Bath Salts use spreading across Canada.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

couldn't find a larger version of that?

Honey badger don't care.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Notorious Honey Badger

Can't be a bad a$$ if its how I really feel. Drug Dealers are social parasites making money off of destroying peoples lives. They have no redeemable qualities and they are of no use to society.

Again, I seperate the people selling grass which is fairly harmless and should be legalized and the people selling destructive drugs where they mix toxins to increase their profit margins.

Those people should just simply either die, or rot in an arctic prison for the rest of their lives.

you want to rehabilitate them, put them to work in labor farms so they can pay back society.

[JonDuke]

Deleting this one. Too gross even for me and probably shouldn't be shared

[TopChed]

That's a pretty over the top opinion piece quoted in the OP. I don't really think this is sweeping the nation.

Because organized crime wasn't able to profit as easily from bath salts because of its accessibility, they were keeping it out of the urban centres, and that's why it remains primarily a rural drug," said Greg Purvis, the director of Addiction Services for the Cumberland and Pictou County Health Authorities.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...#ixzz1wvyMi79A

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So you want to legalize crack which is incredibly destructive both physically and mentally and Meth, and these other incredibly nasty drugs?

Yes you can make the argument that liquor and cigarettes are destructive but these drugs are far more addictive and destructive on a whole.

I can't think of a worse idea. I'm fine with legalizing grass as long as its regulated and taxed to the highest levels and taken out of the hands of the gangs.

But legalizing something like crack that addicts you and destroys you in the first use is kinda stupid.

Sure, why not? We havent tried it before. We only know prohibition, and we know it doesn't work.

Lets try putting the money used in a piss-poor attempt at stopping it towards better education, and better rehabilitation.

Lets try making these drugs legal, so the government can control what's in them. In the sense that the government can be certain the purity, thus inhibiting dealers cutting drugs with worse things.

Lets try taking the biggest market out from underneath gangs. Cutting most of the heads off the snake. Removing territory.

Lets try taking fear of being arrested from drug users, possibily eliminating assaults on officers and EMS professionals as a result.

Why not try? What have we got to lose? Do you think more people will do drugs if they're legal? I doubt it. Kids have easier access to heroin than they do cigarettes. Any child willing can go to a highschool drug dealer and get what they want if they have enough money. The same kids will do so even if it's legal and regulated, but at least it won't be cut with more of a harmful substance.

Lets try cutting the amount of dirty needles used by heroin/meth/crack addicts, inhibiting the transmission of AIDS and Hep.

Seriously. We KNOW prohibition hasn't worked. Why do we still try an old approach to the same problem? Society will keep on, so lets think outside, lets try something new. Legalization won't be the end of the world. Employers will still have standards. But at least rehabilitation will treat people as addicts and not necessarily criminals (definite grey area, we can get into that later if you'd like.)

Lastly; if drugs are legal, then people will be less inclined to make ####ty drugs that circumvent the law and cause cannibalism. If drugs were legal, there would be no need for these bath salts. Im sure people would use them, but there will always be people that abuse something beyond their capacity of reason thereby ruining theirs and somebody elses life. Legal or not.

Maybe it's the wrong idea, but at least it's trying something different.

[edmontonice]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Do not google krokodil addicts pictures out of curiousity, I thought it was exagerated.

Its not.

God.

Wow, I wish I read your post before I did the exact same thing.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by edmontonice

Wow, I wish I read your post before I did the exact same thing.

Its rare that I'm utterly horrified by something.

In this case I was.

[East Coast Flame]

Anyone else feel like this is another SCARY SCARY DRUGS hysteria being whipped up by the media because of one terrible incident. Give me a break. Last month it was dirty ecstasy, now its bath salts. Maybe get John Mar to start a $200 grand ad campaign about the dangers of bath salts.

[WhiteTiger]

My first thought was "So, people are taking more baths?"

Shows how out of touch with the drug community I am.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Sure, why not? We havent tried it before. We only know prohibition, and we know it doesn't work.

Lets try putting the money used in a piss-poor attempt at stopping it towards better education, and better rehabilitation.

I think when people are educated properly, the problems tend to decrease. Look at smoking and drunk-driving. Yeah, some idiots still do it or get started on it, but the numbers have waned pretty significantly from where they were even 20 years ago.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So you want to legalize crack which is incredibly destructive both physically and mentally and Meth, and these other incredibly nasty drugs?

Yes you can make the argument that liquor and cigarettes are destructive but these drugs are far more addictive and destructive on a whole.

I can't think of a worse idea. I'm fine with legalizing grass as long as its regulated and taxed to the highest levels and taken out of the hands of the gangs.

