Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE "War on Drugs" Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby manu » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 04:46:01

Big Pharma is the biggest drug pusher and they kill more people than everything else put together.
De-criminalize ganja.
For the hard core addicts they can come in everyday and get a shot of methadone. This will stop many of them of having to steal or rob to support their habit. Also they will be less inclined to push drugs and that will slow the rate of new people becoming addicted as many start by associating with drug users.
Since prostitues also use drugs in many cases the profession should also be legalized in a red light area.
As far as ecstacy, they should re-name it, xt. It is not ecstacy.
As far as coke, base cocaine or crack, most of the people need drug rehab similar to alcoholics.
How can they win a war on drugs when they
can't even keep it out of the prisons.
when they hand out pharmacutical drugs like candy.
When they sell alcohol everywhere.
User avatar
manu
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 08:05:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'A')h, but I would almost be willing to bet that if you examine the drugs of choice of each of those broad demographics, you would find that the cubicle rats tend toward the legally sanctioned ones
Marijuana, IMHO, is a completely separate issue.

Heroine, cocaine, meth - I just really just don't see those leading to people jogging in the park. I'm not saying they literally go with working in a cubicle. I think they are a pretty gray prison of their own and really don't go along with an interesting, bright, fulfilled life. They are a way to numb yourself and tune out life rather than live it.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby vision-master » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 10:10:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'W')hat side do ewe choose?


I'm not sure what that graphic has to do with this topic. Most people I've ever known that were heavily into drugs, it was a way to treat the pain of that cubiclized side. It didn't mean they started living, just that they zoned out and were able to ignore the slow death that is modern "life". Not that I'm endorsing the war on drug users by any means. Create a life that's an intolerable hell and then jail people who seek a means of escape. That's not doing anything good. (Unless you happen to be in the business of selling cop gear, prison space, or crude moral dichotomies.)

Ah, but I would almost be willing to bet that if you examine the drugs of choice of each of those broad demographics, you would find that the cubicle rats tend toward the legally sanctioned ones --which are coincidentally (yea right) the most profitable ones to the system in which they toil, not to mention minimally disruptive of their ability or more importantly, their desire to continue performing within it (and in fact often augment performance through a tendency toward a narrowing of focus) -- and that the creative, individualistic, more self-directed types lean toward those drugs which tend to expand consciousness and lead one to less acquisitive, more inwardly directed lifestyles. Another reason why 'The System' seeks to demonize them, incidentally...


BINGO!
vision-master
 

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby AlexdeLarge » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 10:15:29

As the economy collapses the demand for the "imported" party drugs will wane. The high you will want is the one you feel when your belly is full.

The exception being domestic bliss creators.......like alcohol and weed.
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
User avatar
AlexdeLarge
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: I have a whole ward

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 10:32:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')If I were a lazy-ass drug dealer or someone involved in one of their support services who can't otherwise be bothered to find legitimate work, liberalization would pose a serious threat to my bottom line.


I thought all of the drug dealers were absolved from personal responsibility because of "American Imperialism"? Or is that a privilege only reserved for non-american drug dealers?
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby CarlosFerreira » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 13:43:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AlexdeLarge', 'A')s the economy collapses the demand for the "imported" party drugs will wane. The high you will want is the one you feel when your belly is full.

The exception being domestic bliss creators.......like alcohol and weed.


Not so sure about that. I have a gut feeling that demand for drugs increases with economic depression episodes. I remember studying in consumer behaviour that the demand for the more expensive, go-to-another-country holidays increased whenever the economy went bust. People sort of wanted something to get their mind off of things, and they didn't mind paying (often, with interest) for that privilege.
Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/1 ... 4898696533
Environmental Economics and Systems
http://enviroecon.wordpress.com/
CarlosFerreira
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Canterbury, UK
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby HeckuvaJob » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 14:43:38

From AlterNet: How Will the Economic Crisis Impact Drug Use?
Drug consumption probably won't go anywhere -- just our patterns of how we use them.
User avatar
HeckuvaJob
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat 09 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby TWilliam » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 14:58:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'M')arijuana, IMHO, is a completely separate issue.

Heroine, cocaine, meth - I just really just don't see those leading to people jogging in the park. I'm not saying they literally go with working in a cubicle. I think they are a pretty gray prison of their own and really don't go along with an interesting, bright, fulfilled life. They are a way to numb yourself and tune out life rather than live it.

Well, there's always exceptions with any broad generalization SPG. Opiate addiction has been with us since at least ancient Sumer, and heroin specifically (there's no 'e' on the end, btw) has been around since the late 1800s. It's use spans pretty much all demographics, and as usual the propaganda paints a distorted picture. Many addicts actually lead otherwise normal, productive lives, far from the stereotype of the inner city junkie laying in some dark back alley, drooling with a blissfully stupified look on his face, or standing on the corner in the midst of a raging withdrawal panic.

As for cocaine, it too has been around since the late 1800s. If memory serves, it became especially popular as the white collar drug of choice, particularly in LA and Miami in the 80s as a result of the CIA's trafficking to raise capital for supporting the Contras in Nicaragua.

Amphetamines have of course been popular since WWII, when they were given to both soldiers and factory workers to help maintain alertness, and later marketed to the general public as stimulants and weight loss aids. Street meth is basically just these same stimulants, still found as a common ingredient in many over-the-counter cold remedies, stripped from the fillers and other ingredients. Stimulants are of course popular across all demographics, as coffee's status as the third-largest selling commodity in the world attests. Note that it is especially popular among the cubicle crowd however...

Ultimately I think that as with most things, balance is the key. While I do agree that there are a percentage of people that use drugs purely as escape, I believe it's an overly broad and inaccurate assertion to simply say that "they are a way to numb yourself and tune out life rather than live it". I think for a far larger percentage, they are an effective way to cope with life's vicissitudes and can actually enable one to live a fuller life.

Intent, IMO, is what makes the difference.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '
')If I were a lazy-ass drug dealer or someone involved in one of their support services who can't otherwise be bothered to find legitimate work, liberalization would pose a serious threat to my bottom line.


I thought all of the drug dealers were absolved from personal responsibility because of "American Imperialism"? Or is that a privilege only reserved for non-american drug dealers?

I never said anything in the other thread mos about absolving anyone. My points there are that a) their position is precipitated largely by our policies, and that b) their response is predictable. And in case you haven't noticed, the exact same thing happens, and has been happening for decades, here. The only difference is that we have ready access to guns and automobiles, so you get drive-by shootings, whereas in Mexico machetes are far more accessible than firearms. A bullet is cleaner and more convenient, but no less lethal. On the other hand, at least with a machete there's minimal chance of collateral damage...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AlexdeLarge', 'T')he exception being domestic bliss creators.......like alcohol and weed.

Umm... just as a point of note... alcohol is implicated as a prime factor in domestic abuse. Cannabis as a factor is virtually non-existent...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 19:42:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'U')ltimately I think that as with most things, balance is the key. While I do agree that there are a percentage of people that use drugs purely as escape, I believe it's an overly broad and inaccurate assertion to simply say that "they are a way to numb yourself and tune out life rather than live it". I think for a far larger percentage, they are an effective way to cope with life's vicissitudes and can actually enable one to live a fuller life.


Maybe that's so. I can see where there might be a degree of bias in my observations. The drug users that I encounter (not including marijuana) tend to be pretty sad cases. I can certainly see though that people who are using in a more careful way wouldn't have such a tendency to encounter doctors or admit their use. I suppose for every sad case I see there could be a lot more that are doing just fine.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby TWilliam » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 20:44:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'M')aybe that's so. I can see where there might be a degree of bias in my observations. The drug users that I encounter (not including marijuana) tend to be pretty sad cases. I can certainly see though that people who are using in a more careful way wouldn't have such a tendency to encounter doctors or admit their use. I suppose for every sad case I see there could be a lot more that are doing just fine.

Oh that's right... I forgot you work in the medical field...

Yes, I would say that if the majority of your experience of drug users occurs within your vocational pursuits, then you most certainly have a biased perspective (not meaning that in a negative way, just that your sample population is atypical of the larger group). All of the statistical evidence (and there are mountains of it) indicates that the large majority of (illicit) users never require medical intervention. What you likely see most often are the results of drug abuse, which is a behavioral classification distinct from drug use (tho' of course the propagandists tend to downplay, or outright ignore, that distinction)...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby billg » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 21:49:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') cannot get over how F---- dumb the pro-drug lobby is? Drug dealers are not peddling open source software to better humanity. They are selling drugs because of the profit margin between illicit and legal drugs. If Mary Jane and hash were legal then they would be forced to sell, well, crack. If not crack then heroine. What the hell are wrong with you people? Give your head a shake and think for a change. Duh!


Mr. Bill snorts lines of money....his drug of choice.
"It is no measure of health to be deemed sane in an insane society" J. Krishnamurti

Second Attention
billg
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun 17 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Location: No man's land
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby billg » Sun 14 Dec 2008, 22:05:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CarlosFerreira', '
')I would like to discuss market size. I got the United Nations World Drug Report. It states, on page 13, that the total percentage of world population of drug users is close to 5%, and that the total percentage of problem users is around 0.6% - all values for the 15-64 age group. The report also states that the consumption of all kinds of drugs has increased, in 2006-07, with the exception of amphetamines.

Number of consumer estimated for these kinds of drugs (in millions):
Cannabis: 165.6
Amphetamines: 24.7
Ecstasy: 9
Cocaine: 16
Opiates (includes Heroin):16.5


What's the number for alcohol? I'm sure that the number of problem alcoholics exceeds 0.6% of the world population.
"It is no measure of health to be deemed sane in an insane society" J. Krishnamurti

Second Attention
billg
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun 17 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Location: No man's land
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 02:14:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', ' ')All of the statistical evidence (and there are mountains of it) indicates that the large majority of (illicit) users never require medical intervention.


Could you point me to some of that? I'd love to read it actually.

Just saw a very enlightening CME program last week. It was by a perinatologist and he totally shot down the idea of "crack baby syndrome" or "meth baby syndrome". Basically his conclusion was that there may be some effects for babies born to meth and cocaine using mothers, but the effects are quite mild. Most kids have little or no effect, and the effects of alcohol and even tobacco use during pregnancy are worse during pregnancy than cocaine or meth.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 02:59:45

It's time to end the war on drugs

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Seattle Times', 'W')ASHINGTON — Are we ready to repeat repeal?

Dec. 5 marked the 75th anniversary of America's decision, in 1933, to re-amend the Constitution and set ourselves free from alcohol prohibition, a 13-year failed experiment.

So is it time to free ourselves once more from an impractical and misguided prohibition effort — the ill-starred "war on drugs" of punitive federal and state laws passed since the 1970s? Yes, argued two groups — Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation — at a press event here last week. They are urging, instead, legalization and careful public regulation of mind-altering drugs.

The parallels — our situation today and in 1933 — are intriguing.

Americans disobeyed alcohol prohibition by the millions. Booze even got tied to a rebellious, adventurous lifestyle appealing to young people. Before Prohibition, New York City had 15,000 saloons; five years into prohibition, it had about 32,000 speakeasies.

Today, surveys show 35 million Americans use marijuana yearly, and 114 million have in their lifetimes. Addicts to prohibited drugs, notes Eric Sterling of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, "are famous radio personalities, spouses of major candidates, corporate America, Hollywood and your neighbors."...


If people are going to do just as many drugs illegally as legally, then it only makes sense for the community at large to become the distributor (and controller) of drugs and drug-use within itself. Why should communities allow criminal syndicates to grow and prosper at their expense? It just doesn't make sense.

Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, mushrooms... it should all be sold in State Stores where people register to become purchasers. There should probably be places where people can go to do drugs safely (aside from the home). A barrage of advertising should be continually funded, constantly re-iterating the dangers of drug-use. Users of drugs would have hardly ANY recourse to the courts in the event of a drug-accident of any nature. Purchasing drug-insurance along with the drugs would be mandatory.

If street drugs became too commonplace because of the profit potential, then the State Stores would lower their prices and law enforcement would simultaneously crack down on private dealers. In other words, the system should have an anti-capitalist charter of tolerating drug use. This socialized system would operate in accordance with strictly controlled chartered system with multiple levels of oversight and a set of rules adopted for each drug according to the health threat it presented. Marijuana, for example, would be treated quite casually compared to Coke.

For problem drugs like Crack and Meth -- these should also be available but ONLY for registered addicts who get the fix they need but who must also endure the Community's continual demands that the addict get off the drug and receive medical help and life-changes.

I don't see how the prison-system of today is any improvement on this rough outline. The idea is to control the money. I don't know exactly how much it is, but the global drug market must be approaching $1 Trillion these days.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 03:58:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', ' ')All of the statistical evidence (and there are mountains of it) indicates that the large majority of (illicit) users never require medical intervention.


Could you point me to some of that? I'd love to read it actually.

Just saw a very enlightening CME program last week. It was by a perinatologist and he totally shot down the idea of "crack baby syndrome" or "meth baby syndrome". Basically his conclusion was that there may be some effects for babies born to meth and cocaine using mothers, but the effects are quite mild. Most kids have little or no effect, and the effects of alcohol and even tobacco use during pregnancy are worse during pregnancy than cocaine or meth.


Oh jeez SPG. That statement came from memory of my explorations of these areas when I was an industrial hemp advocate back in the late 80s - early 90s (before the Internet was a household appliance, before there was an Amazon.com), and it's sort of a personal 'meta-analytical' conclusion that I came to based on info from many different sources. I wouldn't even know where to point you to begin, except maybe to what was then my introduction to the issues, Jack Herer's seminal classic on 'Pot-hibition', The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Many citations in that work that lead down a myriad of paths.

I vaguely recall seeing a video tape at one point (no idea what the title was) that featured an interview with some fairly prominent professor and researcher in the psychological sciences, who talked at length about the fact that research had repeatedly demonstrated that within any population group there are about 8 to 10% that have what I believe was referred to as an addictive personality, and they were the ones that developed 'problems' with drug abuse. They were also the ones who might develop 'addictions' to any other behavior as well, such as shopping, or sex, or gambling, etc. He also noted at one point that the remaining 90+% were generally sensible about their use, were aware of the pitfalls of excess, and self-regulated to avoid or minimize them, just as the majority of drinkers are moderate in their use and only a minority become alcoholics.

Sorry I can't provide more right off the top of my head. If I manage to dig anything up in the future I'll pass it along, but it's not really an area of interest I pay much attention to anymore...

Oh, on a side note... with regard to the 'crack/meth/drug of choice baby syndrome'... I realize of course that a single anecdote doesn't necessarily undermine a general principle, but I have a cousin who smoked weed like a chimney for years (literally, more than many cigarette smokers do tobacco), including all the way through four pregnancies free of complications, and every one of her kids grew up to be healthy, sharp and very intelligent adults.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby MrBill » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 04:16:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TommyJefferson', 'A')ny argument from Principle must include every possibility. If exceptions can be show to an Argument from Principle, the argument is not valid.

The argument from principle against drug prohibition must include situations where an individual does indeed cripple themselves with drug abuse. The principle must remain valid in those situations, or it fails.

Yes yes, of course. The way you stated it strongly implied that using drugs was somehow always a detriment, and that was what I was taking exception to. Certainly there are a minority of cases where it clearly is, and this is when the term abuse applies. The thing is, the anti-drug propagandists trumpet these statistically rare incidences as the norm rather than the exception, and it is this false perception upon which they build their entire case.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HeckuvaJob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') cannot get over how F---- dumb the pro-drug lobby is? Drug dealers are not peddling open source software to better humanity. They are selling drugs because of the profit margin between illicit and legal drugs. If Mary Jane and hash were legal then they would be forced to sell, well, crack. If not crack then heroine. What the hell are wrong with you people? Give your head a shake and think for a change. Duh!


Ignorance is also a major obstacle. Thank you for [s]pointing that out[/s] illustrating that, MrBill.

Fixed that for you, Heck...


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he idea that making so-called 'soft' drugs readily available through legalization would lead to an increase in the demand for 'harder' drugs is anti-drug propaganda, as is the idea that demand in general would increase exponentially.

Criminal gangs move into whatever commodity where they can make a lot of money quickly. It really does not matter whether it is hard drugs or soft drugs; counterfeit OTC medicines; fake merchandise; tax-free liquor or cigarettes; human trafficking; etc. They are in it for the money. They create their own demand for their product.

The only problem is not individuals getting hooked on crack, although that certainly is a problem with social implications that in turn can cause problems with violent crime (the drug funding issue), etc. But there is also a problem of criminal gangs using the proceeds of crime to both fund more crime, but also to undermine weak governments; buy weapons; and buy protection that leads to more corruption.

Just like Somali fishermen realized there was more money in hijacking ships than in fishing, but once they started making money criminal gangs moved-in with more sophistication; better organization; more violence; and supported by the proceeds from piracy were able to buy protection and local support for their illegal activities.

It is not a victimless crime. It is also tied to terrorism, but like poppy production in Afghanistan is tied to al qaeda that can in turn lead to bombs being planted in India for political and ideological reasons.

It is not anti-drug propaganda. I could personally care less what you choose to do with your own health with either drugs or alcohol. Drug demand does not increase exponentially, but the proceeds from crime can lead to more criminal activity. More prisons and more public money needed to fight crime instead of building or maintaining infrastructure. More security in our airports. Fewer civil liberties.
Last edited by MrBill on Mon 15 Dec 2008, 04:20:24, edited 1 time in total.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 04:17:49

Once, about ten years ago, I decided to take a chance and see whether or not I could get some good pot online sent to me directly through the mail. I mean, WTF good is the internet if you can't buy pot on it?

I searched around on Cannabis.com and found a reasonably good reference for a guy at one of the many Amsterdam "Coffee Shops" and I asked him for a "menu" which looked something like this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')URE WEED / HASH without tobacco:

(Prices in Euros for 1 gram and 4 grams)

S ***** SUPERSKUNK WEED, 20 / 60
C ***** CALIFORNIA SKUNK WEED, 20 / 60
M ***** CRUSHED MIXED WEED, 20 / 60
T ***** THAI WEED, 30 / 90
V ***** VICTORY BUDS WEED, 30 / 90
N ***** NORTHERNLIGHTS / WHITE WIDOW WEED, 35 / 105


SM ***** SUPER MAROC BLACK HASH, 20 / 60
AF ***** AFGHAN HASH, 20 / 60
KE ***** KETAMA GOLD HASH, 20 / 60
PO ***** POLM BROWN HASH, 30 / 90
DD ***** DEALERS DIAMOND HASH, 45 / 135
BL ***** BLONDE LEBANESE HASH, 45/ 135


...except there were more choices.

After some deliberation about the origin of the term "skunk", I decided that hash probably had the best chance of making it through customs undetected, so I ordered some Ketama and some Blonde Lebanese. Don't ask me why I ordered two different kinds or why I picked "Blonde Lebanese", I had just always heard of it and it sounded cool, so that's what I ordered.

I dropped $135 in US currency (which he said was OK but he'd prefer Euros and told me to be sure to get the currency exchange right or he wouldn't send me ANYTHING AT ALL!!) in the mail to the address the guy had provided. And I waited. And waited...

Right about the time I became certain that I'd idiotically let myself be ripped off, it came.

I had gone out to the bank of mailboxes in the apartment complex where I lived. The mailman was there putting mail into the boxes. He said, "What's your name?", and started sorting through his envelopes. He pulled out this ordinary post-card looking envelope with peculiar curly-Qish European handwriting on it, the very un-American-looking address prominently displaying "AMSTERDAM".

From the look that the mailman gave me, I thought I'd been busted. He said, "Who the hell do YOU know in Amsterdam?" And I made up some horseshit in reply but he didn't seem to approve at all. It was like he just found out I was buying Russian snuff films through the mail or something.

Anyway, the hash came. One of the kinds was really good, the other was just so-so and I can't remember which was which. The small post-card sized letter came with a piece of ordinary cardboard the same size as the envelope with about a 1.25 inch square cut out in the center. The hash was in this square cut-out. The whole cardboard/hash thing was shrink-wrapped in plastic.

From what I understand from a couple of discussions on Cannabis.com, "weed smokers" are a different breed than "pot heads". "Weed Smokers", they said, will usually opt for the Sativa plant over the Indica because the Indica tends to give that heavy, oppressive, head-ache high that makes you munch, make you paranoid, stare at things -- which is so disappointing. Cannabis Sativa is the long, tall plant with the familiar slender, wide spread leaves - much harder to grow indoors than Indica, which is a short, squat prolific plant with tons of buds, popular with indoor growers. The Sativa variety give a cerebral buzz that sort of effervesces in your mind and gently leaves you after a while with no lingering stupor.

So, if I ever buy pot again (and it's been an awfully damn long time), I think I'm going to use a PO box and I'm going to order a gram of White Widow, which apparently is a Sativa-Indica cross which is easy to grow but gives a pure Sativa-type buzz. Apparently, it is a regular award-winning variety.

PS -- Cannabis.com is sort of like PeakOil.com -- lots of discussion boards on different subjects, not just drug-related. I gather that the site no longer tolerates the practice of vetting online dealers for reliability or honesty. There's a lot of people out there who will just take your cash when you send away for precious herb.

But then, there actually ARE INDEED some blessed souls out there who will deliver the goods in a nicely disguised, unobtrusive envelope -- or best efforts, at any rate. :)
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby CarlosFerreira » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 06:04:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('billg', '
')What's the number for alcohol? I'm sure that the number of problem alcoholics exceeds 0.6% of the world population.


Don't know; that report I quote only concerns the so-called illicit drugs. I am quite sure, however, the number or people is quite larger, and the consequences potentially worse.
Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/1 ... 4898696533
Environmental Economics and Systems
http://enviroecon.wordpress.com/
CarlosFerreira
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Canterbury, UK
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby vision-master » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 10:14:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'O')nce, about ten years ago, I decided to take a chance and see whether or not I could get some good pot online sent to me directly through the mail. I mean, WTF good is the internet if you can't buy pot on it?

I searched around on Cannabis.com and found a reasonably good reference for a guy at one of the many Amsterdam "Coffee Shops" and I asked him for a "menu" which looked something like this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')URE WEED / HASH without tobacco:

(Prices in Euros for 1 gram and 4 grams)

S ***** SUPERSKUNK WEED, 20 / 60
C ***** CALIFORNIA SKUNK WEED, 20 / 60
M ***** CRUSHED MIXED WEED, 20 / 60
T ***** THAI WEED, 30 / 90
V ***** VICTORY BUDS WEED, 30 / 90
N ***** NORTHERNLIGHTS / WHITE WIDOW WEED, 35 / 105


SM ***** SUPER MAROC BLACK HASH, 20 / 60
AF ***** AFGHAN HASH, 20 / 60
KE ***** KETAMA GOLD HASH, 20 / 60
PO ***** POLM BROWN HASH, 30 / 90
DD ***** DEALERS DIAMOND HASH, 45 / 135
BL ***** BLONDE LEBANESE HASH, 45/ 135


...except there were more choices.

After some deliberation about the origin of the term "skunk", I decided that hash probably had the best chance of making it through customs undetected, so I ordered some Ketama and some Blonde Lebanese. Don't ask me why I ordered two different kinds or why I picked "Blonde Lebanese", I had just always heard of it and it sounded cool, so that's what I ordered.

I dropped $135 in US currency (which he said was OK but he'd prefer Euros and told me to be sure to get the currency exchange right or he wouldn't send me ANYTHING AT ALL!!) in the mail to the address the guy had provided. And I waited. And waited...

Right about the time I became certain that I'd idiotically let myself be ripped off, it came.

I had gone out to the bank of mailboxes in the apartment complex where I lived. The mailman was there putting mail into the boxes. He said, "What's your name?", and started sorting through his envelopes. He pulled out this ordinary post-card looking envelope with peculiar curly-Qish European handwriting on it, the very un-American-looking address prominently displaying "AMSTERDAM".

From the look that the mailman gave me, I thought I'd been busted. He said, "Who the hell do YOU know in Amsterdam?" And I made up some horseshit in reply but he didn't seem to approve at all. It was like he just found out I was buying Russian snuff films through the mail or something.

Anyway, the hash came. One of the kinds was really good, the other was just so-so and I can't remember which was which. The small post-card sized letter came with a piece of ordinary cardboard the same size as the envelope with about a 1.25 inch square cut out in the center. The hash was in this square cut-out. The whole cardboard/hash thing was shrink-wrapped in plastic.

From what I understand from a couple of discussions on Cannabis.com, "weed smokers" are a different breed than "pot heads". "Weed Smokers", they said, will usually opt for the Sativa plant over the Indica because the Indica tends to give that heavy, oppressive, head-ache high that makes you munch, make you paranoid, stare at things -- which is so disappointing. Cannabis Sativa is the long, tall plant with the familiar slender, wide spread leaves - much harder to grow indoors than Indica, which is a short, squat prolific plant with tons of buds, popular with indoor growers. The Sativa variety give a cerebral buzz that sort of effervesces in your mind and gently leaves you after a while with no lingering stupor.

So, if I ever buy pot again (and it's been an awfully damn long time), I think I'm going to use a PO box and I'm going to order a gram of White Widow, which apparently is a Sativa-Indica cross which is easy to grow but gives a pure Sativa-type buzz. Apparently, it is a regular award-winning variety.

PS -- Cannabis.com is sort of like PeakOil.com -- lots of discussion boards on different subjects, not just drug-related. I gather that the site no longer tolerates the practice of vetting online dealers for reliability or honesty. There's a lot of people out there who will just take your cash when you send away for precious herb.

But then, there actually ARE INDEED some blessed souls out there who will deliver the goods in a nicely disguised, unobtrusive envelope -- or best efforts, at any rate. :)


One of my buds from younger days, moved to Hawaii to start his career as a grower. After a spell he came back to vist. He wanted to send me a chest full of bud through the post office. He said, "no problem". Well of course I said "that's ok, I'll pass".
vision-master
 
Top

Re: Wars on Drugs

Unread postby CarlosFerreira » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:41:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')If people are going to do just as many drugs illegally as legally, then it only makes sense for the community at large to become the distributor (and controller) of drugs and drug-use within itself.


Actually, that's something we can't be sure of. I was rummaging the REPEC (REsearch Papers in EConomics) website and found a 1995 econometrics approach at the problem, that contradicts the idea that demand won't increase:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Henry Saffer and Frank Chaloupka', 'T')he purpose of this paper is to estimate the effects of heroin prices, cocaine prices and marijuana decriminalization on the demand for these three drugs, respectively. There are few prior empirical studies in this area because data have been difficult to acquire. This paper makes use of newly available data on drug prices and is the first to link these data to a sample of 49,802 individuals from the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse. The new drug price data comes from the Drug Enforcement Agency. The results provide empirical evidence that drug use is more price responsive than has been previously thought. The results show that the participation price elasticity for heroin is about -.90 to -.80 and that the participation price elasticity for cocaine is about - .55 to -.36. Marijuana decriminalization was also found to increase the probability of marijuana participation by about 4 to 6 percent. The price elasticity for heroin is estimated at about -1.80 to -1.60 and for cocaine at about -1.10 to -.72. It is estimated that legalization would lead to about a 100 percent increase in the quantity of heroin consumed and about a 50 percent increase in the quantity of cocaine consumed.


4 to 6% increase in the use of marijuana, about 100% increase in the use of heroin and 50% increase in the use of cocaine.

The report is available for download here, you can get it for free. It is a discussion paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which as far as I can tell is a very respectable organization.

Word of advice: although I quoted Carlhole's sentence at the beginning of this post, since it was what got me thinking and searching, the scenery is nothing like the one he pointed out. This is a scenery of all-out liberalisation of the market and de-criminalisation of usage, possession and trade of the 3 drugs concerned. A more "controlled" scenery would yield significantly smaller demand increases, in my opinion, because it would increase the opportunity cost to individuals.
Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/1 ... 4898696533
Environmental Economics and Systems
http://enviroecon.wordpress.com/
CarlosFerreira
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed 02 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Canterbury, UK
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron