I said it before...drug users...

[Monroe]

I had a serious drug problem when I was 15. It went on for about a year and it was messy. The world was overwhelming enough at the time without taking on responsibility for drug cartels in the Americas. Most drug addicts start when they're kids. Do you really want to blame emotionally crippled and immature drug addicts for organized crime? Most will quit or die before they're 30 anyway.

 

[Steve]

Are you honestly, seriously, at this point trying to suggest that your preference for or against peach pie is the same as your position against repealing the ban on marijuana? And you are accusing me of playing games. Come on.

At least now you're being open about your opinion not being based on science, logic or proof of any kind. Whew. That's all I ask. You can be as inconsistent and illogical as you'd like as long as you are willing to admit it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Are you honestly, seriously, at this point trying to suggest that your preference for or against peach pie is the same as your position against repealing the ban on marijuana? And you are accusing me of playing games. Come on.

What is my position against repealing the ban on marijuana? Have I said one word about that in this thread? Maybe you're arguing with someone else and think it's me? Maybe you're referring to some other thread, where I've admittedly expressed my strong anti-drug opinions? All I've said in this thread is that illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by the drug dealers who supply their demand. In what way is that taking a position pro or con with regard to repealing marijuana bans?

At least now you're being open about your opinion not being based on science, logic or proof of any kind. Whew. That's all I ask. You can be as inconsistent and illogical as you'd like as long as you are willing to admit it.

I'm saying the same thing I started out saying.

 

[Steve]

What is my position against repealing the ban on marijuana? Have I said one word about that in this thread?

Maybe you're arguing with someone else and think it's me? Maybe you're referring to some other thread, where I've admittedly expressed my strong anti-drug opinions? All I've said in this thread is that illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by the drug dealers who supply their demand. In what way is that taking a position pro or con with regard to repealing marijuana bans?



I'm saying the same thing I started out saying.

Oh. I forgot. On this board, we're supposed to pretend that each thread is its own little world of discovery. Your position on this thread is filtered through your past posts on the same subject.

I've posted often about energy dependence. If I post an article on battery technology, of course I would expect people who are familiar with my body of posts to consider my well established position on foreign oil dependency, whether I specifically reference it or not.

Once again, Bill, when it comes to this subject, you play lots of the same games you routinely and appropriately call others on in the Study. This "I didn't say it in this thread" game is yet another one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh. I forgot. On this board, we're supposed to pretend that each thread is its own little world of discovery. Your position on this thread is filtered through your past posts on the same subject.

I've posted often about energy dependence. If I post an article on battery technology, of course I would expect people who are familiar with my body of posts to consider my well established position on foreign oil dependency, whether I specifically reference it or not.

Once again, Bill, when it comes to this subject, you play lots of the same games you routinely and appropriately call others on in the Study. This "I didn't say it in this thread" game is yet another one.

Fair enough. Then your argument is that the position I've held in previous threads is incorrect. OK, we disagree, but at least we're talking about the same thing now. Maybe you could have told me that you were arguing with a position I've taken in the past with regard to drug legalization instead of bizarrely arguing that my current statements are incorrect because of the logic you offer against my previous, different, statements. Kind of confusing.

 

[Steve]

Fair enough. Then your argument is that the position I've held in previous threads is incorrect. OK, we disagree, but at least we're talking about the same thing now. Maybe you could have told me that you were arguing with a position I've taken in the past with regard to drug legalization instead of bizarrely arguing that my current statements are incorrect because of the logic you offer against my previous, different, statements. Kind of confusing.

Okay. If accepting the blame is all it takes, I'll gladly do so. I tricked you. It's all part of my master plan.

 

[Jenna]

I have enjoyed reading the opinions here and most are well-considered and well formed indeed.

Regarding legality, my logic is simple, perhaps simplistic. While I appreciate the logistics of repeal are albeit impossible now, the legality of tobacco and alcohol still provides for us the longest running precedent for the making legal of narcotic, stimulant, hallucinogenic and other substances that are traded and abused illegally. Anything other than legalisation of ALL, -or- complete prohibition of ALL of these substances is hypocrisy on the part of our policy makers. And but then, what are all of our masters and commanders if not hypocrites.

Regarding the OP point of users of illicit drugs having blood on their hands, in my experience, sadly there are few among them who have a mind to care. I have found that drug abuse (Class A substances in particular I mean) is a wholly egocentric affair. Those that partake become so conditioned as to have little regard for the consequences to theirselves or anyone in their proximity let alone someone existing in another supplying nation. For a serious drug abuser, nobody else exists but them, therefore an appeal to rationality and their inbuilt suppressions of conscience, while thoroughly commendable and laudible, can only fall on deaf ears.

I would go further though and question the notion that substances (opiates and derivatives for example) that are "obtained fairly and legally" by our nations for our nations' use are acquired under anything but fair or legal trading rules. I am guessing that is another argument altogether though.

 

[Steve]

Regarding the point of the OP that users of illicit drugs have blood on their hands, I'd argue that there is no one on these boards who doesn't in some way knowingly benefit from the misery and pain of others. Whether it's to purchase cut rate clothing from WalMart knowing that sweat shops exist, or buying diamonds from Shane Co, or coffee or petroleum or drugs. There are things we choose to ignore provided that by the time whatever it is reaches our hands it's been thoroughly sanitized, packaged and dressed up so that we can feel good about it. Ignorance is bliss.

Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year. As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order." I agree.

 

[Monroe]

Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year.

How many people buy and grow marijuana legally with medical allowances? I know 2 people who legally grow their own. One for back pains and one for headaches.Not sure that was the intention of Canadian law. But they aren't supporting organized crime.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Regarding the point of the OP that users of illicit drugs have blood on their hands, I'd argue that there is no one on these boards who doesn't in some way knowingly benefit from the misery and pain of others. Whether it's to purchase cut rate clothing from WalMart knowing that sweat shops exist, or buying diamonds from Shane Co, or coffee or petroleum or drugs. There are things we choose to ignore provided that by the time whatever it is reaches our hands it's been thoroughly sanitized, packaged and dressed up so that we can feel good about it. Ignorance is bliss.

Agreed; but although we as human beings are (in my opinion) responsible for knowing to the extent possible, the origins of the things we buy and responding accordingly, the things you mentioned, with the exception of illicit drugs, are legal at the point of sale. I accept your point about them still being blood-stained.

Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year. As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order." I agree.

People break laws all the time. The question is, what do they do about it when they discover that their actions today support people who hang innocent people from bridges, disemboweled? If they still choose to buy those drugs, I strongly believe they are have a degree of personal responsibility for the murders as if they had committed them themselves. They know the murders are being committed by the drug dealers and they still choose to buy illegal drugs. They have a choice; they can stop buying drugs.

 

[Cyriacus]

How many people buy and grow marijuana legally with medical allowances? I know 2 people who legally grow their own. One for back pains and one for headaches.Not sure that was the intention of Canadian law. But they aren't supporting organized crime.

If someone Legally Purchases a Revolver, and then plays Russian Roulette, who do you blame?

Everyone, really.

So whilst your Friends dont Exploit the System, some People do.

 

[Jenna]

Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year. As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order." I agree.

I am conceitedly proud then to be in the other half of those on the forum: a card-carrying, non-smoking, non-drug-using, never taken alcohol, never intentionally caused myself to be a burden on the health service (yet pay for others that do) citizen. I buy as ethically as I can afford and try not to be cruel to animals. Yet where does that get me? Lost in the midst of - and paying admirably for apprehending and prosecuting and treatment and rehabilitation of those drug abusers that would not only step metaphorically over the bodies of distant shore cartel victims to chase their dragons and but who would literally step over their own mothers for the same futile hope of a pleasure they can never attain. I am sorry to sound harsh on drug abusers. I am more sorry for the rest of society that must - in any one of a dozen ways - bankroll their habits.

 

[Monroe]

I am conceitedly proud then to be in the other half of those on the forum: a card-carrying, non-smoking, non-drug-using, never taken alcohol, never intentionally caused myself to be a burden on the health service (yet pay for others that do) citizen. I buy as ethically as I can afford and try not to be cruel to animals. Yet where does that get me? Lost in the midst of - and paying admirably for apprehending and prosecuting and treatment and rehabilitation of those drug abusers that would not only step metaphorically over the bodies of distant shore cartel victims to chase their dragons and but who would literally step over their own mothers for the same futile hope of a pleasure they can never attain. I am sorry to sound harsh on drug abusers. I am more sorry for the rest of society that must - in any one of a dozen ways - bankroll their habits.

And you know what exactly about these individuals and their lives? I hate to generalize but a few experiences have taught me some empathy. Sit through a group therapy session and you'll see people who grew up in foster houses and group homes and abusive situations and aren't well adapted to life in general. We have sterile names for their experiences that make it difficult to conceptualize what exactly it is that happened. Abuse, sexual assault, battery, etc... What exactly is being referred to? What happened to the victim in these incidents? What degrading acts were perpetrated? You ever look at one of those maps of all the child sex offenders in your neighbourhood and ever wonder what happened to those kids? What about all those kids that didn't tell anyone whose abusers don't show up on those maps?

All things being equal, yeah, sure they're dirt. But no kid says they want to be a crack whore when they grow up. Something happened at some point that brought them to have so little value for their lives that they'd rather be so high they piss themselves than be sober and deal with reality. You make it sound like they're actually having fun.

 

[Jenna]

Please do not call me out on what I know about those who abuse substances.

Nobody is forced into drug use.

Likewise, excluding those poor and horribly tragic infants born of addict mothers, there can be very very few who can claim they had no education regarding the ill effects of drug abuse.

There is invariably a background to drug abuse as there are to most human behaviours. However, illicit drug use that precipates abuse is a choice. There are always choices. Among drug abusers unfortunately, there has at that crucial point in their history been no will to seek out those choices.

 

[Monroe]

Please do not call me out on what I know about those who abuse substances.

Nobody is forced into drug use.

Likewise, excluding those poor and horribly tragic infants born of addict mothers, there can be very very few who can claim they had no education regarding the ill effects of drug abuse.

There is invariably a background to drug abuse as there are to most human behaviours. However, illicit drug use that precipates abuse is a choice. There are always choices. Among drug abusers unfortunately, there has at that crucial point in their history been no will to seek out those choices.

Of course, it's the huge conscious moment when they decide to be a drug addict. @@ Not to say they need a hug fest, but I see zero value in demonizing them. And you called yourself out when you referred to yourself as "conceitedly proud" of clean living.

 

[seasoned]

Yes there is a choice at first, but, once the hooked stage is over, and I don't know how long that is, the choice is not yours anymore. At that point you need some form of intervention. Now I'm talking hard core drugs above, not pot, that just gets you hooked on food, but could lead to other stronger things. With pot there is a choice. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On the subject of addicts being able to quit...

I realize that everyone is different, but people do make the choice to quit using things they're physically addicted to; this is proven because people *have* made those choices. From cigarettes (which I gave up) to heroin and everything in between. Some people may find it much more difficult than others, I don't dispute that. Some may never be able to bring themselves to choose to quit, but they still possess the choice. Can they choose to quit? Yes. Will they? That is a different question.

I do not take the position that people who choose not to quit are weak or bad people or simply lack willpower or whatever. I do not disparage them or make light of the difficulty of the choice. But I also do not simply shrug and say "Well, some people can't quit." Yes, they can. They choose not to, for a variety of reasons, and for some of them, it may seem very much as if they cannot make that choice to quit. But while they still draw breath and are conscious, they can.

There are people who have died from the effects of withdrawal. The recent death of that pop singer might have been one such case. That does not mean she did not have the ability to make the choice to quit; it does mean that quitting may have killed her, which is a very different thing.

Anything that is physically possible for me to do, I can choose to do. That doesn't mean I *will* choose to do it, but I do have the option. I cannot become an astronaut or a professional baseball player. But I can lose weight, I can get in shape, I can quit smoking (did that years ago), I can stop drinking alcohol (did that when I was diagnosed with diabetes), and if I were a user of illicit drugs, I could choose to quit using them. That choice might mean getting help from outside if I could not manage to do it on my own; but the choice would be mine to make - or to not make.

People who are addicted to illicit drugs are victims in many ways. Many of them have very tragic backgrounds and life histories that make me have great sympathy for them and their circumstances. I cannot say that were I in their shoes, I would not have ended up just like them. But they choose to continue to abuse drugs; or to quit if they want to take that step. Hard? Yes. Possible? Also yes.

What I have learned about is something that makes more sense to me; something I believe is termed a 'live choice'. That is, a choice that a person both can make and might make. In other words, an addict can choose to quit using drugs; but many will not do so in practice. If you bring it up to them, they reject it as an option. It's not that they cannot quit, it's that they will not make that choice under any circumstances. The choice is not a 'live choice' to them because it seems not possible in their world, in their circumstances. It still does not mean that they have no choice.

 

[JohnEdward]

A little harsher view point. Drug abuse isn't initially something we need. It is something humans are susceptible to, because there are addicts of various forms addicted to various drugs. The point at which a person does drugs as an adult is a clear undeniable choice, and I think we are far too soft socially on addicts. I am not talking stoning, or anything extreme. Getting tough on people is better than soft. Being soft grants a social permission of acceptance. We should not make it acceptable for people to start using drugs. We should not glorify or romanticize abuse, we should not look at it as a disease. It is a choice. A poor choice. A choice that connects the user to violent crime and its propagation. Such as, drug cartel power and heinous murders to spousal and family abuse. The 60s are over and that experiment failed. Let's not pamper it, let's not be soft on it. Let's look at the truth, once you take an illegal drug you have contributed to the spread of the heinous side of humanity.

 

[Makalakumu]

What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a personal responsibility for these murders.

Does the guilt by association extend down the chain to the action of other drug users as well? Or are individual drug users only responsible for the crimes committed by the people who sell them drugs?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Does the guilt by association extend down the chain to the action of other drug users as well? Or are individual drug users only responsible for the crimes committed by the people who sell them drugs?

Look at it this way. Drug sellers only have a market because there are drug buyers. The demand is so high that the sellers will commit any crime, no matter how heinous, to get those drugs to the buyer. If the buyers don't buy, the sellers have no one to sell to. Period.

Are buyers also responsible for the acts of other buyers, who may commit crimes themselves? Not in the personal way they are with the sellers.

But I'm not entirely clear what your point is with this question.