But legalizing something like crack that addicts you and destroys you in the first use is kinda stupid.

I think the trick is to legalize use, but crack down on distributors and sellers. This allows users to get treatment and not fear authorities/police. You fight the problem on the supply side by eliminating supply.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Yasa

Sure, why not? We havent tried it before. We only know prohibition, and we know it doesn't work.

Lets try putting the money used in a piss-poor attempt at stopping it towards better education, and better rehabilitation.

Lets try making these drugs legal, so the government can control what's in them. In the sense that the government can be certain the purity, thus inhibiting dealers cutting drugs with worse things.

Lets try taking the biggest market out from underneath gangs. Cutting most of the heads off the snake. Removing territory.

Lets try taking fear of being arrested from drug users, possibily eliminating assaults on officers and EMS professionals as a result.

Why not try? What have we got to lose? Do you think more people will do drugs if they're legal? I doubt it. Kids have easier access to heroin than they do cigarettes. Any child willing can go to a highschool drug dealer and get what they want if they have enough money. The same kids will do so even if it's legal and regulated, but at least it won't be cut with more of a harmful substance.

Lets try cutting the amount of dirty needles used by heroin/meth/crack addicts, inhibiting the transmission of AIDS and Hep.

Seriously. We KNOW prohibition hasn't worked. Why do we still try an old approach to the same problem? Society will keep on, so lets think outside, lets try something new. Legalization won't be the end of the world. Employers will still have standards. But at least rehabilitation will treat people as addicts and not necessarily criminals (definite grey area, we can get into that later if you'd like.)

Lastly; if drugs are legal, then people will be less inclined to make ####ty drugs that circumvent the law and cause cannibalism. If drugs were legal, there would be no need for these bath salts. Im sure people would use them, but there will always be people that abuse something beyond their capacity of reason thereby ruining theirs and somebody elses life. Legal or not.

Maybe it's the wrong idea, but at least it's trying something different.

With Crack and heroin its not about controlling what's in them, at their nature they're incredibly addictive drugs, and with both its pretty well one shot and you're hooked. And hooked for life, with Crystal Meth even in its purest cleanest form it simply rots you from the inside out and hooks you quickly.

In no way shape or form should those drugs be made legal or easily available.

And if you think that the underground drug trade would simply go away if you legalizzed it your fooling yourself. Those gangs wouldn't throw up their arms and say "Oh well" the governments in, we're out, lets go back to running shady moving companies and construction firms. they'd find a way to make their drugs slightly cheaper then the government and far more addictive.

We are not dealing with a european drug trade here, we're dealing with a far different model based on criminal gangs the likes that Europe has never seen. They're ruthless, they're every where they're well run and they're saavy and they're greedy.

I'm all for legalizing soft drugs if its done in a appropriate manner (Put them in liquor stores, nobody under 18 can legally buy them, and you take the crap out of them). But the harder drugs, no chance should they be legalized.

If you want to fight a war on drugs, you destroy the distribution channels, be incredibly hard on the manufactureres and distributors and do more to help the addicts then throw your hands up in the air and simply give them the needles to kill themselves.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

With Crack and heroin its not about controlling what's in them, at their nature they're incredibly addictive drugs, and with both its pretty well one shot and you're hooked. And hooked for life, with Crystal Meth even in its purest cleanest form it simply rots you from the inside out and hooks you quickly.

In no way shape or form should those drugs be made legal or easily available.

And if you think that the underground drug trade would simply go away if you legalizzed it your fooling yourself. Those gangs wouldn't throw up their arms and say "Oh well" the governments in, we're out, lets go back to running shady moving companies and construction firms. they'd find a way to make their drugs slightly cheaper then the government and far more addictive.

We are not dealing with a european drug trade here, we're dealing with a far different model based on criminal gangs the likes that Europe has never seen. They're ruthless, they're every where they're well run and they're saavy and they're greedy.

I'm all for legalizing soft drugs if its done in a appropriate manner (Put them in liquor stores, nobody under 18 can legally buy them, and you take the crap out of them). But the harder drugs, no chance should they be legalized.

If you want to fight a war on drugs, you destroy the distribution channels, be incredibly hard on the manufactureres and distributors and do more to help the addicts then throw your hands up in the air and simply give them the needles to kill themselves.

Couldn't the government gut their own prices initially to force the gangs out of the picture? I mean, yeah, there will probably always be an underground system. There are for cigarettes as well, but how many people do you know that actually buy cigarettes illegally? Unless the price was substantially different, there's no way people will go the shady route when they can insure their own safety and peace of mind by going the legal route.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The legalization argument has more to do with the fact that no matter what has been tried previously, its done little to nothing to stop people from getting the drugs they want. Demand isn't declining, and while its noble to want to attack the supply, unless that involves going after the source it won't have much effect. Eliminating low and mid level players won't stop anything, its stopping the cartels, you know the one's murdering 12-16 thousand people a year in Mexico right now? The money is too large, so keeping the drugs illegal only serves to drive the price higher.

I agree drugs like heroin and meth are different animals than pot, but anyone who says they're that much worse than alcohol clearly has not hung around too many alcoholics. Having worked in retail liquor for 5 years, they can be just as bad as illegal drug addicts. Alcohol is a drug after all, it's just being made by a profitable, taxable industry (that is usually the biggest supporter of drugs remaining illegal. Can't have competition after all)

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Just remember to aim for the heads kids.

And Rule #2: Always double tap.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

People have sniffed glue, done whippets, sniffed felt markers, huffed helium, anything it seems to get a high. Something tells me warning them this could damage them psychologically might actually help increase usage.

Don't forget jenkem!

[rayne008]

My wife is taking an addictions course, I found this very intersting with regards to marijuana. I'm pretty ignorant on the effects of drugs personally, but I suggest the costs to society from all drugs (including alcohol) are staggering.

This chart is from whitehouse.gov




Basically over time as the levels of THC has increased, the relative number of people being treated for addiction has increased.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So you want to legalize crack which is incredibly destructive both physically and mentally and Meth, and these other incredibly nasty drugs?

Yes you can make the argument that liquor and cigarettes are destructive but these drugs are far more addictive and destructive on a whole.

I can't think of a worse idea. I'm fine with legalizing grass as long as its regulated and taxed to the highest levels and taken out of the hands of the gangs.

But legalizing something like crack that addicts you and destroys you in the first use is kinda stupid.

The thing about possibly legalizing drugs is that I would think people that don't/wouldn't do the drug now still wouldn't do it even if it were legalized. The fact that cocaine is illegal does not stop me from obtaining cocaine. The fact that I don't want to use cocaine stops be from obtaining cocaine.

Obviously there are many downsides to this proposition. You may get more people that TRY hard drugs just because they can walk into a store and buy it, but if its regulated you can also price it out of most peoples budgets. Obviously this doesn't matter to the addicts who will try to get it no matter what, but those people are here whether its legal or not. That may also lead to danger for clerks/owners who work at the shops selling it.

I'm not sure where I fall in this arguement. As a pretty regular pot smoker I actually am against legalization. Mostly because I can find it pretty much anywhere as it is and its much less expensive than it would be under government regulation, so my reasoning is quite selfish. I am of the opinion though that anything that is man-made should either be regulated by the government (ie prescription medicine), or be taken the Captain Crunch route. It may be a failry slippery slope, but maybe capital punishment is the way to go for drug-lords. I say drug-lords to mean the people who are funding/producing the drug. Not necessarily those selling it as I know sometimes dealers are just as desperate as the users.


I also don't understand what would posses someone to try something like this with all the information about it. "it'll make you want to kill others and/or yourself and basically cause the destruction of your entire life. That'll be $100". Sounds good! Maybe I just don't understand the addiction mentality.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by rayne008

My wife is taking an addictions course, I found this very intersting with regards to marijuana. I'm pretty ignorant on the effects of drugs personally, but I suggest the costs to society from all drugs (including alcohol) are staggering.

I can guarentee you the cost of policing, prosecuting, jailing, treating, following people out of prison on probation and washing, rinsing, and repeating because the cycle never ends is substantially more costly than treaing a few more people. In fact I'd bet its a tens of billions of dollars difference. As always its cost versus benefit. It costs an exceptional amount to prohibit drugs, and its stopping nothing and actually the problem is getting worse. Lets stop wasting money shall we?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rayne008

My wife is taking an addictions course, I found this very intersting with regards to marijuana. I'm pretty ignorant on the effects of drugs personally, but I suggest the costs to society from all drugs (including alcohol) are staggering.

This chart is from whitehouse.gov




Basically over time as the levels of THC has increased, the relative number of people being treated for addiction has increased.

The stats for addiction treatment for pot are BS. In the US it's common to let people off of possession charges by making them take mandatory 'addiction treatment.' So those stats are not a reflection people going into treatment because pot smoking had ruined their lives. Watch the doc movie 'The Union,' it discusses the point that pot is really benign and it was only because Richard Nixon hated hippie protesters that any of this 'pot is evil and will ruin everyone's lives if legalized' BS came out.

All statisitcs that are based on law enforcement are utter BS because the changes in the numbers year over year vary greatly by the effects of new laws, how much enforecement is pursued, and issues of police funding rather than the actual variable that's being measured.