It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Are Drug Abusers Criminals?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Drug users are not criminals... the CIA and DEA... they ARE the true criminals!
(not yelling at you chissler... just adamant about my opinion...thats all....lol)


Drug users can be criminals. The fact he uses drugs does not make him a criminal, but it can not be used as a shield. CIA & DEA, well they are your own opinions which you are completely entitled to.

Yelling at me? Hell if you were, I'd say power to ya'!

I understand your passionate about your opinion, but pointing the finger at the government really gets you nowhere. Its a steady spin of accomplishing nothing. Helping the individual addict can get you somewhere.

I'm sure we have all heard the cheesy quote, To the world you maybe one person but to one person you maybe the world.

Well cheese aside, this is very correct. In a documentary I watched lately, it talked of an addict and prostitute who had six children, all of whom she had put up for adoption. She finally cleaned up her act and has custody of the two youngest children. She went from school to school to tell her story in hope she would prevent a child or two from going down the same path she had.

When they asked her what was the moment you decided to turn her life around, she answered with this...

When she was standing on the corner one day, a family had walked by. She had noticed the mother staring a whole through her, and was alittle unsure why. She watched her walk to the car and open the door for her children to hop in the backseat. It was at this moment she turned around and walked straight back at her on the corner. They were face to face and the mother simply asked if she could have a hug. She said yes, they hugged and never saw each other again.

The fact that someone had taken notice of her and was willing to share a hug, had made her realize she wasn't worthless and could possibly do something with her life. She had relapses from time to time, but was still making strong strides.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the addict can be the victim.




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


You better read my last post. Some drugs, the worst ones imo, are legally obtained from pharmacies.


That wasn't up by when I had posted...I left my reply window open for a bit. Had some paperwork to do.


I absolutely agree with you, the only problem is while even though they happen to be addicted to drugs, theyre drugs of the legal sort...and as long as the way they are obtaining them isn't through fraud or anything illegal then i guess they aren't criminals.
IMO
The criminals are the ones who:
- Do illegal things to obtain legal prescription drugs (fraud, theft, etc)
- Do legal things to obtain illegal drugs
- Do Illegal things to obtain illegal drugs

I guess there are people out there who can trick the pharmacy into getting them legal prescription drugs when they don't need them. And in my eyes, thats a criminal act



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Thats part of the problem in defining criminality here. What IS and What SHOULD BE are two totally different things. What should be is that people who abuse drugs should be treated as a health problem.. and some courts are beginning to do this.

But as I said being on the drug does not excuse one from their actions while on the substance.

Like you, Intrepid.I do not wish to violate the T&C. But, I grew up seeing just how bad drugs can be(both legal and illegal) I have seen the wanton abuse by my father (who would become violent and unpredictable) And I was often the recipient of said abuse. Still I think that drug USE should be decriminalized....selling...still a crime.DUI... still a crime... but users need help not prison.

But since we arrest someone every 41 seconds in this country for pot possession.... I would say that we need to chasnge these pathetic laws and fast.. before there is noone left who is NOT a criminal.

We need to cut the CIA,DEA,ATF off from their clandestine operations and restore truth to mour law enforcement efforts... then when they're hands are clean ... then they can call us criminals... until then.. our govt. can kiss my arse! damned hypocrit enablers.

thanks for your time,
tone23



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
in 2005 there were 16,885 DUI related fatalities nationwide according to MADD.


DUI Fatality Stats


that's a lot of people dying due to someones stupidity. it's almost like the govt sets people up...you can drive under the influence, as long as you're under .08 BAC.

well, no institutions that sell alcohol, not the govt freely give the public tools to actually measure their BAC before they get behind the wheel.

it's all a scam. they want to trap people. if you are going to make drinking legal, then make drinking and driving 100% ILLEGAL, not matter the BAC. Don't make a grey area for people to get trapped in. it's BS.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Get Trapped?

What about when you get up in the morning after a nite of boosing? Think your alcohol content is 0.0? I highly doubt it would be, so if you did hop in your car right away then you might not have this black spot on your record.

My rule of thumb, as should everyone elses, be that the second I have a drink my keys are put away. The hell with .08, 1 drink means no keys.

Saying the government is trapping us is merely creating excuses.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
What are your thoughts on this? Are all drug abusers criminals? Regardless of their past, is the act of taking an illegal drug make someone a criminal?


I am much in the same court as you. Personally, I think the act of taking a drug should not be illegal if one is of legal drinking age. I think that DUIs should absolutely be prosecuted, and if it is determined the person posed or poses a threat to themselves (like drunk driving, operating heavy machinery, etc) or others, then it is treated very harshly indeed no differently than it is now.

But if Jimbo wants to spark up a phatty when he gets home from a hard day's work, and watch himself some South Park, who exactly is being hurt?

Now some will argue about the drug trade and it funding terrorism, and illegal rings, and so forth. Well, if it were legal to the extent that liquor is now, the vast majority of that trade would dry up overnight. Ask any economist and they will tell you that black market thrives only where there is a lack of supply plus a demand waiting to be met.

On the other hand, I'm also of the opinion that there are some drugs that, by their very nature, are so addictive as to cause uncontrollable urges to obtain it. Okay, so where do we draw the line? Simple. Run tests. Set the legal bar at cigarettes, and no drugs are allowed to be more addictive than cigarettes. If you can prove your habit is easier to break than smoking cigarettes, it's legal.

One last concern I hear is that they don't want to be surrounded by "druggies" all the time. That's fine too, and undertstandable. Set the same penalties and fines for public intoxication. And just like no-smoking ordinances, a city could have the option to be a no-drugs city. For those unfamiliar with the NSOs, it basically and typically means that any public building in the city cannot allow smoking within it, or within a certain number of feet from its entrance. This means you're limited to smoking pretty much in your car, several yards from a public building, or at home.

Well, if you can't drive while intoxicated, and you can't be publicly intoxicated, that pretty much leaves "at home" which, if you're going to do any drugs, is exactly where one should be in the first place. And within the confines of one's own home, what should the rest of us care what someone does to themselves?



[edit on 9/22/2006 by thelibra]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Legalization will never happen for some social reason but it won't be for many more financial reasons. There is a myth these days that there is an underground economy. It's a lie worthy of the devil himself. The huge cash drug profits all get laundered through banks which are financing companies that supply the equipment used in the 'war on drugs'. The drug runners in turn deposit huge sums of cash in countries with strict bank secrecy laws but pay a cut back to the bank as handling fee. Even lowest level of street pushers go by groceries, clothes and pay rent or taxes on the flop houses to maintain an air of legitimacy. The govt occasionally seizes property as drug profits but what it is really another form of taxation. They sell the seized assets which get recycled often to be refinanced by the same financial corporations who laundered the drug runners money in the first place. These same financial companies claim the loss of revenue from the siezed assets as a business loss and pay less taxes on their profits. The huge financial corporations have a win-win situation with the drug trade and other underground economic activities.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

original quote by: thelibra
Now some will argue about the drug trade and it funding terrorism, and illegal rings, and so forth. Well, if it were legal to the extent that liquor is now, the vast majority of that trade would dry up overnight. Ask any economist and they will tell you that black market thrives only where there is a lack of supply plus a demand waiting to be met.



I cannot stand that line: "funding terrorism"... Bull crap. people in America do not buy their pot from OBL... they either take the risk of growing it.. or buy it from a friend that they know.. usually another American.

Heroin is brought in by the CIA.. so we are funding them ... not terrorists.(unless you want to call the CIA terrorists) I wont argue it...lol

But remember if pot were made legal then they would have to account for all the revenue.

Personally I feel that the legalization of Marijuana is far overdue.... and we could lessen our prison population in this country by 700,000 plus. Not to mention free up law enforcement and our court system for many other "real" crimes.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The legality of Marijuana is a poor horse that has been beat too many times.

Most of the addicts that are on the streets, whom the question was raised if they were criminals, are hooked on far worse. Crystal Meth, Cocaine, '___', Heroin, etc. are normally what controls the lives of these individuals.

I think we can all agree that these substances are illegal with good reason, so the legality of them is not in question.

So is the user of Crystal Meth a criminal? What of Cocaine? '___'? Heroin?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
'___' is not addictive, and would be similar to pot or drinking....don't do it while driving/ in public. Or allow shrooms and peyote, studies of yaqui indians dissproved supposed harms of hallucinigens taken over a lifetime of use.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I would say that people who buy drugs need to think strongly about what their money is funding.

link

burma

DEA dope

I think we talk too much about the effect that drug use and abuse has on Western society, and too little about the effect it has on people living in the countries that produce it. It really is 'me, me, me' from a lot of people in the first world - I really couldn't care less what consenting adults do to their own bodies, but their actions are having effects on people from horribly poor countries whose lives are being screwed as result.

People can attack the CIA/government/whatever as much as they want for condoning drug trafficking, but it fundamentally comes down to an ethical choice - no-one is making relatively affluent people shovel drugs into themselves. You either care about what your 'recreational drug use' is doing to societies in South America or the Golden Triangle, or you don't.

Conversely - if you work on the basis that most people are selfish SOB's who will continue to take drugs regardless of what they are funding, then probably the best solution *is* to legalize the whole thing, and try and drive the producers towards legality and public oversight. It may be slightly easier to control the actions of Imperial Tobacco in terms of corporate oversight than Burmese juntas or Colombian drug barons

TD



[edit on 24-9-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
'___' is not addictive, and would be similar to pot or drinking....don't do it while driving/ in public. Or allow shrooms and peyote, studies of yaqui indians dissproved supposed harms of hallucinigens taken over a lifetime of use.


Not addictive? I think you might be mistaken.

Steady consumption of Marijuana or Alcohol will lead to a tolerance to the substance. You can not build a tolerance to '___', repeated use does not require you to have more of the same drug to get the same effect.

You believe one study disproves anything?

Lets look at some long term effects here, that do not exist.



Hallucinogens can cause extreme, long-lasting adverse neuropsychiatric effects, like flashbacks (post-hallucination perceptual disorders), relatively long-lasting psychoses, severe depression or shizophrenia-like syndromes, especially in heavy or long-term users or in people with an underlying mental illness. Some of the long-term problems associated with chronic or heavy '___' use are:

* A person can experience rapidly changing feelings, immediately and long after use.
* Chronic use may cause persistent problems, depression, violent behavior, anxiety or a distorted perception of time.
* Large doses may cause convulsions, coma, heart/lung failure or ruptured blood vessels in the brain.
* "Flashbacks" may occur long after use.

Brown University Link


Perception disorders or Psychosis, none of these exist?

Can you show me anything to back your claims?

What about Crystal Meth? It's certainly not an Upper or Downer, its a classic All-Arounder. Aka Mixed Action or Hallucinogen. This has been labelled the most addictive drug on the streets today. One hit of this can have you hooked for life.

So again, could you back any of your claims?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I said '___' was not addictive, not that it couldn't be harmful taken in heavy doses.

Phylocibe Mushrooms, and peyote are not harmful.

Meth is not considered to be an outright hallucinigen, but an upper like speed. I would class Meth with coc aine,PCP,crack,ect.

I'll get some info and post it.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Are all Drug Abusers Criminals?


No, but according to the law they are.

All I am going to say in this thread is

Personal Responsibility Goes A LOOOOOOOONG way



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Phylocibe Mushrooms, and peyote are not harmful.



Taking too much of anything is harmful for your body. All of those drugs you have listed are certainly harmful to your body.



Magic mushrooms contain psilocin and psilocybin psilocybin. These compounds are psychedelics. They will cause an effect similar to a "trip" on '___'. Loss of reality may be experienced and severe anxiety and paranoia can occur.

www.magic-mushrooms.net...



So you honestly believe that these are not harmful? I find that hard to believe.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Taking too much of anything is harmful for your body. All of those drugs you have listed are certainly harmful to your body.


Chissler, while you are technically correct, your logic is flawed. Too much water can kill you, but our bodies require it to survive. Saying "too much of anything" is largely a useless and empty statement as a defense or offense because it is so broad as to be meaningless.

I have hung around a lot of people who've done that and far more. Each person has a different chemistry in their body and will be affected differently by a particular drug. There are a few broad-spectrum effects that are fairly constant among the majority of users, and then there are exceptions who disprove the rule. However, that is why they are called "exceptions" and not "the usual.

I myself have taken the following drugs in my time. Pot, '___', Shrooms, Peyote, Hard Liquor, Cigarettes, and unintentionally, PCP (an unknown additive in a birthday joint I got as a present).

Pot, '___', Shrooms, and Peyote were quite easy to quit. I could go the rest of my life not having any of those ever again. I could comfortably take them again knowing full well that in a controlled positive environment I'd be fine, I know what amounts to take that will not cause me to have to be rushed to the hospital, and I know that I won't be jonesing for the next week to do it again. Now I will go so far as to say that if you are in a social group that does them habitually, then you will be more likely to do them more often. Also, I wouldn't recommend '___' on a work night, as you'll have a lot of trouble sleeping.

PCP was horrible. It only took an accidental once to convince me that I never wanted to do it again. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do this drug except perhaps to become a monster soldier in hand to hand combat or something. As I wasn't fighting a war or anything at the time, it just made me a really stupid, strong, arse.

However, the worst, the absolute most horrible drugs I have ever taken, the ones that had the worst effect on me the next day, my overall health, and even addiction-wise, were the perfectly legal ones: cigarettes, and liquor.

It took me 12 years to quit smoking. I haven't had a cigarette since March of this year and I STILL get cravings. I don't blame Big Tobacco. I knew damn well what I was doing, but holy crap, if you want to demonize a drug or a user for its health effects and addiction rate, forget the illegal drugs, look at cigarettes.

Liquor I've found a much more happy medium with. I now only drink perhaps 2 oz. a month, and that's usually trying out a new Irish Whiskey with my father when we hang out. However, back in college, I was consuming upwards of two liters per three nights for almost two years straight. Luckily, I cut WAY back in time to avoid becoming an alcoholic. But still, I never felt the urge to get that out of hand with pot, '___', or shrooms.

So before you believe the fliers written by people who don't do them, or by scientists who are studying 2nd and giving you their results 3rd hand, try asking a few people who've actually done it. It's not as bad as all that. What IS as bad as all that is crack, coc aine, PCP, heroin, etc... those you just flat out want to avoid at all costs, and avoid the people who use them as well.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Phylocibe Mushrooms, and peyote are not harmful.



Well Libra, after reading your post I would have to agree with your comments surrounding that quote. However I must indicate I was referring to this quote from Lordbaskett. I wished to indicate that too much of these drugs is without a doubt harmful, and even small amounts can be harmful.



Physical Effects of Mushrooms

After ingestion:

-emptiness of the stomach feeling
-involuntary/voluntary muscle spasms (usually the arching of the back and bending back of the shoulders as well as tilting of the head)
-visual distortions, such as the breathing effect of walls and the movement of still patterns (especially geometric, complex or striped patterns). Trees and nature especially exhibit a flame or vortex, twisty-type characteristic when viewed.
-Feeling of Vertigo
-Numbness in the limbs, especially in the legs.
-Moist, numb feeling in the lower abdomen, like you just pissed your pants.
-Outlining of distant objects(skies look as if they're painted on)
-Red shift in vision.
-Colors seem more vibrant and alive
-uncontrollable smiling and laughter
-increased sensitivity to touching (especially touching objects with interesting textures or finishes)
-increased perspiration, hot flashes
-Tiredness or overall lethargy
-loss of appetite
-auditory distinctions are much more sensitive (enjoying music as if you've heard it for the first time).
-Constant peeing, with urine exhibiting a foul odor (like burnt rubber.)
-sensitivity to taste, textures and temperatures in the mouth.
-dilated pupils, overall look of tiredness.
-Closed eyed visuals (usually geometric, complex patterns, nature and/or cosmic oriented, etc...)
-redness in the skin in certain areas, sometimes accompanied by itching.
-Auditory hallucinations (a constant high pitch in the background, hollow metallic noise, like your inside a metal tunnel, or some other "broken record" occurrence.)
-increased heart rate
-acute vision
-nausea and/or dizziness
-upset stomach, cramps
-weakness in the knees
-Nervous Euphoria
-confusion on the onset
-Slight drunkenness when walking or moving
-Teary eyes, especially when yawning
-manic energy, indecisive judgment in looking for something to do or get
-Trouble understanding how to operate machinery
-Tongue, throat and breathing seem to tightly integrate with the though process
-Strange feeling around teeth
-Feeling of extreme lightness
-weird feeling around nose
-Vomiting, after which is usually accompanied with intense open-eyed hallucinations
-A "wah, wah" feeling in your body, like your being bombarded by some kind of kinetic force.
-Heavy philosophical rambling, like you're a college professor talking to a room full of students. Especially profound with high doses.

Source


None of these are harmful? These are all from a small dosage, what could a large dosage lead to?

Effects of Peyote can normally last anywhere from 10-12 hours. Visual and auditory hallucinations lasting up to 12 hours is not harmful? I'm thinking it is.

What sort of short-term memory is an average user of these drugs looking at?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I think that regardlessof the effects of the drugs. And, regardless of the kind of drug someone is abusing. Abusers are NOT criminals... they are sick.

But if someone commits a crime while on a drug the drug is not a valid excuse to not be prosocuted for the actual crime commited.

Now, mind you, this is the way it SHOULD be .. and certainly not the way it is; or is going to be any time soon.

Our nation has failed miserably to "win" or even make a dent in; the war on drugs.
It is an unwinnable war...just like the War on terror... When will our govt. realize this... they already have.; and they wouldnt have it any other way.

There is one way to end it, though; We the people need to be more involved in the movement to change the strategy for this "war on drugs". And we must do it soon. For, if we do not this pattern will only worsen and worsen still.

Legalization is not necc. the answer.. especially for hard drugs.. but decriminalization for users is mandatory. But not for dealers.

And we all know about pot... so I am going to leave that for our other threads.. since it is in a totally different catagory from ALL the other drugs that are abused.
(And I think we have already established that in this and other threads)

thank you for your time,

TONE23



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Oh I think established is the understatement of the night Tone.

I think we've hit the point that we need some fresh blood with some fresh opinions and perspectives.

We've been through 15 grueling rounds with one another.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Oh I think established is the understatement of the night Tone.

I think we've hit the point that we need some fresh blood with some fresh opinions and perspectives.

We've been through 15 grueling rounds with one another.


3 responses in order of your statements:

yes we did
yes we do
and its been a hell of alot of fun too...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join