It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Drugs; We Are Losing This One

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:14 AM
Wow, It amazes me how many are uniformed about drugs.

The idea that if a person wants to use meth/nicotine/heroin every day and kill themselves, it's their fault is far from the truth. Perhaps you've heard of addiction to drugs being labeled as a "disease"? They don't say that for no reason. The majority of the scientific community today agrees that the pyschological addiction to a drug is due to the drug itself and that it actually effects a specific part of brain. This means that if a group of people took the same drug, eventually if they kept taking it it would cause all or the great majority of them to seek the drug out again whether it is still getting them high or they want to or not. This means that most likely everyone single one of you if you were given enough crack would eventually probably seek it out yourselves, your will power has very little to do with it.

Perhaps many of you are unaware that when heroin and coc aine were legal in the early 20th century, the percent of the population who were addicted was the highest it has EVER been in the US. The percentage would be even higher if completely legalized now because the "high" of these drugs is better understood and the "feel good" aspects of them is now well known by everyone; it would also be much easier to get now than then. Does the fact that caffeine, alcohol, and cigarettes are legal make them less used then they would be if they were made illegal? No, most people don't even consider these substances drugs! Knowing that caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are used MORE because they are legal what would make you think that other drugs would be used LESS? What stops people who use caffeine in the morning from using meth or coc aine if they are made completely legal since they are just more powerful stimulants?

How could you say that if a person knows they have a slight chance of killing someone while under the effects of a mind altering drug it should be called premeditated murder? Using that logic I could say that if they put a warning on cars that says, "while driving this car you may hit another car and kill someone" and you drive it anyway and you kill a person by hitting their car then it is premeditated murder. I don't know if you have ever used drugs, but some of them can really change your thinking, logic, perception, and rational. If you kill someone while on certain drugs (I don't want to take the time to list all the drugs that should be included) it should IMO constitute for temporary insanity.

I am all for drug policy reform and would 100% support the legalization of marijuana, some other "soft" drugs , and an end to the so called "War on drugs". However the belief that all drugs should be completely legal is insane. Most of the time people who try a drug a a few times think, "I won't become an addict, it wouldn't happen to me. I can quit whenever I want, I can control myself." But as I earlier pointed out, often times they're wrong.

Also many of you should do some research on methamphetamine before you talk like you know all about it. If you take it in normal amounts and do not take it every day chances are you will not have wild delusions and hallucinations, it's much more complicated than that and usually you have to take in high amounts or frequently (which is what often happens to regular users). The physical addiction to meth is not nearly as bad as some other drugs, most notably alcohol/benzodiazepines (which can cause death if you stop completely and are a heavy user) and the opiates (which can be rather physically painful). It is not phyiscally painful and cannot directly cause death to withdraw from meth, what usually keeps people coming back to it is pyschological. Also many people give their kids a weaker form of this EVERY DAY (adderall and ritalin). Meth could be used for the exact some purposes that these are, and perhaps be more effective, but it isn't because of the widely held belief that meth can only be used for evil.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by semperfortis

While all the crying about police officers? boo f'n hoo, when its well known that many police officers at every level of law enforcement are lining their pockets with drug money.


Or is this a rant from a previous "customer" of those very same police?


Boston police corruption case detailed 08/19/06
THIS WEEK's Corrupt cop stories

A little bit of effort and you can make a career of researching corrupt cop stories.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Wow, It amazes me how many are uniformed about drugs.

I read three paragraphs of your post and knew I didn't have to go any further.
There is confirmable data to debate you into the ground, but its for you and
people like you to start doing some research, the rest of us know most
of the correct information vs. the lies and myths already.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:54 AM
perhaps instead of saying this you should correct me where I am so very wrong and post some links backing up your information. I can post links on places where the information I posted can be located if you want me to.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:16 AM
do a search for

CIA and opium (bushes dad)

why do you think we went to afghanistan???

the taliban were destroying the poppies!! ,almost eradicated!!

now there's more than ever........hmmm....

cia controls almost all of the drugflow into this country,,
since when have the military ever been searched going into/out of ANY COUNTRY??

those body bags hold quite a bit, and no one will ever look there

and most , if not all of theese new terror laws,

work better for searching for drugs, than explosives,,

look at the laws, then look again,,

theres border patrol increases, new "sniffers" plenty of night vision,
and now all they have to do is say, that drugs support terrorism,

and in effect, you can be labeled a terrorist helper, be held indefinately,
basically disappear, and now ,no one is even allowed to tell you
if your house has been searched while you were out,, for a bag of pot!!!!

do the search for, cia and opium!!!!

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:07 AM
i didn't even bother to read the entire thread why? because the headline says it all the good fight check the countries out that have legal drugs crime rate is lower they are illegal in U.|S. because of the money the same people that stand and declare war on drugs are the one's lining thier pockets with the money me i grow my own and moved to denver for that sole purpose if u can't beat them join them at 500 a ounce for good smoke it was a no brainer i now no longer work and have more money than i know what to do with lmao keep the war up it is true war is good for my bussiness

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:51 AM
Many think this"WAR"began in the 80's with reagan and the started in the 1800's with the chinese and mexican immigrant workers.(opium and marijuana respectively)a way 2 deport arrest migrants once work was done.then 2 african americans in early 1900's 4 coc aine/ short the"WAR"was born of our racsist continues 2 include all now as a cash cow 4 all system.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Just a point for Intrepid, et al.
Heroin addiction is treated using methadone, an opioid first synthesized in 1937. Meth commonly refers to methamphetamine and is an unrelated drug that was first synthesized in 1919 from ephedrine.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Xfile
Many think this"WAR"began in the 80's with reagan and the started in the 1800's with the chinese and mexican immigrant workers.(opium and marijuana respectively)a way 2 deport arrest migrants once work was done.then 2 african americans in early 1900's 4 coc aine/ short the"WAR"was born of our racsist continues 2 include all now as a cash cow 4 all system.

who thinks this drug war started in the eightees? You are correct however that it started in the 1800's
Drug Has a timline that illustrates that beginning in 1845 where a law prohibiting sale of liquor is enacted in NY State.

Significant Events in the History of our Drug Laws

This page provided thanks to Robert Keel, University of Missouri at Saint Louis

Originally prepared for his Soc. 180 class
Year Event 1600s Colonial laws required farmers to grow hemp because it was used for ropes and sails on ships. A good hemp industry was important to the shipping industry. 1700s Hemp was the primary crop grown by George Washington at Mount Vernon, and a secondary crop grown by Thomas Jefferson at Monticello. 1844 Cocaine was synthesized 1845 A law prohibiting the public sale of liquor is enacted in New York State.

see rest of article below:

It does say that in the 1870's the first laws of prohibition were "born" in San Fran and Virginia City... but only smoking the opium was illegal.
The drug war began in earnest in the late twenties and early thirties. Spearheaded by a man by the name of Henry Anslinger. The first head of the FBN(Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
This timeline is one of the best and most accurate that I have come accross in my MANY travels in this subject.

Modern Times--The 20th Century
1910 - African-American 'reefer' use reported in jazz clubs of New Orleans, said to be influencing white people.
1910 - Mexicans reported to be smoking cannabis in Texas.
1910 - Newspaper tycoon Randolph Hearst has 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timberland seized from him by Villa and his men.
1911 - Hindus reported to be using 'gunjah' in San Fransisco.
1911 - South Africa starts to outlaw cannabis.
1912 - First International Opium conference. The possibility of putting controls on cannabis is raised.
1915 - Utah passes the first state anti-marijuana law. Mormons who had gone to Mexico in 1910 returned smoking cannabis. It was oulawed as a result of Utah legislature enacting all Mormon religious prohibitions as law.
1915 - California outlaws cannabis.
1916 - USDA Bulletin No.404 calls for new program of expansion of hemp to replace uses of timber in industry. [David F. Musto, An historical perspective on legal and medical responses to substance abuse, *Villanova Law Review*, 18:808-817 (May), 1973; p. 816]
1917 - George Schlichten brought his decorticator to the United States and showed it to Harry Timken. Timken showed it to various 'higher ups' in the newspaper industry. Shortly after, for unknown reasons, development work on the decorticator was stopped.
1919 - Texas outlaws cannabis.
1920s - Hearst's newspapers run series of stories portraying Negroes and Mexicans as frenzied beasts under the influence of 'marijuana'. (The word 'marijuana' was used to con the American people that it was not cannabis). Local State laws against cannabis are not enforced because law enforcement officials are concerned with alcohol prohibition.
1921 - Alfred C. Prentice, M.D. a member of the Committee on Narcotic Drugs of the American Medical Association, declares "Public opinion regarding the vice of drug addiction has been deliberately and consistently corrupted through propaganda in both the medical and lay press.... The shallow pretense that drug addiction is a 'disease'.... has been asserted and urged in volumes of 'literature' by self-styled 'specialists.'" [Alfred C Prentice, The Problem of the narcotic drug addict, *Journal of the American Medical Association*, 76:1551-1556; p. 1553]
1923 - League of Nations. South Africa claims mine workers are not as productive after using 'dagga' (cannabis) and calls for international controls. Britain insists on further research before any controls are imposed.
1924 - Second International Opiates Conference. Egypt claims serious problems associated with 'hashish' use and calls for immediate international controls. The conference voted (with Britain abstaining) to declare cannabis a Narcotic and recommends strict international control.
1924 - Cannabis ruderalis identified by Lamarck.
1925 - The Panama Canal Zone Report conducted due to the level of cannabis use by soldiers in the area conludes that there is no evidence that cannabis use is habit-forming or deliterious. The report recommends that no action be taken to prevent the sale or use of cannabis.
1927 - New York outlaws cannabis.
1928, Sept 28th - The Dangerous Drugs Act 1925 becomes law and cannabis is made illegal in Britain.
1930s - "New" decorticators invented to mechanise the hemp harvest.
1930s - 1200 hash-bars in New York.
1930s - Andrew Mellon is Secretary of Treasury. (Mellon was also owner of Gulf Oil).
1930s - Hearst's sensationalist anti-marijuana stories leads to outcry for cannabis prohibition throughout the US.
1937 - By 1937, 46 of the 48 states had oulawed cannabis.
1931 - The Federal Bureau of Narcotics is formed with Anslinger appointed as its head.
1934 - Anslinger refers to 'ginger-coloured 'n-word's' in official FBN circulars.
1936 - The FBN is under pressure from states in the south west to create federal legislation to ban cannabis.
1937 - Shortly before the Marijuana Tax Act, Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger writes: "How many murders, suicides, robberies, criminal assaults, hold-ups, burglaries, and deeds of maniacal insanity it [cannabis] causes each year, especially among the young, can only be conjectured." [Quoted in John Kaplan, *Marijuana*, p. 92]
1937 - DuPont patents process for making plastics from oil and coal as well as a new bleaching process for making paper from wood pulp. DuPont advises its share holders to invest in its new petrochemical industry claiming that the government would force the acceptance of these new industries.


Another less popular theory is this: The war on drugs started in earnest To raise monies for clandestine operations in the brewing cold war. These operations or "Black ops" Cannot go on the books to be paid for by tax dollars. But they are expensive none-the-less. Introduce govt intervention into the drug trade. The revenue from the sale of these newly outlawed drugs is tremendous. Not to mention the new laws drawing in revenue from arrests and siezures of assets. The money from the laws goes on the books and makes the whole thing look legit. The money from the black market side proves more than equitable for the FBN and the CIA. Now those black ops, such as coups in south american countries, and the like are now able to go through because the money is now available... free from the prying eyes of the beltway. This carried us through into the end of the cold war era. But in the eightees a new and more financially profitable means was now available. Privatized prisons- slave labour breeding grounds for a multi-billion dollar industry. If need just google CCA(corrections Corp of America) in the ATS search and it will bring you to other threads I have illustrated this company in. Big business keeps drugs illegal and always will.

thank you for your time,

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:07 PM
UUUrgh,i just watched that "faces of meth".Thank you deusX.i can`t eat my tea now.that is sick.Thank you for informing me about this horrid drug.Its the sickest substance ever.
Very informative thread,also very disturbing.I must go and smoke some good ol government weed (tobacco) to de stress myself.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by yeah right

the taliban were destroying the poppies!! ,almost eradicated!!

now there's more than ever........hmmm....

And the Taliban were only doing that because they were getting payed to do it. Around '99-'00 they were provided financial incentives to eradicate the poppy fields (which they did with cruel efficency).
In the 2000/2001 cultivating period, the Taliban used violent reprisals and severe punishment to cause opium production to plummet from 3,276 mt in 2000 to only 185 mt in 2001 - a fall of a staggering 94 percent. In areas under its control, the Taliban was uncompromisingly tough, allowing it to complete, according to the London-based Independent newspaper "one of the quickest and most successful drug elimination programmes in history".
"A 1997 report from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor called the opium poppy the "mainstay" of the Taliban economy, accounting for perhaps $100 million in annual revenues for Afghan growers and traffickers. Indeed, with virtually no infrastructure to support manufacturing and little in the way of licit international trade, it is perhaps the only basis of the Taliban's economy apart from the military aid from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan." --DPF.

So, the Taliban (who were sharing in the $100 Million/Yr, see above) all of a sudden in 2000 decided to rip the guts out of their moneymaker. Go figure...

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Sonata
I wonder how bad soceity would get if some forms of drugs were legalized?

Take pot for example, completly harmless when compared with the effects of alcohol. But yet billions of dollars are poured into fighting it every year.

Has someone high on pot ever killed someone or been envolved in a hit an run? Now im not saying pot has never been responisable for crime but what about when its compared with the distruction that alchohol causes?

All pot makes someone do is eat more food and fall asleep on the couch while watching adult swim on the cartoon network. I say if Americans want to be lazy slobs than let them arent they already? I can walk across the street and eat five bigmacs at a local mcdonalds and pretty much get the same effect anyway and big macs are LEGAL!

Alcohol is just so much more distructive than pot. I say put pot in a fancey box and tax the crap out of it. Keep the rules the same as regular smoking.

The big problem for the USA is that too much money has already been poured into the fight for pot and too many campains ran to fight it. Our government has intagrated the whole war on pot into its on polictal structure.

I couldn't have said better myself, Sonata. This so-called-war-on-drugs has only hurt us more in the long run and there are already bigger fish to fry (poverty, terrorism, lack of jobs, etc.). End the madness it's time to move forward.

[edit on 20-8-2006 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 20-8-2006 by carnival_of_souls2047]

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:31 PM

original quote by: fingapointa
And the Taliban were only doing that because they were getting payed to do it. Around '99-'00 they were provided financial incentives to eradicate the poppy fields (which they did with cruel efficency).

Actually they were NOT getting paid to eliminate poppy production. it was a FATWA, which is a legal opinion on Islamic law or a religious ruling. Illustrates my point below:

1. The Issue

Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium. Because poppy plants are used to make opium, poppie growing is illegal in most countries, and only frown in highly controlled and specially designated areas. In 2002, the revenue generated by the sale of opium from Afghanistan on the world market exceeded $1 billion at the farm level – almost 5% of Afghanistan's GDP. During the 1990’s, Afghanistan poppies supplied approximately 70% of the world’s opium, but in 1999 the Taliban's fatwa prohibitted the planting of poppies and was 96% successful in eliminating the crops. However, the Taliban government allowed for the trade of opium, and taxed it heavily. Since the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and the subsequent ousting of the Taliban, crop production resumed with full-force. The poppies are processd into opium, and the opium is traded throughout the region and into Western Europe. The illegal trade of poppies has created transnational disputes and directly led to the decline in civil society in the countries through which it is traded. Under the Taliban and in post-Taliban Afghanistan, the profits from opium sales have been used to fund tribal warlords and fuel armed conflict.

Ironically, the sale of poppies for pharmacetuical or culinary use is entirely legal in most countries.

rest of article here

Well As far as the Taliban is concerned it appears that you are half-correct, fingapointa. At least according to this source. They eradicated it out of religious mandate. But capitalized in allowing for the trade and taxation of opium. But make NO mistake it is the US Govt. that has propped poppy production right back to where it was in ANY territory the Taliban doesnt control.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:05 PM
we have the same problem in the war on terrorism that we have in the war on drugs

first off is the "invisable enemy" that you can't actually see until just before or after the fact

second is the fact of escalation
as we crack, no pun intended, down on these people, it will only inspire them to be more creative in ways to do what they do

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:13 PM
What I was trying to say was that perhaps the u.s. gov. used the eradication program as a carrot and stick form of diplomacy providing funds and encouragement to undertake a brutal and unsustainable program (94% reduction in 2000, 94% increase in 2004). I'm thinking it was just another lever and yes, the taliban issued a fatwa, but what motivated that, seeing it was a major cash cow and the seeming indifference to selling to infidels?

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by fingapointa
What I was trying to say was that perhaps the u.s. gov. used the eradication program as a carrot and stick form of diplomacy providing funds and encouragement to undertake a brutal and unsustainable program (94% reduction in 2000, 94% increase in 2004). I'm thinking it was just another lever and yes, the taliban issued a fatwa, but what motivated that, seeing it was a major cash cow and the seeming indifference to selling to infidels?

the motivation for the mandate.. I can only speculate.. But they were still making alot of money on the taxation of opium. While Afghanistan is a huge supplier it is by no means the ONLY producer of poppy. So while they were eradicating it from their own backyard.. there was still pleny to go around from other countries cultivation of the poppy. we could go on further about all of this but that should be for another thread. And really the end point is that since the US invasion of Afghan. poppy production iIS back up and running. How to connect those dots is a thread in itself.

The point is.. we are no closer to eradicating drugs a we will ever be in eradticating terorists. For in order to do so you must eradicate the system itself.
But that is just the ramblings of a

now return you to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:32 PM
Well Tone,

I don't know how many are "uniformed" about the war on drugs, but there are a lot that are "uninformed."

You don't appear to be one though. Good Job!!!


posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:49 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Well Tone,

I don't know how many are "uniformed" about the war on drugs, but there are a lot that are "uninformed."

You don't appear to be one though. Good Job!!!


Unfortunately, I had the misfortune of being born into this particular lifestyle. See my thread in RATS for clarification(my personal experience with organized crime...). For some all they know about drugs is what they are taught from the TV and from schools and society in general... drugs are bad.. only bad people do and take drugs...etc. Then you have the people that did the drugs and their testimonies span the full range of good and bad experiences. Then you have the people that are "in the loop".. the ones that know things that theycannot possibly begin to convince the masses are true; but are. 911, UFO's, JFK, etc... those topic I am fascinated with but have no intimate experience with. Drugs, well, lets just say I have been well steeped in enough intimacy to spawn a lasting marriage. I do not regret the experiences I have had. They have given me a glimpse into a world beneath the world. I do not blame those that have never walked " a mile in those moccassins" for thier limited opinion. I do blame the govt. for outright lying and manipulating the masses for over 70 years. It is beyond reprehensible. It is outright treason to the American people. But I digress.

thank you for your time,

BTW- Semper- you continue to make me proud in your efforts to really open your mind to the realm of possibility(especially given this site is a breeding ground for such hypotheotical avenues). You do not get nearly enough credit for how far you have come on this journey. I remember when you first joined. To me, at the time, you seemed immutable to your position.. but that was short lived. You soon started a change that I dont know if anyone else noticed but I sure as hell did.
Good for you... truly on the path to Deny Ignorance. Just thought Id drop that out there.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 02:57 PM
Well Tone,

I live by the assumption that a "Closed Mind is an Empty Mind."

And it is enlightening to debate those such as yourself!!!

I lived, breathed and worked in the world of Narcotics for over 15 years. I was the "on-site" live in cop in the projects. It was easy for me as I was single and had no problem with being on 24/7 call.

It was an eye opener, especially having only 4 years on the road and getting thrown into a world so very different from our own.

I don't mind the "stabs" and even the "Ridicules" that come my way. Most if not all have no idea and simply comment from ignorance on what they have learned from their magic box. (TV or PC)
The Living of a thing, gives one true insight.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:10 PM
its great that we came from completely opposite sides of this particular topic.

One of my steady customers at my store used to work for the DEA and was stationed in South America for about 11 years(varying places).. he has told me countless tales of impropriety that he has witnessed and participated in many times over his career. He said the straw that broke the camels back was when he returned to the states.. he walked into a field house in Miami and in the locker room were three agents doing crystal meth..out in the open!!!.. they were not even trying to be discreet about it.
On top of that; I remember when I left Philadelphia the entire 17th precinct was under indictment for charges spanning the spectrum from racketeering to bribery to drugs and guns.

It is a shame that there are not more HONEST law enforment officers and more virtuous political leaders out there that have your integrity.. if they did we wouold never have had a war on drugs in the first place.

The question is: When is this ridiculous lie going to end.. whe is the govt going to admit that it has not only made a mistake but pardon all the people in prison for possesion of pot..which totals about 686,000 people. 775,000 aressts last year alone.. and thats just for pot.

I think Pot needs to be removed from the class A narcotics list and completely decriminalized, legalized.. and taxed. wanna grow.. buy a liscence.. want to grow for a commercial distributer(aka RJR reynolds- which already have everything in place) then you get a special commerical liscence. You develope a test that illustrates whether a person is currently "stoned" or if it is merely residuals in their system. You no longer have 686,000 Americans in jail for doing the same thing our last two presidents have admitted to doing.

Our govt. needs to come clean about a great many things... but to me, none are more important than to end this horrible horrible maipulation. I have seen countless specials on tv of cops specifically targeting the small time user.

sorry to ramble but I can go on about this topic until the end of time.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in