You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 1:19 PM

LINDA IS RIGHT

Decriminalize drugs, and the violence resulting from them would drop to near zero. I think that addiction is genetic, and that folks who are prone to it, will be, no matter what. Tax revenues would be a bonus, as would the cost not of keeping drug criminals in jail.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 1:27 PM

Are you talking about me, Sandy?? If you are a whole bunch of folks won't like it that you agreed with me-many derive pleasure from doing the exact opposite. Do believe legalization would remove the criminal element as I said in a thread way back. There are issues like addiction but making drugs illegal doesn't do anything to stop that. The taxation revenue would do wonders for states like CA. which are broke and possibly money to help the addicted and get the corruption out of law enforcement Whatever Linda it is she agrees with me LOL

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 1:32 PM

Yeah Linda, I meant you. Sadly, Obama ain't gonna do it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 1:41 PM

My thought is there are some very powerful people-haven't a clue who they are-who make big bucks as long as drugs remain illegal. So... we continue to fight a battle that is impossible to win. Linda 9During prohibition the bootleggers became super-rich and after it ended they somehow got "respectable" seems a whole lot of money makes that easier - Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 3:50 PM

This will come of sounding like a political post but it isn't as many on both sides of the political spectrum differ on this one. Hillary Clinton today said that the drug wars in Mexico were a law enforcement issue. It that is true, the bad guys appear to be winning. She also said that years ago the US law enforcement brought down the Mafia. I say the end of Prohibition had a lot more to do with the defeat of the mob at that period in our history than Elliot Ness ever did. The best his efforts did was make for some actioon-packed movies and TV shows Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 4:38 PM

Linda at last I do agree with you on this. Don't know if I want the government in charge of legal sales. Who knows who's pocket it would end up in. I think definitely de-criminalize for users. That would mean less need for jails, police court costs at the expense of tax payers. But maybe people in charge don't want that?
'

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 4:52 PM

I don't know who should be in charge of anything. Don't believe the answer ends with not punishing the users though. As long as drugs are illegal the criminal element is involved both on the seller and the corrupt law enforcement side. Don't believe anyone would argue that addiction to anything is a good thing from gambling to alcohol-to tobacco and now to drugs. As long as the drugs themselves remain illegal huge profits are made by the wrong folks. Legalize them and do away with the criminal profit and then work on some kind of regulation which am sure will never be perfect. It is a no win futile very expensive and waste of law enforcement manpower war- Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 5:16 PM

Instead of you folks just blue-skying this proposition, how about looking at the experience of countries that have tried decriminalization.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 5:47 PM

Nothing could be worse than what is going on on the US-Mexican border and law enforcement isn't fixing it as it did not fix Prohibition. Have been noticing how well France is dealing with with issues-taking CEOs hostage-rallies and tire burnings-, etc. What "pithy' word like "Blue Skying" would you use to describe that?-You do the research and post any relevant statistics- Linda

papajensai
Papajensai  (Level: 198.6 - Posts: 1024)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 5:57 PM

Okay this is scary, four times in one day.

There are two kinds of stores in my community where you can legally buy drugs. One sells medicines, mostly by doctor's prescription. The other sells alcohol, to anyone who can prove they are of legal age. I don't see why one or the other, or both, couldn't sell marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, with similar controls in place. The increased evil would be minuscule compared to the decrease in expenditure of human and financial capital in dealing with the criminalization of these substances.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 6:03 PM

Yes, it is rather scary, Ron. You said exactly what I meant only better-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 6:24 PM

Well, I believe several countries have tried decriminalization of various sorts. I will research this in the days to come.

Linda, I find your post not very constructive. If there weren't a downside to decriminalization, more nations would have adopted it already.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 6:34 PM

Funny thing, Andy, I find many of your posts less than constructive too. Perhaps if anyone knew exactly where you stood on a raft of issues, there might not be so much confusion. You habit of just say"No,__ or You are incorrect___ or I am with ___ on this one". is condescending at best. Go ahead a do your research and am sure your research will show addiction exists and death as a result of that in many countries. However, I believe you will be hard-pressed to find the violence caused by the activities on the drug cartels on the Mexican-US border-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 6:41 PM

Start looking, Linda.

"You are incorrect," is extremely rare in my posts.

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2011)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 6:53 PM

But nauseatingly frequent in mine....

HRH...Me.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 7:05 PM

Whatever, Andy. Believe several here have felt the brunt of your condesension. Know you have said"off-topic" and the topic of this thread is the futility of the war on drugs.. So state you argument why billions should be wasted in manpower and leads to corruption and profit by bad follks whil not doin g a thing to stem addiuction. Then we will all have a point of reference. Many believe that drugs should not be legalized based on principles they find in their religion,but I am not one of them. If you are-fine all you have to say so-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 7:38 PM

Also rarely say off topic, except possibly in jest.

Linda, I will research the issue in the coming days.

I am afraid I lack your acumen to decide such matters in a rocking chair in front of one's TV.

I prefer to take a look at the experience of those who have already tried such a solution.


kimoira
Kimoira  (Level: 208.3 - Posts: 1191)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:04 PM

I think her rocking chair gives her a unique perspective...

I don't always answer or read Linda's observations, but I know Sploofus would be a lot less without her

kimoira
Kimoira  (Level: 208.3 - Posts: 1191)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:08 PM

By the way- drugs should be decriminalized, lots less young men would be sitting in jail and the government would have something new to tax and bust our balls with.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:15 PM

Have at it, Andy. When you can justify the violence on the borders and in US cities, then we will have something to talk about -just like when you have taught in an inner city school your ideas on how to educate those kids will mean something to me. I do not get my comments on how the drug trade leads to corruption in law enforcement from the TV. I was married to a big city cop for a very long time. He worked narcotics for a couple of weeks only and from his experience of seeing the "good guys" quickly starting to resemble the "bad guys" caused him to transfer out of that department.. He was not open and above board in all of his doings but he was basically a man who believed in right and wrong and saw The Narco section was so rife with corruption he could not abide working there. Sure there are many honest cops who work narcotics but when you send a guy into situations with drug money laying all over the place and pay them about $20,000 per year, it is a huge temptation that a whole bunch cannot resist. You do remember "Serpico" don't you? Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:20 PM

Thanks, Kim. love ya! Linda

kimoira
Kimoira  (Level: 208.3 - Posts: 1191)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:39 PM



collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:53 PM

Linda, I haven't even said that I disagree with you yet.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 8:57 PM

LOL I don't CARE if you do or not- Linda

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2011)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 9:10 PM

She really does, which is why she keeps at you Andy.

Brings to mind an old expression "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

Me.

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 160.1 - Posts: 5392)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 9:49 PM

Several years ago I had a next-door neighbor who I am certain was on methamphetamine. He made my life a living hell running around my house, shining his flashlight in my windows, telling me there were people hiding behind my car. The one night I saw him run across my yard bounding like a deer and taking strides like I had never seen a human take before. It wrecked my sleep pattern so badly that I still have not recovered even though he is probably still in prison. I would sit by my window and watch his activities until about 4 a.m. and I knew by then he would not be leaving his house after that.

More recently a couple of kids had a meth lab in a shed on a property across from me. Kids were in and out of there all day and all night. A steady stream of cars from out of county pulled up for 5 or 10 minutes all night long. A neighbor to the house talked to the police every day, giving them details and times, descriptions of cars, license plate numbers, etc. The boys living in that house made her life such a living hell that rumor has it that she took her life.

Just a year or so ago a small house a block from me had a bunch of young people "living" in it. One young man was murdered over drugs.

I don't live in a slum area. It's your average moderate-income neighborhood with some long-time residents and some apartments.

Oh, where were the police? Well, when I talked to them about the guy running across my yard, I was told that I could file trespassing charges against him but that it might just make him more upset and vindictive. I offered to let the police officers spend a night on my porch, but no one took me up on it. It sure didn't help the neighbor lady the meth house to talk to the police daily with all her information.

Unfortunately, this area is a meth cesspool. One woman used her infant as collateral to get her drugs.

Why in God's name would anyone want to make it legal? You think that would stop the illegal manufacturing? It's such a lucrative business no one would give up manufacturing meth.

What I would like to do is find a deserted island somewhere, drop them all off there with all the tools to make their meth, catch food, enough clothing to last them, and just leave them there. Then they could use all the meth they wanted and they could drive each other crazy and leave the rest of us alone. It would sure cut down on the crime rates.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 9:59 PM

People that want to legalize drugs usually mean marijuana -- they dont consider the many other drugs and the story above is proof of that. Legalizing meth would in no way be a good thing.... Drug addicition is a disease, a terrible, all consuming disease that usually not only wrecks the addicts life but those around them. Making heroin or the other narcotc drugs legal, I am sorry I just cant see anyway it could work. Legalization may seem like it would make it all nice and tidy but it cant. There is nothing tidy about it. Alcohol is leagle -- thats small comfort to the alcoholic or their families. I have known people in addiction. Its horrible.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 10:05 PM

I would like to hear the details about the countries that have legalized it. Col?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 10:23 PM

Don't think anyone denies that Addition is not pretty for anyone. But Pat's story further proves that making it illegal doesn't make a dent in people using it. Marijuana is easier because seem to be fewer adverse reactions. Benefits to legalizing other things are fewer but someone could determine what goes into the drug. This is particularly true with cocaine and the amphetamines. Actually a dose of pure heroin would kill a grown person. Tax revenues might not only be used for the community but to help the abusers. As long as you make one drug illegal that is the one the bad guys will make a profit from and corruption will start in law enforcement. There is no good answer but the one we are using now sure doesn't work as Pat's illustrating that the police are so numb to it they are not effective. Believe Ron said it best liquor and prescription drugs are sold in stores one with doc's scrip alcohol and cigarettes proof of age,. Why would this not work with the other drugs? Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 11:04 PM

I don't mean to be critical I really was not talking about meth labs. It is just the point though if it were legal many of the crimes associated with it would not occur. I don't mean to criticize but why would a neighbor take their own life because of neighbors. I have had nosy neighbors before but really I suggest the neighbor had other problems. I don't think people should become that interested in what their neighbors are doing and calling the law every nite. I just don't think the current system works. Drug use is still escalating and crime for drugs is soaring. They can't build jails fast enough and there aren't enough police. The courts are completed bogged down with drug cases. What do you suggest, shoot all the drug addicts and dealers with your new found love of handguns. Really I'm getting a real education on what main stream America thinks. By the way please no cheap shots because although I shouldn't reveal anything this personal I'm a recovering alcoholic. I wouldn't want anyone judging me just on my disease.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 11:05 PM

No question I so totally disagree with all of this. It's like saying let's change the law and say it's ok to steal what you want - because prisons wouldn't have so many people in them and violence would go down if it were illegal to stop someone from stealing.

But that's just me, obviously.

The one thing I also totally disagree with you, Sandy, is that I DO believe Obama will get around to it. And with what Hillary announced this week, I'm guessing the timetable is sooner rather than later.

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2011)
Thu, 26th Mar '09 11:32 PM

They are called "Victimless" crimes for a reason. Yes, the family suffers, but not other innocent people. Drugs and prostitution are just that, they don't really affect the society at large (do you want to expound on this, let's look at Vegas, legal prostitution seems to be working just fine). Can't cite a US example of the benefits of legalizing drugs, but I can cite my own personal example.

When my dad was going through the last stages of cancer and couldn't get relief from any of the "prescribed" medications, someone (not saying who) got him some pot. Made him suffer much less from the effects of chemo while the hootch lasted.

Personal belief has nothing to do with this conversation. People make choices everyday that are brilliant or stupid, the vast majority fall in between. Eliminate choices and we are nothing more than dogs.

HRH...Me.

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 160.1 - Posts: 5392)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:04 AM

Bobolicios , when you live alone and you have rough-looking guys coming and peeking in your windows and banging on your house all hours of the day or night, it scares the hell out of you. You're afraid to go outside your house at any time because just a car-length away from your home is a house with criminals and people high on meth in it. You also know that in that shed just a few feet from your house is enough explosive material to blow your house off the block.

I have no problem with marijuana use being prescribed legally for patients with terminal diseases. That's a whole different matter.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2853)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:53 AM

Andy (Achad),
I heard that in Liverpool the Government is delivering certain drugs
to addicts - so that they help control the amount of drugs the
registered users can get .... and they can hold jobs, be productive.
Paying taxes instead of costing taxpayers enormous amounts of money
Seems like a very clever and compassionate solution????

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1139)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:01 AM

Rowlanda - so glad you are back - I ALWAYS enjoy your well thought out and worded posts. You have been greatly missed!

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:28 AM

Just glad no one bit my head off. All I am saying from an informed standpoint. I was in a recovery halfway house for women for 3 months. There were women there who were multi addicted. Most had charges pending, and children. Addiction is a disease and should be treated as such not criminalized. Please don't argue with me on this or I will never listen to you again. Bobo

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 3:39 AM

Amazing, Chick, I totally agree with you and thought you made perfect sense. That must scare you-Linda And Jank on so many things we agree but certainly you would agree that trying to fight that futile border war makes no sense at all and we should look at things from a different angle. As I said some people don't agree on the legalization thing because of their religious views and I suspect that you might be one of them and I respect you for that view even though in practicality it does not make sense to me.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:08 AM

I searched the net a bit this morning.

Both the Netherlands and Portugal have adopted decriminalization laws, but these laws only decriminalize the users of soft drugs. Please correct I am mis-citing these references, Sploofusers. Portgual claims a major success - paper by Cato Institute to be released next Thursday. Other European countries are moving toward the decriminalization of marijuana.

Then there are the experiments with free heroin and methadone in the UK to which Rowlanda referred.

Would love to hear of other experiments you know of.

While it is clear that existing policies around the world empower narco-terrorists who can destabilize whole countries, it is not yet clear to me at least that decriminalization of hard drugs will not bring about a whole host of other problems.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:20 AM

You just may be correct on the last point about a whole host of other problems, Andy. Believe those host of other problems might be felt more by the user and perhaps their families than the general society like people being murdered for the drugs and/0r the drugs and money. Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:13 AM

I really can't say what should happen now other than the decriminalization of the users of marijuana.

I look to those that experiment with the decriminalization of harder drugs.

Here's a view of both sides

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88366.php

I'm not so sure we yet understand how decriminalization of hard drugs might work. For example, if legalized hard drugs are going to be heavily taxed, then there are still going to be black-marketed.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:21 AM

Illegal drugs are a horrible thing that cause pain and heartache and suffering and crime. I just can't understand that some find it logical to legalize them rather than an all-out campaign to prevent people ever using them. How do you legalize them and then explain to kids why they should never try them?

Addiction is a disease. But it's a self-inflicted disease. If you never try drugs or cigarettes or alcohol, you won't ever be addicted - you won't ever have the disease.

If you've gone through the difficulty of breaking the addiction to cigarettes or illegal drugs, don't you wish you had never even tried them? Don't you want to prevent others going through what you've gone through?

Hillary is right. If we quit buying them and using them, all those murdering, thieving, drug selling/pushing thugs who make their living on the suffering of others will have to come up with something else to do.

davidf
Davidf  (Level: 102.1 - Posts: 746)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:24 AM

If drugs are decriminalized then what next, are we going to make homosexuality legal or give the women the right to vote or even let them drive a motor car. Liberalism gone mad.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:30 AM

There is now debate among medical people whether addiction is a disease or not- very much believe that nicotine is addictive as quitting smoking was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do. However, don't believe smoking was ever deemed a disease by anyone You can take your kids only so far-warn them about the ill effects of smoking, over indulging and anything else. Choices are there and consequences are a result of making unwise ones-Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:34 AM

Well, David, it's women driving thing that frightens me most.

Maybe if we gave them their own roads. So they wouldn't hog ours.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:36 AM

When alcohol was illegal during Prohibition didn't do a thing to stop people who wanted to from drinking. It just made a lot of unsavory type folks in many cases very wealthy and a whole lot of people died from drinking "bathtub" gin-Linda

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 10:13 AM

Bobolicous, you are brave to admit, what you have been through!

""There is now debate among medical people whether addiction is a disease or not""-

OMG! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

QUOTE YOUR SOURCES.

I AM a medical person, and trust me there is no debate. Addiction is a very real disease. If strong will and intelligence where enough to overcome addiction, there would be no need for AA or NA or addiction treatment but guess what, there are plenty of smart, strong willed, people of strong moral character who ARE addicts despite their very strong wish, not to be. No one WANTS to be an addict.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 10:51 AM

http://www.myaddiction.com/education/articles/addiction_disease.html There is a whole lot of debate-this is only one source. I Take no exception that certain substances are addictive liked nicotine but smoking has never been labeled as a disease. AA and NA help millions of people as the 12 step program does help many. The long-term success rate of AA or NA is almost impossible to prove or to track. I will not knock either as they help people people pick up their lives so will not get into a debate with you on this one, Penn. For a period Treatment Centers sprung up everywhere but when the insurance companies got sick of paying for the same people to return over and over again, they declined. I am not sure of the exact period of time it takes a person to detox -believe it is a matter of a few days at most for many substances like alcohol. If folks then return to the same lifestyle and make the same poor decisions, they get hooked again. My main argument rests with the premise that Nicotine has been classified as one of the most addictive drugs but to my knowledge although considered immoral by some groups, it has never held the classification of DISEASE The whole argument that addiction= disease is shot in the a-- Linda

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 11:07 AM

First of all AA and NA ARE the 12 step program.
Second, Smoking IS a disease -- its the first thing your doctor asks you and it is all over your medical forms. Where you got the idea its not a disease is beyond me. There are medicines, treatment plans and programs to help you quit smoking. Tobacco companies may lobby that it is not a disease, but it would be hard to sell cigarettes if they did, now wouldnt it.

The site you listed is an opinion and not a source.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 11:08 AM

And just to brighten your day, I just renewed my Sploofus for a year.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 11:14 AM

This whole thing holds particular interest for me as I have a son who is an "occasional smoker" and he could never understand why when my lungs were being virtually destroyed, why i simply did not quit. There are some new studies that say there are differences neurologically or in the brain that make it possible for some people to just put down the cigarettes and walk away when it does not seem to work for others. I tried a 12 step program several times but since I most likely doubt the basic premise on which they are based, it did not work for me. Not disputing that they do lots of good things for many people. without the use of Chantix which affects something in the brain believe i would still be smoking. Also know if I buy a pack of cigarettes and a lighter or sit for a long time with folks who are smoking, the chances are good that I will light up again. When it is up to the lawmakers to decide if anything constitutes a disease and it seems toi be as addiction does not follow the patterns of other diseases, we have a huge problem with credibility. Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 11:56 AM

Are you suggesting that since addiction to alcohol and treatment has a recidivism rate is a reason for insurance company's not to pay for them? You really need to look at the success stories. Hey Pennwoman she needs to read the "Big Book" the stories are compelling and inspiring, something more people need on Salty Dog.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:11 PM

Come on, let's give me a big round of applause. I am not robbing banks or beating my wife, any more. Am I a great guy or what? Many people make the choice never to use illegal drugs but the praise seems to go to those that did and have quit something that they never should have started to begin with. Go figure. God Bless America.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:17 PM

I have read the "Big Book' said I am not going to debate the merits of AA or NA as will not say one word to trash them. I think you will not find many medical people who classify smoking as a disease itself but will find many that cite it as the cause of many diseases. And for your information there are many 12 step programs other than AA and Na all of which sprung from AA. When a law determines if something is a disease it is open to skeptical review. Whether addiction is a disease or not making it illegal does nothing to eliminate it nor remove the criminal element. Please cite a medical reference proves that any addiction follows the progression of any other known disease- Linda the "Big Book" is not a medical reference even though the success stories are inspiring. You might want to look into what the drunks did to Bill Wilson's house a when he simply brought them home off the streets. You also might find it interesting to read Lois's story as that woman worked her butt off to support that man all of her life- he was never good at keeping any job whatsoever. Said not going to trash AA or any other 12 step program as they help many but because they are just that "anonymous" there is no way to track their success record. Again, back to the topic of the benefits of legalizing drugs to the downside of letting the criminals run things-Linda.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:17 PM

That remark makes me angry, I never wanted to become an alcoholic, I'm sorry I admitted something so personal to a bunch of close mined people whose only claim to fame is that they never abused a substance. Oh yeah they know a lot of useless facts and can look up sites to support their useless and sometimes hurtful opinions. I mean really you want a pat on the back for doing the right thing. Hey don't kick someone when their down its because of this that many addicts relapse. So much for sharing. Bobo

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:23 PM

You know what listening to you people makes me want to go read my big book. I don't think Bill cared if the drunks trashed his house he wanted to devote his life to the still suffering alcoholic. While modeling after AA, NA is very different and if you have gone to as many meetings as myself you would know that. You are being a devils advocate I think you would love to see addicts punished as well as criminals.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:23 PM

You want a pat on the back for doing the wrong thing? It is much harder to avoid doing wrong than it is to make a stupid decision. If you never wanted to be an addict, than could you please cite the reference of the material you read listing all of the success stories that would lead one to make such a choice?

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:25 PM

Duh! Honey, if you use illegal drugs you are a criminal.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:26 PM

And Bobo, believe if you read what Bill Wilson said you would call yourself a "Recovered Alcoholic" not "Recovering". He said that there was no cure but that if one had dilligently completed the 12 Steps and continued to do the last 3 they were "Recovered" not "recovering'-might want to give it a reread-Linda

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:34 PM

How DARE you? You didnt know that AA and NA are 12 step programs and you are going to lecture her on her wording? How do you know it wasnt a mistype? Perhaps like typing Addition instead of addiction?
Typical, instead of putting words of encouragement to someone who revealed a big part of herself, you are petty and mean.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:40 PM

Felix, who asked for a round of applause? The thread is about legalizing drugs, if anything Bobo is pointing out the horrors of it.
It must be nice to be so perfect that you can judge other people.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:47 PM

Martina I'm sorry that you miss the point of personal accountability. I think dopers and drunks should be apologetic to the taxpayers that fund the programs available to these people who made a choice. If they did not recognize problems in the early stages of their abuse, then they have lied to themselves. As an American I can state my belief. So get off of your high horse.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:48 PM

How dare YOU lecture me on being petty and mean? I am well aware that AA and NA are 12 Step programs-think you were the one that intimated they were the only ones. They are NOT but AA was the first. I am very familiar with the literature of most and admire anyone who is trying to make their life better , but not going to agree with something that I know was wrong. I'm done with this with you, Penn, as in your efforts to disagree with me as you always seem to find delight in doing, you have reduced this to the level that I somehow am at fault if Bobo uses or drinks again.None of this was the topic of this thread. A POX on your house - Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:48 PM

Thats okay Pennwoman I just consider the source. If I can continue to recover from addiction and rebound somewhat I can handle a few ignorant people who don't even know what a 12 step program is. It is illegal to be so judgemental. Felix whoever you are I didn't do anything wrong. You aren't doing anything right with your comments. I wish had the inclination to look up a lot of statistics but I don't need to I went through it experience is a better teacher. If you think you are going to silence me with innane comments you are wrong.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:53 PM

Listen I'm tired of you holier than though attitude. I didn't use any taxpayer money I paid for it myself and had no insurance why don't you go dream about you cats. By the way what vices do you have every has one. I can only imagine with your attitudes it is something much worse or you would not be so hateful in your comments. I mean really like I wanted to go through that.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 12:57 PM

You obviously missed Martina complimenting me on being perfect. I'm not saying that I have a vice, but if I do it is probably that I waaaaaaaaaay to kind to others.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:11 PM

If people were silenced by Felix's inane comments there would be no Salty Dog!
I just hope that Pennwoman and all her kin are innoculated!

salzypat
Salzypat  (Level: 160.1 - Posts: 5392)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:12 PM

Listen up everyone. This thread is getting nasty and I don't like it. We can share and learn from one another but there's been some name calling going on and I think it's time for it to come to a halt.

I may be mistaken (I'll admit to making mistakes now and then) but I think I invited Bobo at one point to start posting on Salty Dog. I sure don't invite anyone with the idea that you can beat them up, especially as in Bobo's case where she shared a private part of her life. She needs friends and support now, not ridicule or finger pointing. None of us needs that.

We've all made choices in life we wish we hadn't. Some are tougher to overcome than others.

Anyone on Sploofus who is overweight? I am. And, you know what? It's an addiction! We're all struggling with our demons. Let's help each other and not make life harder.

Anyone ever heard of "There but for the grace of God go I"?



felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:13 PM

Thanks Sandy!.......Hey Wait........

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 159.5 - Posts: 2476)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:18 PM

"AA and NA help millions of people as the 12 step program does help many."

This is what you said Linda, not me.
I find it hard to believe that you have read the big book, based on that statement.

If you think I am for ONE minute, am going to stop calling you on your BS, you are wrong.
A pox on my house?
My wish for you, is that suddenly your heart thaws, your mind opens, and you emerge from the bitterness and scorn that you hold on to so tightly.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:20 PM

Look who's perfect now!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:23 PM

Pat, you I respect. We disagree on the benefit of legalizing drugs but that is okay. I was not bashing, Bobo, and agree we need new voices in Salty Dog. Folks need to know early on though if they stray from the Sweetness and Nice threads, they had better develop a thick skin. Somehow this thread got turned around to disputing the idea that addiction is a disease or not and the benefits of AA and NA and who knew what about that-not the original topic. It you post on hot topics either take what you are given back or move to another thread. I know about getting one's feelings hurt-quit twice over it. People will most likely be nice to you for a bit if you do not get "in their face" but after that you need to exit or defend yourself or like I do at times take a break- Linda

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 1:55 PM

Do you people sit around and make up your on rules for who is allowed to speak. This is a public forum and as a sploofus member anyone can participate. In fact I'm going to upgrade my membership. I told you where I stood on thread I even agreed with you. I do think decriminalization of marijuana is definitely almost mandated. I think California has shown that one solution may be medical marijuana or in Vancouver where you can grow a certain amount for personal use. Prohibition does not work time has taught us that. Alcohol and tobacco are legal and a lot more deaths are caused from legal substances. The money the government makes on those two drugs helps. Just think how much revenue would be generated the same way with marijuana.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 2:10 PM

Bobo, I agree with your last post and it was on topic-thanks-Linda It is when people make this game all about personalities that things get ugly. Some people hold a grudge for things before others ever arrived here. Penn, waiting for your documentation that medical folks describe smoking itself as a disease or some other measure than a whim of the lawmakers that addiction of any kind =disease and should be treated as such. You are correct that people should be called on it when they spew BS- Linda

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 2:15 PM

Sue me, Penn, I forgot the word "other". Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 3:00 PM

I did want to object to the title of this blog.

How about "Linda Might Have a Point?"

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 3:39 PM

Why can't we all just get abong!

crazy4games
Crazy4games  (Level: 124.1 - Posts: 1019)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 3:56 PM

Well said Mr. Bo!!

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 6:17 PM

Haven't posted in awhile. (I go through cycles in which it seems pointless because so much that is posted -- particularly on a subject like drugs -- is knee-jerk reaction, not informed by actual research, evidence, or often elementary logic.) But this is a topic of interest -- and one that i have studied extensively.

This post addresses the controversy over the term "addiction". For some drugs -- both legal and illegal -- the use of the drug can cause physical discomfort when the drug is unavailable for consumption. This type of phenomenon is well-documented and is often referred to as physical addiction. Other drugs result in no physical dependency -- and there are, indeed, scholars trained in a variety of fields who refer to use the term "addiction" when speaking of habitual users that don't result in physical dependency. These same individuals reject the term "addiction" as applied to all sorts of other types of behaviors, i.e., gambling addiction, spending addiction, sex addiction.

Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist, scholar, and author, rejects the term "mental illness" and the use of the medical model in dealing with what he calls problems in living. He also rejects the use of the term drug addiction and the war on drugs. His seminal work on mental illness and the inappropriateness of the medical model as applied to problems in living is "The Myth of Mental Illness". He has also written about drug use, demonization of drug users, and the inappropriateness of characterizing drug users as "addicts" and people with "illnesses" in "Ceremonial Chemistry" which is described as a discussion about "the ritual persecution of drugs, addicts, and pushers".

Szasz and others of his persuasion certainly hold a minority view -- particularly among psychiatrists; nonetheless, the notion that there does not exist genuine debate over the existence of drug "addiction" is simply untrue.

At the point I was at when I had decided to post, it was unclear to me why the existence of "addiction" was important to the issue of legalization or decriminalization of drugs or some of them. It is often argued, however, that legalization or decriminalization will result in more "addicts" so that its better to follow the current costly and ineffective policies. I personally believe that legalization in the USA could well result in some uptick in "addiction", that is, people with poor impulse control who give themselves over to the drugs; however, I have never found this to be a particularly compelling reason to criminalize use -- the same way I don't deem the existence of alcoholics to be a reason to use the criminal laws to prohibit the dangerous drug, alcohol.

Going from memory, in a study within the last year or saw of marijuana usage by country, in the Netherlands -- where marijuana use is essentially legal -- falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of the European countries that were included in the study -- although it had the least prohibitive marijuana laws. My recollection is that Great Britan had the highest rate of marijuana use -- although it remans illegal there. (I do understand small quantity users/possessors to be a fairly low priority for law enforcement.) I also recall that although enforcement of criminal laws against marijuana was far more robust in the USA than any of the sudied European countries, usage rates for marijuana were higher in the US than any of the European countries. Using the low level of logical reasoning I often see displayed in posts here, I'm going to argue that "socialism" reduces drug use and to combat drug "addiction" the US should transform itself into a socialist European state.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 6:32 PM

TSK, you were doing so well until you stooped to the "low level of logical reasoning I often see displayed in posts here."

Having so done, you diminished whatever credibility your conclusion might have had.

Instead it sounds like a great leap of faith.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 6:33 PM

As to drug user as a "criminal". It is, indeed, true that people who use drugs that politicians decide to outlaw are "criminals". I am always fascinated by Felix -- who routinely dumps on politicians and government -- but who is 100% behind the same when they are doing something like choosing what drugs the citizens can and cannot use, and punishing the "criminals" who elect to use the drugs that are determined to be off-limits by those in charge. In my view, in a moral sense, somebody is not a "criminal" merely because they use a drug. If they steal to get money to buy drugs, for instance, they are than engaged in a morally reprehensible activity, and should be punished for that crime -- not for having the status of a drug user. This is where Jank's equation of drug use and theft falls apart. Use of any substance -- except, perhaps, with the intention of committing suicide -- does not constitute an intrinsically immoral act.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 6:40 PM

Andy, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Is it (1) that a low level of logical reasoning is not often displayed in the posts on this site? Or (2) that I somehow lost my credibility by referring in a general way to the often poorly reasoned posts on the site. Or (3) do you think I actually was serious -- rather than facetious -- in arguing that because the European countries which are frequently excoriated here as "socialist" bastions have lower rates of marijuana usage than the USA that this was actually a compelling logical argument for transforming the USA into a "socialist" state? Or (4) something else entirely.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 6:55 PM

After presenting some excellent material, it seems you essentially made a leap of faith to arrive at the conclusion you sought to make. Perhaps I misread your intent.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:00 PM

Advocates of prohibition of drugs usually get around to disputing that it is a "victimless" crime because of the family issues drug use can cause. Unless one is also advocating alcohol prohibition, this really strikes me as an exceedingly weak argument for drug prohibition -- it really just means that one drug -- alcohol, which is very likely consumed by the person making the argument -- should be legal even though it, too, results in collateral "victims". The fact is that it is possible for some drug users with families not to "victimize" their families through use -- the same way it is possible for some people who drink alcohol not to "victimize" their families through use. I agree that it is harder for the user of "illegal" substances to avoid "victimizing" their families. First, because the activity is illegal, the families of functioning users will often by "victimized" when their loved-one is sent off to prison for having the status of a consumer of drugs. Second, a drunk needs a lot less money to satisfy his/her "addiction" than a user of illegal drugs becuase you can go into a store and buy your fix, so some families become "victims" to the "addiction" of illegal drug use due to the expense of satisfying the "addiction", which expense would likely be much less substantial if the drug were not illegal in the first place.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:08 PM

Tsk, my reference to theft and drug use is about those whose habit and addiction is so strong and expensive there's no way they could afford to pay for the drugs, so their deep need for them leaves them no choice but to steal from others and fence the goods to afford more drugs. Theft is a moral problem, whether the drug use is or not.

Where I used to live and transcribe police reports, there were an average of 16 vehicles broken into per 24-hour period and the radios stolen. That's almost 6,000 radios a year in a town of only 175,000 people, and that's only one type of crime. I can't imagine they were just doing that because their own radio didn't play music well enough. (My student whose cousin was shot and killed a few months ago after breaking into a car to steal the radio was doing so to support his illegal drug habit, according to her.)

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:15 PM

Andy: I was not seriously arguing that Europe's lower rate of marijuana use meant the USA should become a socialist state. That is why I prefaced the comment as I did to the effect of using the low (probably should have said poor, but I basically typed that post as I thought it, without editing) level of logical reasoning I frequently see on this site. It is, of course, a gross logical fallacy to conclude from an association between condition A and condition B that condition A is the cause of condition B -- yet this logical fallacy is much in evidence among the arguments advanced by people on this site. Examples:

1. Marijuana causes hard drug use because most people who use harder drugs tried marijuana first. Of course, most people who use "hard" drugs also first drank milk, so milk causes hard drug use.

2. George Bush's policies kept "us" safe because there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11/2001. There is, of course, no evidence that the group of policies that many Americans find objectionable -- indefinite detentions, torture, renditions -- was in any way responsible for the lack of such attacks. The Bushies never even offer any evidence to show that some plot was foiled by these policies and, when pressed for such evidence, inevitably claim "national security" as a reason for being able to offer any evidence to support their claims.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:18 PM

Thanks for posting your well documented views, Tsk. I believe you made most of the point I was trying to make but get distracted by personal attacks-thanks-Linda

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:24 PM

Jank:

I believe that some people who use drugs do, in fact, commit crimes such as theft to get money to sustain their habits. Theft is near universally accepted in our society as something that should be prohibited, and theives motivated by whatever reasons should be dealt with through the criminal system. That said, not all drug users -- indeed, I would speculate few drug users among users of the entire range of illegal drugs -- steal to support their habit/recreational activity. Moreover, you seem to miss an obvious connection about drug thefts, namely, that because the drugs we are talking about cannot be legally obtained by the people who are using them the price of those drugs is artificially high. Thus, it is the very prohibition of the drugs in question which increases their cost and some users' need to commit crimes (or more crimes) to obtain money to get the drugs. How does this policy protect private property?

sploofus
Justin  
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:30 PM

420

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:49 PM

Because if they did not break the law to buy illegal drugs, they wouldn't be addicted and driven beyond their control to do something they know is wrong to support it. It takes a strong addiction to go against every teaching you've ever had to not steal.

Nobody shoved the drugs down their throat. They had to literally go out of their way to find a criminal to be able to buy the illegal drugs. Illegal drugs are, by definition, illegal - to buy, to sell, to use.

When did Americans decide it's ok to just break a law because you just want to?

And breaking THIS law supports murderers and the most horrible of people. There are beheadings on the border, kidnappings, rapes. All because of drugs. How can anyone want to legalize something that is born out of this most horrible of human behavior?

I bet there's not one person here in our almost 60,000 Sploofus members who doesn't have someone in their family or among their friends who hasn't ruined their lives by illegal drug use. And it's not the "illegal" that ruined their lives. It's the drug use and addiction.

Whether the drug is legalized or illegally obtained, it's still a drug that ruins lives. The only reason to use an illegal drug is to alter the perception of reality. But it may well do much more than that. It may well damage your organs and end up killing you.

It causes misery and pain for everyone who cares about you and watches a person with potential and quality of life reduced to an unhappy, out of control person. It's not just the user who is affected.

I want us, instead of getting rid of the law, rather to build up humans from childhood to respect themselves enough to not decide to just break this law and use illegal drugs. I want kids to not need to alter their reality.

If people understood they were paying money to vicious murderers, kidnappers and rapists, maybe they would think more carefully about making that first buy, before the addiction and habit overwhelms them. There's not one good thing that comes from the use of illegal drug use.

Plus - if a person at all respects their own body, how can you put something in it that is bought from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from a murderer? How in the world can you not be scared to death what else might be in there with it? If someone is a vicious murderer, I can't imagine they're very interested in cleanliness.

I have no problem with marijuana being used as a pharmaceutical for the alleviation of pain. The purity would be controlled.

Doesn't it bother you that people make a decision that sends their money to someone who is a hardened criminal, perhaps a murderer, who doesn't care one bit about another human being, other than what they can get from them? If the user of their product dies the first time they use it (as happens sometimes), they don't care other than that they can't suck that person dry of their money any more.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:52 PM

Terrorism, TSK?

I'll take the outgoing admin's policies any day of the week. It may not have been an accident that Al Qaeda had to pour so many resources into its losing effort in Iraq. And it certainly isn't an accident that major terrorist attacks (e.g., London subway bombing) are fewer and far between.

We've switched to a "Be nice to the terrorists" tack. Too early to evaluate, but the needle on the naivété-meter is already going crazy.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 7:52 PM

Note to self: Being long winded = high level reasoning. Kiss method recommended.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:00 PM

Confused Jank, think you just made TSK's point. The fact that they are illegal makes them more expensive. Sure people break windows in liquor stores but after Prohibition ended you didn't see many sub machine guns used to get alcohol. The war on te border close to you seems would be proof to you that what we are doing is not working. Believe it is also difficult to keep those o:guarding' the border free from corruption. The big money involved causes huge crime and huge corruption. Linda

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:03 PM

The cost isn't the problem. The drug itself that causes the addiction is the problem.

And even legalizing them, there will still be people who can't afford them, so there will still be crimes committed to get them.

Making them cheaper and taxed by the government doesn't change that the drug causes addiction that ruins lives.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:05 PM

Re Jank's post: Thank you, Linda.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Fri, 27th Mar '09 8:07 PM

So the government would launder the money instead of the mob?

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 1:00 PM

Thank you my friend Tsk for making an educated post on this forum. Yank do you not see the correlation between drug-addiction and that person's death. Drugs are illegal and too expensive to obtain therefore a criminal activity is committed to obtain money for drug's resulting in death probably by a hand gun. Wow, it doesn't get more clearly illustrated than that. The US is so far behind all other Western cultures in so many area. All the statistics point to this and I believe decriminalizing or legalizing is the only answer.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 1:02 PM

Apologize for the misspelling Jank. Really did not mean to offend you and I know where you are coming from when it happens in your neighborhood.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 1:10 PM

Felix: E=MC2 but not in your case. Long winded=what? Your brief comments don't have any reason. Quick quips for all us dopers and drunks I guess. By the way I'm just a garden variety recovering drunk not a doper. Be accurate Mr. Cat.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 1:10 PM

TSK is often difficult for me to understand, but believe he made the point that there is debate among medical people that addiction is a disease. He and I both agree, however, with you and others that making anything illegal does not prevent anyone from using it and rewards the bad guys with huge profits and causes corruption on all sides. Currently, believe both the laws and the position taken by AA and like groups are the majority voice-but there is debate. My source for proving that to Penn was not the best one but TSK's was. Linda

nanpaulhus
Nanpaulhus  (Level: 142.0 - Posts: 346)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 2:03 PM

I just spent two weeks in Indiana.. I was not on vacation. A friend requested my visit as he was going through some terrible tiimes. His partner left him. He got his first DUI/first arrest. A friend had deceived him about some money. He needed me. Then he lost his job while I was there. He is an alcoholic who has just admitted it to himself this year. He is 32 and a student in an MSW program. A smart man. I watched him detox, then when he lost his job he binged for a weekend and I watched him detox again. The shakes, the vomiting, the paranoia, the depression, the sweats...are all real. And this is a legal drug. IF it were not legal, he could still get hold of it, but he would likely not have had it available to him in the law-abiding home in which he grew up. He would not have started drinking at age 15. ( I don't think.) He is adopted and biologically he has addictive tendencies. His adoptive parents don't drink.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 132.2 - Posts: 21528)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 2:15 PM

Don't believe anyone debates that alcohol is a drug. Prohibition, however, is an example of the failed attempts to make it illegal.- Nicotine is also a legal drug and I started smoking when you could get a pack of cigarettes from a vending machine by inserting a quarter and getting 3 pennies taped to the pack. I vowed to quit when the price got up to a dollar -only was able to finally do it a couple of years ago. The choice was mine though to insert that first quarter in that machine an d thus my COPD and emphysema are also the result of my initial action. Actions have consequences and not always good ones. The argument that folks didn't know smoking was harmful back when i started doesn't fly either-athletic coaches would not let players smoke because it made them "short-winded" Linda

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 109.8 - Posts: 9952)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 2:50 PM

Congratulations on quitting, Linda!

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 3:03 PM

BoBo, I do not reference the word cat in my name. More shallow thinking on your part. So I am to assume that you are BOBO the Elephant? Maybe Jenny Craig has a 12 step program. God Bless America. May God Bless even the dopers and drunks.

bobolicios
Bobolicios  (Level: 119.6 - Posts: 1745)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 3:28 PM

I thought we weren't name calling, I looked up your profile that is allowed. I saw all the cat names. Please stop calling names or I will just have to cry boo hoo. You are really too much. You must be one of the ones people are talking about in their private messages to me. Lets not get personal okay. Besides whats wrong with Cat Man? Get personal again and I'll not be responsible for what I say, you right wing bimbo.

felix
Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Sat, 28th Mar '09 3:39 PM

Go ahead, I can take it. Whatever you care to start I can finish. You'll notice I referenced you by name in one post. You have taken my name in vain on several occasions to date. As always you need to blame someone else. Have at it.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2017 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus