namelesstavern.net • Too fucked up for me to understand - Page 3

Page 3 of 5

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:12 am

by Martrae

lyion wrote:That's what it'd take to make that 200 billion in taxes a year, and realistically that 200 billion would become a negative number with the added costs to our infrastructure.

I'm curious as to what added costs you think there would be?

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:52 am

by Lyion

Remember, these drugs are much more potent and addicting. So the billions we spend now would be expanded tremendously. These are a few things that I can think of, I'm sure there are more

Addiction rehab.
Lost work.
medical costs.
Societal Infrastructure costs.
public accidents.
Crimes to support drugs.
Social welfare costs since many druggies won't be able to work. We have a bunch we support now and drugs are illegal.
Pharmaceutical costs
Costs for children born from druggies
etc, etc

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:59 am

by mappatazee

Addiction rehab. Meh, don't need it.
Lost work. That's hard to measure.
medical costs. Same, but how would this fall on taxpayers?
Societal Infrastructure costs. Dunno what that would mean.
public accidents. Definitely negligable.
Crimes to support drugs. Not when they are cheaper and more available.
Social welfare costs. Well I'm against that anyways.
Pharmaceutical costs. Medical costs, as above? Again how would this burden taxpayers?
Costs for children born from druggies. Well I don't know how much it would cost to euthanize the mother, father, and child. Shouldn't be too much for a lethal dosage of medication and dumpage down a chute into an incinerator or something.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:05 am

by Lyion

mappatazee wrote:Addiction rehab. Meh, don't need it.
Lost work. That's hard to measure.
medical costs. Same, but how would this fall on taxpayers?
Societal Infrastructure costs. Dunno what that would mean.
public accidents. Definitely negligable.
Crimes to support drugs. Not when they are cheaper and more available.
Social welfare costs. Well I'm against that anyways.
Pharmaceutical costs. Medical costs, as above? Again how would this burden taxpayers?
Costs for children born from druggies. Well I don't know how much it would cost to euthanize the mother, father, and child. Shouldn't be too much for a lethal dosage of medication and dumpage down a chute into an incinerator or something.

Lost work ends up effecting the taxpayer infrastructure. This is bigger than people would think.

The medical costs also ends up effecting the US citizen as a whole. Many of these people again will not be employed due to drug addiciton. Even if they are insured the massive surge in needs would raise insurance and cause a massive ripple effect.

Look at the amount of costs for alcohol. Since we know people will pair coke, heroin and downers that will inflate the work and traffic accidents incredibly.

Can't argue against Libertarian mindsets for social costs. if we didn't 'support' people who fucked themselves up, I'd be all for legalizing everything. The problem is we end up paying for idiots.

The pharmacuetical costs again would be in relation the massive amount of drug addicts who would need to be 'medicated' to get off their 'fix'.

Not sure about Euthanasia. You could maybe legalize it in Texas. I'm all for just migrating all the drugged hippies to Amsterdam, personally, but I'm not sure they'd go for it.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:26 am

by mappatazee

Or ship them to a remote island to be hunted by COCAINE TIGERS

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:28 pm

by Harrison

This thread turned stupid.

Right about....

mappatazee wrote:Addiction rehab. Meh, don't need it.
Lost work. That's hard to measure.
medical costs. Same, but how would this fall on taxpayers?
Societal Infrastructure costs. Dunno what that would mean.
public accidents. Definitely negligable.
Crimes to support drugs. Not when they are cheaper and more available.
Social welfare costs. Well I'm against that anyways.
Pharmaceutical costs. Medical costs, as above? Again how would this burden taxpayers?
Costs for children born from druggies. Well I don't know how much it would cost to euthanize the mother, father, and child. Shouldn't be too much for a lethal dosage of medication and dumpage down a chute into an incinerator or something.

There.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:44 pm

by Trielelvan

Not to derail the derailed thread, but..

Ganzo, I'm really sorry to hear about this

Kinda makes you question how well you really know the people in your life.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:56 pm

by Narrock

Harrison wrote:This thread turned stupid.

Right about....

mappatazee wrote:Addiction rehab. Meh, don't need it.
Lost work. That's hard to measure.
medical costs. Same, but how would this fall on taxpayers?
Societal Infrastructure costs. Dunno what that would mean.
public accidents. Definitely negligable.
Crimes to support drugs. Not when they are cheaper and more available.
Social welfare costs. Well I'm against that anyways.
Pharmaceutical costs. Medical costs, as above? Again how would this burden taxpayers?
Costs for children born from druggies. Well I don't know how much it would cost to euthanize the mother, father, and child. Shouldn't be too much for a lethal dosage of medication and dumpage down a chute into an incinerator or something.

There.

Yeah, but the NT started going downhill about here:

All about mappatazee:

NT Veteran Joined: 23 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:19 pm

by Martrae

Rehab? For pot?
What about the cost of making career criminals out of people that are caught with weed?

What about the cost we put out already in housing, feeding, medical care of people convicted of minor drug offenses?

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:40 pm

by mofish

Keeping pot illegal is ridiculous. Everyone can see it but the people in control.

Pot is the future of pain management.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050623/02

The manipulation of the endogenous cannabinoid system is the next big thing in pain medicine, whether the government likes it or not. Synthetic cannabinoid antagonists (SR141716A or Rimonabant) are already being used to treat obesity and eating disorders.

There is no question that cannabinoids have the ability to modulate pain in most circumstances that opiates cannot without the development of dependency.

Also, why the fuck is non-intoxicating industrial hemp illegal? For fucks sake :

The Constitution was written on hemp paper.
Hemp was the primary source material for the sails on our Navy ships.
Hemp is still the preferred source material for ropes.
Hemp was used as the source material for fuel oil for WWII Navy vessels. "Hemp for Victory" was the mantra of the day.
Land owners in the U.S. were once required by law to grow hemp.
Hemp seeds are more healthy than soybeans and are used in supplements you can buy at health food stores.
Hemp can produce many times more paper, per acre, than wood and is rapidly renewable.
Henry Ford once built a car that used copious amounts of hemp based materials and ran off hemp fuel. He said it was the way of the future.
The original tractors were designed to primariy run off hemp fuel. They even had an adjustment for choosing hemp or petrol based diesel.

Follow the money, that's why its illegal. Pot rant off, back to your regularly scheduled partisan propaganda.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:17 pm

by Narrock

The negatives associated with marijuana use far exceed any positive qualities it may possess. Thread over.

-------------------<snip here>--------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:23 pm

by mappatazee

<fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><fieldset><br><br><br><br>

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:40 pm

by Lyion

Martrae wrote:Rehab? For pot?
What about the cost of making career criminals out of people that are caught with weed?

What about the cost we put out already in housing, feeding, medical care of people convicted of minor drug offenses?

My response was to the below post. Apparently I missed the invisible underlying subtle message that 'illegal drugs' meant solely pot. All of this is just an estimation, anyways.

Arlos wrote:On the taxing the illegal drug issue, in some research I did I found that the estimation was that between the new income from taxing the drugs that are currently (snip)i

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:43 pm

by Martrae

I'm all for legalizing pot. The others can stay illegal.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:07 pm

by brinstar

mofish wrote:Keeping pot illegal is ridiculous. Everyone can see it but the people in control.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:23 pm

by Drem

Mindia wrote:That's one of those comments that is so unbelievably stupid that I can't believe he actually said it with any degree of seriousness. People have gotten heart attacks and strokes and DIED from using cocaine for the first time in their life. So, how does that tie in with Drem's "intelligent" comment?

How can you even make a statement like that? When I say "drug" what do you immediately think of? Obviously, you (and everyone else so far) seems to think "drug" means "illicit drug." Just for clarification, you do know that basic illicit drugs like heroin, though not available through a pharmacy, have numerous drugs in the same family that still are?

This is the part where I laugh at Lyion's knowledge of the subject when he says "Are you for legalizing cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and opiates."

Let's start with heroin and all the opiates. Heroin is illegal, yes, as is raw opium; I'm not disputing that. But how many opiates still circulate freely via prescription? Morphine, Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), Oxycodone (Percodan, Percocet, Darvocet, OxyContin), Oxymorphone (Numorphan), Meperidine (Demerol), Fentanyl, Methadone (Dolophine), Darvon, and Talwin.

Okay, the opiates are covered. Now as far as legalising heroin, it might as well happen. Heroin is diacetyl morphine. It was invented in the late 19th century to try and find a less-addictive form of morphine. Obviously this backfired because heroin crosses the blood brain barrier much faster. That's the only reason heroin is illegal... because it makes you rush faster than morphine does.

Morphine, as well as multiple opiates are all still legal.... So what's the point, really, in keeping one analogue of morphine and the raw form of opium itself illegal? All it does is make us waste money trying to stop people from using it all. If it's prescribed, then yes, obviously there will still be addicts, but, the drug itself will be pure, not cut or stomped down. You would see healthier "addicts" like all of our more socially-acceptable drug addicts that are addicted to things like amphetamines (adderall).

Okay, next, amphetamines. First off, just another fyi that amphetamine is simply synthesised ephedra. What amphetamines are legal? Adderall, Benzedrine, Biphetamine, Dexedrine, Durophet, Obetrol, Desoyn, Gradumet.. shit there's even l-methamphetamine in Vicks Nasal Spray.

Cocaine I'm not disputing. It's my personal favorite, but it's terrible. It was used for its invigorating feeling and its miraculous ability to reduce fatigue and its anesthetical abilities for centuries. Thomas Edison was even addicted to cocaine and that's why he only slept for three hours a night. It destroys your pre-frontal cortex, too. We got its anesthetic properties isolated and analogued into other drugs like Novocaine and Benzocaine, Lidocaine, whatever. Unlike opiates, this drug has no real pharmaceutical use past anesthesia, so, it might as well remain illegal, imo.

But, Mindia, you really can't legitimately use "somebody did some coke and DIED!!!!" as a good arguement. Do I need to re-post statistics about how many people die from certain things each year? Illicit drugs are at the bottom of the chart. More people die from overdosing/reacting adversely to prescription drugs. More people die from bizarre sex acts than from illicit drugs each year.

Need I really go on? Would you care to make more uneducated statements about drugs, Mindia? Lol, you act like I'm saying "YEAH WOOHOHOE;AHKFLE;SA LEGALISE KHEROIN SO I CAN GO BUY A GRAM FROM 7-11 IN THE MORNING".

I'm talking about legalisation from a medical standpoint. When you say stupid shit like you just did, it automatically tells me that US scare tactics about drugs make you think "illicit hard drugs" when I say "drugs." You probably think that right before you go take some acetaminophen to relieve your back pain, lol

If you look at every single drug on a drug information website, you see this disclaimer:

SIDE EFFECTS: When used appropriately,...

All drugs have potential to be as terrible as the harder illicit drugs. You just would never ever associate your legal drugs that are socially acceptable with all of the illicit drugs. OxyContin, essentially, is synthesised white china heroin. And OC was honestly a much more intense and imposing drug, to me. I couldn't imagine having to take something like that as a prescription. You have hundreds of thousands of people doing lines of coke every night, but you only hear about those tragic deaths that occur usually because whoever died didn't do the drug right. Or, because they were doing illicit drugs, they probably snorted more baby powder than cocaine. And remember, those deaths occur less-frequently than people dying from legal pharmaceuticals. Now Lyion will probably say "Far more people use legal than illicit drugs." Yes, probably true, but not by a landslide.

Millions of people use illicit drugs. You can live in your fairy tale world where only the social parasites and degenerates are the people using illicit drugs, but in the real world, a staggering amount of people use illicit drugs and live completely normal lives. I am a good example.

-----
For the record:

I don't think illicit drugs should be made available like cigarettes and alcohol, I just don't think they should be shunned from society after such long histories with the world.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:41 pm

by mappatazee

And that's Heroin™

™Bayer Corporation 1898

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:51 pm

by mappatazee

Pretty much, Drem wins.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:52 pm

by Lyion

Drem wrote:
This is the part where I laugh at Lyion's knowledge of the subject when he says "Are you for legalizing cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and opiates."
<big snip>
-----
For the record:

I don't think illicit drugs should be made available like cigarettes and alcohol, .

I'm not quite sure why you would condescend in regards to my understanding of drugs, and then end with essentially the same view I have on the subject. Especially given the differences in our ages and experience.

One would think the druggage is hurting you!

Drem wrote:Let's start with heroin and all the opiates. Heroin is illegal, yes, as is raw opium; I'm not disputing that. But how many opiates still circulate freely via prescription? Morphine, Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), Oxycodone (Percodan, Percocet, Darvocet, OxyContin), Oxymorphone (Numorphan), Meperidine (Demerol), Fentanyl, Methadone (Dolophine), Darvon, Talwin.

Ok, so Opiates have medicinal value.. Can't say I ever said it didnt. Even these SIMPLE CONTROLLED prescription drugs are easy to become addicted to and highly dangerous. They are NOT legal. They are PRESCRIPTION medicine.

They do not circulate freely and we have many who have to go into rehab just from a short period of using these products. I can't imagine the devastation if it were legal, since opiates make kicking the Cigg habit look like a cakewalk.

If you are trying to make a point about drugs and my viewpoints based on this, I fail to see how you are making any.

Drem wrote:Okay, next, amphetamines. First off, just another fyi that amphetamine is simply synthesised ephedra.

Ok, but again its a devastatingly addictive drug with horrid side effects. Using this floods your brain with dopamine which causes cellular brain damage. Many medical professionals will not prescribe it.

Again, if you are talking from a 'MEDICINAL' standpoint its different. From your posts It appears you are more inline for recreational use of drugs.

The simple point is we have too many people who do not have the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what things will do to their body.

I'd rather have people ignorant on the effects of drugs and not experimenting then some kid who has never actually seen the results in a medical facility, but read a few books and claims to be an expert.

Drem wrote: staggering amount of people use illicit drugs and live completely normal lives. I am a good example.

How old are you and how long have you been using illicit drugs? What type of employment are you in?

Staggering amounts of people get fired, fuck up their lives, and end up missing out on their dreams for a 'fake' high. I hope you don't end up one of them. Maybe you won't, but again maybe you'll get lucky. I certainly have seen too many of my friends fubar themselves with drugs since I went to college in the 80s and have seen what happens over a period of time to these people.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:00 pm

by Narrock

We don't need to legalize heroine... we have a legal form of it already for the dumbshits that are addicted to it. It's called methadone. It's used to treat any opiate-based addiction. Legalizing heroine would be the wrong thing to do. It would become to accessible to children, and it's just a stupid idea anyway.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:11 pm

by Arlos

*shrug* A very good friend of mine has been smoking pot since high school, and at various times has tried shrooms, acid, speed, ecstasy and a few others (though as of right now all he uses is pot, pretty much), and both owns his own home here in the bay area (you seen the house prices here?), pulls in well over 100k a year, and is the main person sent around the world by his employer on business travel to solve customer issues. In the last year he's been to Japan, Korea, China, England, Holland, Germany and France, and it's looking like he may be sent to India shortly.

Most of the people in the networking department at Oracle that I used to work with smoked pot, and many did other things as well. Never at work, obviously, but at home, yes.

Ultimately, at the very least Pot needs to be made legal. The hypocrasy of claiming it has no medical value, while at the same time allowing perscription of synthesized version of it's active ingredient is mind blowing. The problem with synthetic THC is it's much harder to adjust the dosage, and is overall significantly less effective than the natural version. As I've said before, one of the biggest contributors towards keeping pot illegal are the large drug companies, as they make $$$$ on synthetic THC, as they can patent it, whereas they cannot patent a plant.

-Arlos

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:17 pm

by mofish

Arlos, I think you need to be a good American and turn your friend in to his boss. He's obviously unethical, immoral, and probably not even christian. Im sure he's also stealing form the company, what with his stunted moral growth and all.

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:31 pm

by Narrock

Arlos wrote:*shrug* A very good friend of mine has been smoking pot since high school, and at various times has tried shrooms, acid, speed, ecstasy and a few others (though as of right now all he uses is pot, pretty much), and both owns his own home here in the bay area (you seen the house prices here?), pulls in well over 100k a year, and is the main person sent around the world by his employer on business travel to solve customer issues. In the last year he's been to Japan, Korea, China, England, Holland, Germany and France, and it's looking like he may be sent to India shortly.

Most of the people in the networking department at Oracle that I used to work with smoked pot, and many did other things as well. Never at work, obviously, but at home, yes.

Ultimately, at the very least Pot needs to be made legal. The hypocrasy of claiming it has no medical value, while at the same time allowing perscription of synthesized version of it's active ingredient is mind blowing. The problem with synthetic THC is it's much harder to adjust the dosage, and is overall significantly less effective than the natural version. As I've said before, one of the biggest contributors towards keeping pot illegal are the large drug companies, as they make $$$$ on synthetic THC, as they can patent it, whereas they cannot patent a plant.

-Arlos

I know a girl that works at Oracle. Her name is Leighann Kleinsasser. She's a cute blonde girl, around 30 years old. Know her?

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:33 pm

by Arlos

I haven't worked at Oracle since 99. Not to mention, the main campus at HQ has oh, about 9000 people working there, so odds are slim. In any case, the answer is no.

-Arlos

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:13 pm

by Harrison

I don't understand addiction in general.