Bath Salts use spreading across Canada.

[driveway]

I guess I should wade into the discussion as I've done this 'Bath Salts' stuff... at least MDPV, one of the 'cocktail' of active chemicals and I have to say ... 'meh'.

It's not really interesting as far as a recreational narcotic goes, but I can understand why people mess themselves up with it. The high has elements which are similar to both cocaine and ecstacy, although much less pronounced and it wears off pretty quick.

However, like GHB, it's not a drug you can just do again when your HEAD says its okay, something experienced drug users have issues with. "Nah, I'm tough, I've done blah blah blah, I know my tolerance, I can do more".

This stuff really starts to mess with you when you take multiple doses and the problem is you have to go through a pretty brutal comedown to get to a time when it's 'safe' to do more. Bad headache, sensitivity to light, ecstacy 'sketchiness', nausea. It sucks.

I can't imagine this being more than a flash-in-the-pan drug like PCP was. The high is weak, the comedown awful and the unpleasantness associated with trying to avoid the comedown is significant. Once the ingredients are controlled this thing is going to go away; there's no money in it for producers.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm sorry but you're opening up a huge can of worms by legalizing addictive drugs. It'd be like the tobacco industry but a hundred times worse. Can you imagine companies legally able to produce and sell crack. Money would be poured into making it as addictive as possible in order to get people hooked and dependent on it. And all the while, the government will basically be supporting it.

The major flaw in this argument is you assume no one is currently doing the addictive drugs. The fact is despite being illegal with jail terms generally a possibility, people are still doing them. Billions are being spent to prevent that from happening, to little or no effect. Legalizing drugs isn't going to all of a sudden drive everyone to try heroin. If people wanted to try heroin they can easily do so now. So why waste a ton of money on something you can't realistically prevent from happening?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seeing as they're all about to be one accounting body anyways, it won't particularly matter what type of accounting I specialize in, we'll all be CPA's (P for professional unlike the US where it's Public). Regardless my point was its individuals who decide how they react to a substance. Some people can handle mind altering substances and still be productive members of society. Some don't. Some alcoholics are begging for change. Some are oil and gas CEOs. Keeping drugs illegal isn't going to stop someone, and while some may fear it will lead to catastrophic results, what exactly does wasteful spending contributing to stopping the unstopable lead to? Besides deficits?

This may be true, but the real concern is for those who can't handle it and therein is one argument for regulation.

Nothing you have stated actually proves that legalization would be less wasteful on a big picture scale. Also, reality is also not as black & white (stoppable/unstoppable) as you presume.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Have you guys heard about this synthetic heroin that people are making in Russia when they run out of the real stuff? They call it Crocodile or something because your skin starts to crystallize into scales and then falls off leaving exposed bone.

EDIT - here's a link to it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-2300787.html

That is crazy and fascinating stuff.

To think your arm could look like this and you'd still take another hit.

Edit: Google image search it yourself, that is probably too much. They should put this on codeine packs in Russia.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

This may be true, but the real concern is for those who can't handle it and therein is one argument for regulation.

Nothing you have stated actually proves that legalization would be less wasteful on a big picture scale. Also, reality is also not as black & white (stoppable/unstoppable) as you presume.

So then obviously alcohol and cigarettes should also be illegal correct? I mean if you're saying alcohol is ok, then why isn't pot? Or anything else?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The high functioning people you know probably statistically also eat better, excercise more, drink less, smoke less tobacco, read more, watch less TV, eat less chicken wings as well. Pot is a vice that, yes, certainly doesn't enhance performance in otherwise perfectly healthy people. That doesn't mean we need to invent statistics to imply it's somehow as bad as crack or heroin that will infect those high functioning people you speak of with addiction. It's simply not physically addicting. We need to stop lying to ourselves and pretending pot is any more evil than many legal drugs.

I never said that. And just because some 'drugs are legal', it certainly doesn't mean we should legalize more.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but nothing as profitable and easy as drugs. Drugs = 300% profit margins. Outside prostitution, nothing has that kind of profit margin. What else can they do? Go back to kidnappings? Less money, less guarentees, higher risk, lower profits. Once drugs are gone cartels can do extortion I suppose, but then we get into a how to you eliminate all crime debate, which seems really pointless.

