Isn't this about the time when .. .. (Political) - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Isn't this about the time when .. .. (Political)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby LBJackal » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:51 am

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Exactly why are drugs bad? What causes them to be so? It's my contention that, for the most part, it is the illegality of drugs that makes them so bad.


That's my point. It's the novelty of getting high that makes it appealing. I've been the legal drinking age for over a year, and I could tell you that I could STILL buy marijuana a lot quicker than I could buy beer. The Beer Store is down the street, and Dial-a-Bottle (Like Grocery Gateway for liquor) takes about 30 minutes. The guy who lives in the dorm beside me is a huge pothead and sells drugs, and if he isn't home, the guy beside him always has some weed lying around too. In fact, for the first few months of university this year, marijuana was actually legal on campus. The laws were in limbo and people were outside smoking weed while talking to the campus police with no worries.

But I don't buy any, I'm not into that stuff (I've seen what it's done to my neighbour). I'm saying that if we legalise marijuana, it would be controlled and regulated. People wouldn't feel as rebellious. The street dangers associated with it would be minimized. Hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine obviously shouldn't be legalised, but marijuana can be less harmful than alcohol if used in moderation.

I was not implying that the Government would legalise it for money, only that the reason it is still illegal probably isn't economical.
Image

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 9196
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Hotel Yorba

Postby HOOTIE » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:01 am

How can anyone say drugs don't hurt anyone? Ask the baby born to a crack mom. While we are at it, lets put a crack house on every street. And a meth house. This is lunacy.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15108
(Past Year: 305)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:39 am

I'm jumping in very late as well but I want to put in my 0.02.

Hootie, Jackal did say that he was not in favour of legalizing hard drugs. I don't think that anybody in here supports legalizing crack or heroin. Those are drugs that can kill you with one dose (remember Lenny Bias).

If you overdose on weed - you fall asleep.


BigLebowski wrote:Legalization of drugs is just a society coming to a point where they say, "I don't want to deal with this anymore, it's too much work, let's just take the easy way out". DRUGS ARE NOT GOOD!


I completely disagree with you Dude.

I lived in the Netherlands for a while and the legalization of marijuana was evidence of a mature society showing that they can responsibly use recreational stimulants (and depressants). Weed is no big thing over there. Just like tobacco and alcohol there is a time and a place for marijuana use. It may be bought and used in specific places at specific times. Never out in public, never in front of children and the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of weed or alcohol is criminal.

There is no real difference between weed and alcohol. If you are against the legalization of weed you cannot rationally argue against the criminalization of alcohol.

The stigma attached to marijuana use is a symptom of the social immaturity of North America. Let's face it, North America is the youngest culture in the world and is still developing. Never before have so many cultures, opinions and values come together to form a society.

Where else (except for repressive religious societies) would Janet Jackson's breast cause such an outrage? Seriously, it was just a flash and it has been front page news for days. The United States is the world's largest per capita consumer of hard core porn and yet is outraged by a little nipple.

The legalization of weed will cause an uproar for a while, yet just as alcohol did with prohibition, it will come to be socially acceptable in time.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:39 pm

Actually, Mookie, I am for the legalization of all drugs. Not just recreational ones.

Hootie, let's talk about crack. It was introduced in the mid 80's in the ghettos as a cheap high. The word you should notice in the preceding sentence is "cheap."

According to a recent study, the vast majority of Americans know that crack is very addictive, more so than cocaine (although less so than nicotine).

Now, if we legalized drugs, the price of cocaine would come down to more reasonable levels. The government could artificially raise the price of crack so that cocaine was now the cheaper choice. It is a milder, less addictive high. Which would actually bring down the number of crack users - as would the number of crack babies.

In addition, since they were legal, there would be no crack houses or meth houses on anyone's corner. You'd just go to the pharmacy and pick some up.

I looked around and found this interview by William Buckley particularly interesting.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/wri ... ects.shtml
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:34 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Actually, Mookie, I am for the legalization of all drugs. Not just recreational ones.

Hootie, let's talk about crack. It was introduced in the mid 80's in the ghettos as a cheap high. The word you should notice in the preceding sentence is "cheap."

According to a recent study, the vast majority of Americans know that crack is very addictive, more so than cocaine (although less so than nicotine).

Now, if we legalized drugs, the price of cocaine would come down to more reasonable levels. The government could artificially raise the price of crack so that cocaine was now the cheaper choice. It is a milder, less addictive high. Which would actually bring down the number of crack users - as would the number of crack babies.

In addition, since they were legal, there would be no crack houses or meth houses on anyone's corner. You'd just go to the pharmacy and pick some up.

I looked around and found this interview by William Buckley particularly interesting.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/wri ... ects.shtml


I don't buy that argument for a number of reasons:

1) you say that, with legalization, the government could lower the price of coke and could atificially raise the price of crack. I do not believe that is true. The way that you make cheap coke and crack, I understand, is by cutting it with filler. If the government lowered the price of coke you would just be lowering the price for people to buy more materials to make the crack. Crack will always be cheaper than coke because the price of crack is a function of the price of coke as I understand it.

2) people will always find a cheap high. In Newfoundland and in remote areas of Canada gasoline sniffing is a huge problem in the native communities. They buy 1/2 a litre of gas (kerosene glue or whatever they can get their hands on) and sniff it, killing brain cells and injuring themselves and their babies in ways that you cannot imagine. If people will do this then it is not a great stretch to imagine people sticking with crack even if they had other alternatives. If they like crack they will keep smoking it. I am mildly shocked that you would suggest marketing cocaine as a "healthy" alternative to crack.

3) Finally it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to take any steps to make cocaine (and thereby crack as well) more readily available. I am still overcome with an overwhelming feeling of sadness whenever I think back on Len Bias. If you want to remember him as well read this article http://www.espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/010620.html
The difference between cocaine and recreational drugs is that cocaine can kill you - even after one dose. It is intrinsically deadly. If it is made more available, then teenagers, who are supposed to test bounds and experiment, will die. I would not allow my two year old to play with a loaded handgun and I do not support legalizing cocaine.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:50 pm

First off, I want to make clear that I am in no way pro-drug. I was engaged last year before I discovered my fiancee was, ahem, working in a job I wouldn't approve of to pay for her pot. She'd get up in the middle of the night and smoke. She would insist on taking out the trash. Anytime she could be alone to smoke, she would.

But I do believe that drug use is a sickness. And that drugs are made much more dangerous by their illegality then they would be otherwise. I understand that they are dangerous. I understand that they're addictive. But I think that treatment is the answer, not jailtime. And I believe that adults have the right to decide for themselves what they will do to their own body.

And I believe that the idea of crack babies is far scarier than the truth. In 1985, Dr. Ira Chasnoff reported a tragic syndrome observed in 23 babies born to crack users. These children, he announced "...can't focus on a human face or respond to a human voice." Furthermore, they exhibited "gaze aversion", turning away when someone looked at them.

The press, always looking for some sensational news about the "horrors" of drug use, quickly expanded the story to include accounts of "crack babies" showing signs associated with autism and declared that these babies were "monsters, born mad". The government's legions of scientists claimed that crack was "interfering with the central core of what it is to be human" and destroyed that part of the brain "that makes us human beings...". They even predicted that they would form a "bio-class" doomed to "a life of certain suffering, of probable deviance, of permanent inferiority".

When the subject was studied using the scientific method of asking questions and analyzing the results, the problem of "crack babies" nearly disappeared. What was discovered was that the faulty and nearly nonexistent original research had failed to separate the effects of alcohol, cigarettes, other drugs or, most importantly, poverty.

Claire Coles, professor of psychiatry at Emory University, found some babies labeled "crack babies" were only colicky. Others were victims of gross physical and emotional neglect, with one child being raised by her five year old sister. Constant hunger, fear of neighborhood violence, and even the unthinking advice of supposed experts on the problem (keep them tightly swaddled in dark rooms and shield them from the eye contact of their caretakers) were found to be the cause of these poor children's suffering far more often that any effects of their mother's drug use.

By 1992, after following 300 babies exposed to crack prenatally and finding their IQs equal to babies never exposed, even Dr. Chasnoff was recanting his original diagnosis. "Poverty", he declared, "is the worst thing that can happen to a child".

The entire "crack baby" panic was based not on science but on bad politics. Women have been imprisoned for using crack while pregnant but have never had to answer for excessive alcohol use, a drug which many scientific studies have proven to be harmful to the fetus and newborn.

Most assuredly, some children suffer from the mother's use of crack or heroin or other illegal substances and their use should be restricted. The issue is that politicians use alcohol and cigarettes, so there is no clamor for their criminalization, even though there have been many substantial studies showing the damage that these legal drugs do cause. Bad science and anecdotal evidence is not what we should allow our government to base policy and laws on but neither should they ignore good science for personal and political reasons. Too many lives have been ruined, not by drugs, but by drug and sentencing laws that are based on lies.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:05 pm

Being a classic Libertarian, I agree with AA on the legalization of drugs. However, I would prefer to start with decriminalization of some of the lower class drugs to get a guage of how the effort is going. I also know that if drugs became legalized, it would basically cause our economy to have a heart attack. Imagine that industry - hundreds of millions of $s yearly - being dumped into our GDP. Inflation hike anyone?
I am sad that so many people in our jails are there because of mandatory minimums on drug charges.
Driving while intoxicated - terrible.
Supervising children while high - inexcusable.
Getting high on the job - terminated.
Endangering others while under the influence - unforgivable
Having a joint to reduce tension after a long work week - ?

I am gonna say that AA and I probably wont agree on a majority of issues, but the war on drugs is terrible for this country.

Interesting test by the way. By the wording of the questions, I think it was probably written by a leftward leaning person or group.

me:
economically = 4.25
socially = -1.13
libertarian to the core
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:06 pm

I'm sorry to hear about your fiancee.
And thanks for the research.

But you still have not presented a valid argument that hard drugs should not be distinguished from recreational drugs. I am of the opinion that legalizing cocaine is irresponsible, specifically, your idea to use cheap cocaine as an alternative to crack.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:10 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:[1) you say that, with legalization, the government could lower the price of coke and could atificially raise the price of crack. I do not believe that is true. The way that you make cheap coke and crack, I understand, is by cutting it with filler. If the government lowered the price of coke you would just be lowering the price for people to buy more materials to make the crack. Crack will always be cheaper than coke because the price of crack is a function of the price of coke as I understand it.


Price is determined by supply and demand. By increasing the supply, the price would naturally drop. Taking all the traffickers, dealers, and middle men out of the equation would also lower costs.
Image
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5694
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Mookie4ever » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:15 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:[1) you say that, with legalization, the government could lower the price of coke and could atificially raise the price of crack. I do not believe that is true. The way that you make cheap coke and crack, I understand, is by cutting it with filler. If the government lowered the price of coke you would just be lowering the price for people to buy more materials to make the crack. Crack will always be cheaper than coke because the price of crack is a function of the price of coke as I understand it.


Price is determined by supply and demand. By increasing the supply, the price would naturally drop. Taking all the traffickers, dealers, and middle men out of the equation would also lower costs.


That's a strawman and is not a response to my post.

Supply and demand is irrelevant - crack will always be cheaper than coke because the price of crack is a function of the price of coke.
Image
Mookie4ever
Head Moderator
Head Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterHockey ModBasketball ModFootball ModMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 19486
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Hakuna, Montana

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 17 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Apr. 19
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi Cubs at Chi Cubs
(1:05 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(1:05 pm)
Cincinnati at Cincinnati
(1:08 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(1:35 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(2:10 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(2:20 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Miami
(4:05 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at NY Mets
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(7:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(7:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at LA Dodgers
(8:05 pm)
Arizona at Arizona
(8:10 pm)
San Diego at San Diego
(8:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Francisco
(8:40 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact