

For example, here the druggie references a pro-pot site, run of by and for the druggies. This site is especially insidious, as it employs a "clean" looking front, employing the word "family" in its title, but on just a little closer look it reveals itself to be the pro-pot site, of, by and for the druggies that it truly is.

And, of course, the druggie knows this.

He even apologizes for this site later on in his post, as he knows the truth-teller will tear it to shreds, and rightly so.

Indeed, this pro-pot site is espescially despicable, and completely untrustworthy, as, like the druggie himself, it attempts to hide the truth of damaging deadly pot addiction from the reader.

And more..http://www.spencerrecovery.com/marijuana-addiction.html

again..http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/addiction.htm

Here the druggie has dredged up some sites that might otherwise be reputable sites (closer examination may be necessary), but their web site is simply out of date!

The web site has yet to change its erroneous statement that pot isn't addictive to the correct statement from the scientific information of 2004 that pot is indeed addictive.

Many web sites are out of date, in this case, sadly so.

And the druggie hopes that he has convinced his reader that, therefore, "pot isn't physically addictive".

But, of course, he fails in the attempt.

After all, the scientific information that shows pot is physically addictive has long been posted in this thread ... and the druggie won't even touch it!

Come on, druggie, let's here it about the two scientific references I posted that shows pot is physically addictive.

But, of course, you won't hear any truth from the druggie on the matter ...

... Just continual avoidance, and false pretense lying.

The last 2 are sites I'm sure you would approve....

And here it is: the druggie's apologetic.

The druggie knows the first site is merely a pro-pot site run of, by and for the druggies -- a site not to be trusted to tell the truth.

So the druggie manipulatively puts focus on the second two sites ... though in doing so, he makes it implicitly clear that the first site is utterly worthless!

And, of course, since the druggie dredged up these two sites which would appear to be credible otherwise, except that they are scientifically out of date, he hopes he can manipulate the reader into mistaking out-of-date for accurate information!

Sadly for the druggie, however, the truth-teller won't let him get away with that sophistry.

But, isn't it interesting how the druggie must continue to belabor his lost argument ...

... Even to the point of completely ignoring all the bad things pot does to you and causes you do that he himself presented in his last two web sites he "loves" so much!

Yes, the druggie digressively diverts onto absolute nothings in which he is a loser, to avoid bigger matters he's more afraid of: facing the damaging deadly nature of pot addiction.

Typical druggie -- he cares not about the whole truth ...

... He cares only about telling the most "believable" lies he possibly can to convince others of what turns out being a false and truly moot point in the matter of damaging deadly pot addiction.

'Tis sad.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Try showin' a profit with your soul-saving trip, Chippy.....while the adults are talkin' practicality .

D.A.R.E. lied to you....like everyone else they lie to.

​

"What do you suppose the total price tag is for this failed war on drugs? One senior Harvard economist estimates we spend $44 billion a year fighting the war on drugs. He says if they were legal, governments would realize about $33 billion a year in tax revenue. Net swing of $77 billion. Could we use that money today for something else? You bet your @ss we could. Plus the cartels would be out of business. Instantly. Goodbye crime and violence."

 

[Chip]

"What do you suppose the total price tag is for this failed war on drugs? One senior Harvard economist estimates we spend $44 billion a year fighting the war on drugs. He says if they were legal, governments would realize about $33 billion a year in tax revenue. Net swing of $77 billion. Could we use that money today for something else? You bet your @ss we could. Plus the cartels would be out of business. Instantly. Goodbye crime and violence."

Hello millions more brain-damaged and prematurely dead children and teenagers ...

... Hello a major increase in crime from millions and millions more active addicts running out of money to buy their "legal" drugs and who steal, rob and kill to get the money to buy their "legal" drugs ...

... Hello to millions and millions more druggie adults who kill hundreds of thousands more innocent people because they were driving behind the wheel while stoned ...

... Hello to lost productivity from millions and millions more absent and reduced performanced adults in the workplace, thus reducing the GNP, so greatly also reducing the taxes paid that it quickly becomes obvious that the cost to the government of the drug war was saving WAY more tax money than to just lay down and let the druggies win ...

... Hello to so many additional horrific negatives from legalizing deadly damaging drugs ... ... .

Once again the pro-pot sympathizing money-lover blatantly lies about D.A.R.E. to suit his utilitarian druggie-money-loving purposes. Such horrifically immoral behavior the poster exhibits!

Here the poster reveals himself as just plain ignorant of obvious reality repercussions ... or that he's presently stoned on pot ... or that he loves money more than human life and the quality of that life itself.

Whatever the case, he appears to fear conflict so much that he's willing to lie down and let the deadly damaging invading druggies win the war.

Sure, he'll get his peace and an instant very temporary tax savings ...

... But in just no time at all we'll all begin to see an increase in the horrors the drug war was stopping.

Indeed, this "peace-loving" poster embodies the reality that his peace sign is indeed the footprint of the American chicken.

We cannot allow druggies, myopic money-lovers, cowards, or any form of addict-utilitarian dysfunctionals to prevent us from continuing to defend against the violent onslaught of the invasion of druggies merely because the druggies are behaving violently and to protect ourselves from them will cost some money.

The price we pay for the drug war is infinitessimally small compared to the astronomical price tag, in horrific human suffering as well as money, that we will most obviously pay if we just lie down like the cowards this poster wants us to be and let the druggies win.

 

[PLC1]

We can afford to lock them up and protect our children from the list Andy provided of the many damaging and deadly behaviors druggies do ... for as long as it takes.

The truth of the matter is that we can't afford not to ...

... As the price of not doing so astronomically exceeds the cost of locking them up and forcing them into recovery.

Really? According to this, there are 15.9 million abusers of illicit drugs in the US. Add that to the number of abusers of prescription drugs, then add in the criminals who are locked up for other reasons, and how many prisoners would be have? I'm going to guess around 30 million, or roughly 10% of the population, but I think that is a little low.

Can we really afford to lock up 10% of the population?

 

[laymen]

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I am from Ca. YEAAA! CALIFORNIA! and every, and I mean every high school deals with pot on a daily basis. I don't believe there is one community in this country that is immune from the influence of pot. It's presence will not be eliminated. I have been of the mind set that current law enforcement practices are fine. Lets face it, if your stupid enough to get busted for having or being under the influence of pot you should suffer the penalties of current laws.

When I see some of the statements placed in this forum and I cant help but laugh a little. But the truth is that those advocating for a moralistically pure society thats free from any deviancy and who advocate locking up any one who makes choices that don't conform to their ideology is frightening as hell! Thats OK tho. I understand that they feel strongly about their beliefs, and can and regularly do find many sources to support said views. Just look at our political system and it's not a stretch to see whats accepted as science.

Reality check: my brother is a border agent in Arizona. He tells me that current policy is that if drug runners (pot now) are captured and their package is under 700 lbs. the pot is confiscated and the mule is deported. No charges....... guess what, he is continuously arresting the same mules on a regular basis putting his life in jeopardy every time!

It's the fear of being charged with a felony for having more than one ounce of pot that us citizens wont grow their own pot, so they just buy a little at a time and this is why it's so profitable for these drug cartels to continue to be in the pot commodity market.

Could you imagine what would happen to you or I if we were caught with 400lbs of pot!!! Yet the drug cartels are aware of policy and keep the packages small.


Priorities people.... we have to get our priorities strait.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I am from Ca. YEAAA! CALIFONIA! and every, and I mean every high school deals with pot on a daily basis. I dont believe there is one comunity in this country that is imune from the influnce of pot. It's presence will not be eliminated. I have been of the mind set that current law inforcment practicise are fine. Lets face it, if your stupid enough to get busted for having or being under the influnce of pot you should sufer the penalties of current laws.

When I see some of the statments placed in this forum and I cant help but laugh a little. But the truth is that those advocating for a moralistcly pure society thats free from any deviancy and who advocate locking up any one who makes choices that dont conform to thier ideoligy is frieghtning as hell! Thats ok thow. I understand that they feel strongly about thier beliefs, and can and regularly do find many sources to support said veiws. Just look at our political system and it's not a strech to see whats accepted as sience.

Reality check: my brother is a border agent in Arizona. He tells me that current policy is that if drug runners (pot now) are captured and their package is under 700 lbs. the pot is confiscated and the mule is deported. No charges....... guess what, he is continuesly arresting the same mules on a regular basis putting his life in jepordy every time!

It's the fear of being charged with a felony for having more than one ounce of pot that us citizens wont grow their own pot, so they just buy a little at a time and this is why it's so profitable for these drug cartels to continue to be in the pot commodity market.

Could you imagine what would happen to you or I if we were caught with 400lbs of pot!!! Yet the drug cartels are aware of policy and keep the packages small.


Priorities people.... we have to get our priorities strait.

Priority One (for you) should be Spell Check.​

 

[Pidgey]

Can we really afford to lock up 10% of the population?

You're right... it'd probably be better to just OD them with something really pleasant and then make Soylent Green out of 'em!

 

[laymen]

Thanks professor. I'm a product of the H.S. class of "86"

 

[Chip]

Really? According to this, there are 15.9 million abusers of illicit drugs in the US. Add that to the number of abusers of prescription drugs, then add in the criminals who are locked up for other reasons, and how many prisoners would be have? I'm going to guess around 30 million, or roughly 10% of the population, but I think that is a little low.

Can we really afford to lock up 10% of the population?

If we increased penalties and stepped up enforcement, like we should, there would be no abusers of illcit drugs, because no one would want to risk, say, life in prision, merely to make-smuggle-distribute damaging, deadly illegal drugs.

The problem now is that the penalites are too lenient and the enforcement is too lax.

But make the right changes, increase the penalties to be more fitting of such a deadly enterprise, enforce the law like murder is enforced, and watch how quickly the availability of these damaging, deadly illegal drugs vanish!

As for Rx drugs, ERs are constantly hit by people faking maladies to get vicodin etc. ... and this is simply a matter of policy. Make and enforce strict policy that controlled substance class drugs must be purchased in-person with a written Rx from a local doctor/physicians assistant/nurse practitioner, increasing tremendously the penalties for fraud.

The reason we have prisions crowded with those dealing/obtaining damaging, deadly drugs illicitly is because the penalties aren't stiff enough to discourage the illegal behavior.

The moment the penalties are steeply increased to fit the damaging, deadly crime appropriately, the violation will go rapidly down.

Indeed, once the penalties for violation are appropriately steep and enforcement is appropriately beefed-up, instead of heading for the pusher, knowing that the high risk of getting caught means quitting cold-turkey in prison, the addict will instead head ... for the nearest treatment center.

It really is that simple.

 

[PLC1]

If we increased penalties and stepped up enforcement, like we should, there would be no abusers of illcit drugs, because no one would want to risk, say, life in prision, merely to make-smuggle-distribute damaging, deadly illegal drugs.

The problem now is that the penalites are too lenient and the enforcement is too lax.

But make the right changes, increase the penalties to be more fitting of such a deadly enterprise, enforce the law like murder is enforced, and watch how quickly the availability of these damaging, deadly illegal drugs vanish!

As for Rx drugs, ERs are constantly hit by people faking maladies to get vicodin etc. ... and this is simply a matter of policy. Make and enforce strict policy that controlled substance class drugs must be purchased in-person with a written Rx from a local doctor/physicians assistant/nurse practitioner, increasing tremendously the penalties for fraud.

The reason we have prisions crowded with those dealing/obtaining damaging, deadly drugs illicitly is because the penalties aren't stiff enough to discourage the illegal behavior.

The moment the penalties are steeply increased to fit the damaging, deadly crime appropriately, the violation will go rapidly down.

Indeed, once the penalties for violation are appropriately steep and enforcement is appropriately beefed-up, instead of heading for the pusher, knowing that the high risk of getting caught means quitting cold-turkey in prison, the addict will instead head ... for the nearest treatment center.

It really is that simple.

It really is not that simple. It's been tried already.

In his first State of the State Address in January 2009, New York Governor David Paterson was critical of the Rockefeller drug laws, stating, "I can’t think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller drug laws."

Mandating 15 years in prison for the possession of 2 ounces of pot didn't work. Equating possession of "narcotics" to second degree murder didn't work. Draconian drug enforcement laws simply don't work. What they do is fill our prisons with non violent offenders, and leave real criminals out on the streets.

Posted by layman:

It's the fear of being charged with a felony for having more than one ounce of pot that us citizens wont grow their own pot, so they just buy a little at a time and this is why it's so profitable for these drug cartels to continue to be in the pot commodity market.

Yes, that's right. Allow the potheads to grow their own, and see how much of a market there is for Mexican pot. See how many marijuana plantations there still are in the national parks and forests.

Better yet, just legalize the sale of it, and tax it. Get rid of the cartels, the gangs, the violence, and the illicit money funding them all. That's the pragmatic, reasonable and workable solution to a social problem.

 

[Andy]

Priority One (for you) should be Spell Check.​

You could only hope that some day your accuracy on topics, would be a fraction as good as his spelling.