This is my point that your statement - all the deaths related to criminal activity would disappear - is false.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I'm sorry but you're opening up a huge can of worms by legalizing addictive drugs. It'd be like the tobacco industry but a hundred times worse. Can you imagine companies legally able to produce and sell crack. Money would be poured into making it as addictive as possible in order to get people hooked and dependent on it. And all the while, the government will basically be supporting it.

Not only that, but someone gets hooked on crack, starts doing what crack users do which is break and enters, prostitution petty thefts, do they suddenly have a defense?

And can they sue the government

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

This is my point that your statement - all the deaths related to criminal activity would disappear - is false.

Of course they wouldn't disappear. But if you're telling me its not a good thing to see the number of murders go from 50,000 to say around 5,000, then I really don't know what else to say. If drugs were legalized, the murder rate would fall, no doubt about it. What exactly can replace the $50+ billion they currently fight over? You think 50,000 people are getting murdered if they have to fight over say maybe $5 billion in remaining illegal money if drugs are legalized?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The argument for this is that Alcohol is a vastly more socially acceptable addiction, and what criminalizes those who are addicts is:

Social Stigma
Unreliability of supply
Cost

What's the difference between Johnny Depp and a guy on the DTES? One lives in a world of easy access, reliable supply and non-stigmatization of his addiction. The other has to worry about crap supply, hot shots, police round ups/beatings, robbery etc.

None of this is to say that I desire the lifestyle of a well-to-do heroin addict. If I wanted to try heroin, I could.

Well, that argument is wrong.

The vast majority of people can have beers on the weekend and then function through the rest of the week without having to be drunk 24/7.

The same is not true of drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc.. People don't become addicted to heroin, because it's hard to get. People become addicted because it's an addictive drug in the sense you want to be high on it 24/7.

Some people do get addicted to alcohol, but not nearly in the same percentages. When I get drunk, I get a hangover the next day and want to stay away from beer. This is the normal response. When people come down from heroin...they want more heroin.

According to your argument, the best way to deal with addicts would be to give them unlimited amounts of drugs....simply wouldn't work for addictive hard drugs.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes but when you have people in high positions that are "Mr. 420" couldn't the case be made that the pot isn't the cause of the EI/socioeconomic status/ menial jobs and its more that low socioeconomic people tend to smoke pot vs pot smokers tend to be low economic status? There are far fewer CEO's in the world then there are people on EI. Would the percentages of CEO's that smoke pot be similar to the percentages of people on EI that smoke pot?

Also what are the age ranges? I feel like its likely that a 50-60 year old CEO have had their share of drug-fun in their younger days.

Yup, I agree and that's why I said correlation /= causation. All I was saying is that there is an observational trend here that is hard to ignore.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Seeing as only the pro-legalization people seem to have ideas on how to better fix the system, I'm curious what the pro-prohibition folk think would be a good way to either reduce usage, or eliminating the flow of drugs?

And please don't mention ideas that are more of the same. It doesn't work. It just doesn't. Its been proven through the last 30 years of waste on the "War on Drugs".

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Of course they wouldn't disappear. But if you're telling me its not a good thing to see the number of murders go from 50,000 to say around 5,000, then I really don't know what else to say. If drugs were legalized, the murder rate would fall, no doubt about it. What exactly can replace the $50+ billion they currently fight over? You think 50,000 people are getting murdered if they have to fight over say maybe $5 billion in remaining illegal money if drugs are legalized?

The problem with your argument here is that you have no idea that the rate will drop from x -> y, let alone change.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The major flaw in this argument is you assume no one is currently doing the addictive drugs. The fact is despite being illegal with jail terms generally a possibility, people are still doing them. Billions are being spent to prevent that from happening, to little or no effect. Legalizing drugs isn't going to all of a sudden drive everyone to try heroin. If people wanted to try heroin they can easily do so now. So why waste a ton of money on something you can't realistically prevent from happening?

No, I'm not assuming that no one is currently doing addictive drugs, but I'd argue that having it legally available makes it a lot more accessible, and thus will lead to a lot more people using it than had it been illegal. What is the point in making it legal? So people can get it cheaper and lessen gang violence? Ok, but now you have a lot more addicts to deal with. How is that a better situation?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So then obviously alcohol and cigarettes should also be illegal correct? I mean if you're saying alcohol is ok, then why isn't pot? Or anything else?

No, that's just where society has chosen to draw the line on the spectrum of established vices. Citing legal activity as an argument to legalizing illegal activity is flawed because these activities are placed on a spectrum of risk vs. benefit, so they are not equivocal. I could use your flawed logic to justify legalizing murder & rape too, even though that's clearly extreme and therefore irrelevant.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The problem with your argument here is that you have no idea that the rate will drop from x -> y, let alone change.

The problem with my argument is the only way to see if it works is to legalize drugs, so obviously actually getting to test the theory is going to be impossible. But what I can prove is the number of murders Mexico has had since 2008:

6,844 killed in 2008
9,635 killed in 2009
15,273 killed in 2010
16,466 killed in 2011

I suppose the question that it comes back to is: Do you think the murder rate will remain to same or rise because of legalization? If the answer is no then why would legalizing be a bad thing? If you think yes, I'm very curious as to why you think so?

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

No, I'm not assuming that no one is currently doing addictive drugs, but I'd argue that having it legally available makes it a lot more accessible, and thus will lead to a lot more people using it than had it been illegal. What is the point in making it legal? So people can get it cheaper and lessen gang violence? Ok, but now you have a lot more addicts to deal with. How is that a better situation?

Drugs are already readily available, so thats irrelavent. And again, most people don't do heroin now because its been proven to be a destrutive drug, not because its illegal. Making it legal is not all of a sudden going to cause Joe Straightedge to start shooting up just because he legally can.

[GGG]

The key in legalization of all drugs is the Tax and Treat model. If we poured all of the taxation dollars of the drugs plus the savings in prisons, courts and policing into treatment programs you should be able to do better than we do now. Prevention and treatment of addicts would be the goal, funded by users.

If we don't want to legalize then we have to attack the demand side of the equation. That means preventing users from using the drug the first time. The only way to do that would be to make it highly punitive to use drugs. So Significant prison time for anyone using any drugs. Now this probably won't work but at least it attacks those who are at fault for the drug trade. The user.

The whole focus of attacking the supplier is wrong. Simple economics dictates that by restricting supply you just increase price. Since drug use is inelastic in terms of price restricting supply does little to curtail demand. As long as there is demand people will supply the drug at a price that takes into account the risk of doing buisness. If we don't attack the demand side we can't solve the problem.

So if you don't want to leagalize we need to make simple posession of Coke, crack, heroin, etc have significant prison terms and enforce them. Going after the dealers and distributers is a waste of time.

I perfer the tax and treat legalization route over the jail the user but what we do know is that attacking the supply has little to no effect on drug use.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

No, that's just where society has chosen to draw the line on the spectrum of established vices. Citing legal activity as an argument to legalizing illegal activity is flawed because these activities are placed on a spectrum of risk vs. benefit, so they are not equivocal. I could use your flawed logic to justify legalizing murder & rape too, even though that's clearly extreme and therefore irrelevant.

Remember when American society had chosen to draw the line that blacks were 3/5 a person and should be enslaved? Or that women can't vote? Amazingly we evolve as a society, our opinions change because of the facts presented. Continuing to throw money at an unsolvable problem is a waste of the limited funds our government, through us the taxpayers, has.

[jammies]

What we really need is for pharmaceutical companies to come up with recreational drugs that get you higher than hell, but aren't physically addictive nor destructive. Legalized or not, the problem is that the intensity of the experience seems to somewhat correlate with the destructiveness of the drug. Nobody is going to slowly kill themselves doing meth or heroin if they can get something better that isn't addictive or damaging.

Although I suppose legalizing is the first step along that road - that will make it guaranteed to be immensely profitable to be the first company to come up with such a drug.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I suppose the question that it comes back to is: Do you think the murder rate will remain to same or rise because of legalization? If the answer is no then why would legalizing be a bad thing? If you think yes, I'm very curious as to why you think so?

I do not think the murder rate will change significantly because you haven't changed the number of desperate impoverished people or criminal elite willing to use them for a profit. The incentive never changed, only the product.