1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How guilty are drug users?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by luiz, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. Harbringer

    Harbringer Your A One Flower Garden

    Apr 4, 2004
    Shoveling Hills of Blue
    Look at the numbder of video game addicts and look at the number of drug addicts. Not to mention that when your hi all the time your not doing anthing productive period, video game addiction at most can ruin relatonships, very rarely do you see a video game addict looking for his nex "hit" burglarizing place and stealing for the money to buy it. But like I said, its something you have to see, when you have something that is so commonly destrctive like this why even bother to let it be?
  2. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Oct 14, 2001
    Chicago Sunroofing
    When I'm writing the first draft of any creative legal document (opening statement, cross-examination plan, tax avoidance scheme, etc.), I am often under the influence of some substance. It is hardly unproductive.
  3. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Oct 28, 2005
    In Perpetual Motion
    The heady aroma of money perhaps? Coffee?
  4. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Oct 14, 2001
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Money motivates me to do the non-creative stuff and coffee helps me survive it.
  5. Dawgphood001

    Dawgphood001 The Professional Poster

    Nov 29, 2005
    541 Oregon
    We must be talking about different drugs.

    For one there are lots of drinkers and pot heads who aren't even close to being "high" all the time. Me for instance, as well as my dad who happens to enjoy the nightly rum and coke. There are also those that touch other drugs like shrooms, coke, meth and never go back to using them.

    And yes, video game addicts can ruin themselves much more than just with relationships. They can lose jobs, slide into poor health, hell one dude in Korea played for 52 hours straight until he straight up DIED.:crazyeye:
  6. Grisu

    Grisu Draghetto Retired Moderator

    Dec 20, 2001
    that may well be true, but that basically applies to anything we do/buy. what about the clothes I wear? it's quite likely that they were manufactured by some semi-slave kid, etc....

    IMHO, the people banning these drugs are just as responsible for the drug-crime as the druge-users are. by keeping it illegal they are basically supporting the drug lords.

    that said, I think the example of the bong wasn't excactly the best one. I doubt that many people get harmed by cannabis related crime....a lot of it is produced domestically, anyway :)

    when going to parties, drunk people scare me a whole lot more than stoners. I've never been bothered by the latter, whereas drunks quite regularly become violent...
  7. Cube4

    Cube4 Warlord

    Aug 11, 2004
    El Paso, TX
    Yeah, but these people are already addicted in the first place, if they can justify committing a burglary to get the drug, they're just in denial. Clearly their mind isn't working properly if it sees this as rational decision. This person has lost a lot of money to his drug use to the point that they may be in financial difficulties.
    Also this person wouldn't have to steal If drugs were legal. The fact that drugs are illegal causes crimes like this. When a large quantity of drugs is taken off the streets, the price of the available drugs goes up.

    time for an example:

    these aren't actual numbers here and it's extremely simplified but bare with me.

    assuming this is a video game and in this game there is only one drug.

    Assuming this drug cost $50 under ideal conditions for a dose.

    Now assuming that this is a border town with a bridge.

    now let say that this town only has $1000 worth of this drug per week.

    enough for 20 doses

    The drug bosses expect $1000 per week or else the minor dealer gets killed

    you are playing as the drug dealer and the game needs a basic understanding of how the supply works. someone else is playing as the authorities, but the authorities aren't allowed to kill the drug dealers, and the dealers aren't allowed to kill the authorities. Any drugs caught must be allowed to be seized.
    the game has to develop an understanding of the supply. so it does some math.

    If the authorities take away 10% of the weekly supply, that leaves $900 worth of drugs on the street.
    But the bosses expect $1000, so the price has to rise.
    20*0.1= 2
    1000/18 = 55.56

    They have to charge $55.56 per dose to get the same amount of money.

    If they take 20% away this leaves $800 worth of drugs on the street.
    16 doses
    1000/16 = 62.5

    They have to charge $62.50 per dose to get the same amount of money.

    I know the authorities don't take away this much drugs anyway, but bear with me.

    at 30% taken away there are 14 doses.
    1000/14 = 71.43

    They have to charge $71.43 per dose to get the same amount of money.
    now doing the rest of the math the game gets these numbers.

    1000/12 = 83.34
    1000/10 = 100
    1000/8 = 125
    1000/6 = 166.67
    1000/4 = 250
    1000/2 = 500

    If they take away all the drugs there is $0 and the Authorities win.

    100% supply = $50.00 price
    90% supply = $55.56 price
    80% supply = $62.50 price
    70% supply = $71.43 price
    60% supply = $83.34 price
    50% supply = $100.00 price
    40% supply = $125.00 price
    30% supply = $166.67 price
    20% supply = $250.00 price
    10% supply = $500.00 price
    0% supply = $0.00 Price

    and that's only assuming that Dealers aren't going to raise the price to take Advantage of the Drug Shortage.

    Assuming this addict needs 3 doses to get high and 20% of the supply is taken away, but this person doesn't know this. He has his $150 ready for his weekly dose, but the drugs now cost $187.50. He goes to his dealer and gets the news. He needs the drug what does he do. He steals someones purse or wallet. All right maybe he pawns some thing. Anyway he has to do something to get the drug, because he still hasn't gotten to the acceptance stage.

    Anyway do I really have to go on and tell you what would happen if 30, 40 or 50 percent of the drug was taken away. I'm going to tell you anyway.

    More crime is created, because the chances of the Addict stealing increase as the Amount of product taken away increases, since he still hasn't gotten to the acceptance stage.

    Now if it were legal, drugs wouldn't have such high price fluctuations, and price for this drug would be Between $35 to $70. This addict would be able to go to licensed, government approved store and buy his drugs. He wouldn't have to steal.

    This guy is the drug dealers Ideal Client, He keeps them in business. He's the one they target. They know that many addicts get to this stage. eventually he either gets treatment, or goes to jail and they have to create another one of these guys. That's why they target kids and teenagers.

    I smoke weed sometimes with my friends, and I don't understand why I should have to worry about being caught, and going to jail for something that I'm not even Addicted to just because the government decided to make drugs Illegal. In the very least they should legalize weed. I also don't see why I should have to worry about failing a drug test and not getting a job because of my Recreational drug use. For the record, I haven't smoked weed since May and I just started smoking about a year or two ago.

    I've also gotten drunk and trust me getting high on weed is much better you don't loose as much control. I don't know what kind of parties you've gone to but the people were probably using something more than weed.

    If they ever legalize weed they should eventually look into legalizing harder more dangerous drugs on a drug by drug basis. Also just because they are legal doesn't mean they would be available everywhere. Selling drugs on the street would still be Illegal.

    Treatment would also have to be a part of a drug legalization plan. The way I see something like this happening is all treatment would be free as long as you are there, and there would be no quitting. Once someone is cured they would be given 3 months or even more get a job and get there life together. Once that's up they would have time to pay and they could even pay in installments. People would have to be of a certain age, chosen by the government, and the first time you go you would be shown a video about drugs, how to use them properly, signs you're addicted, what's considered an overdose, reason not to use them ETC...
    On your second visit, if you still want the drugs then you can buy them.

    Also they would be allowed to charge higher taxes on drugs than they do on Alcohol and cigarettes, because they're more dangerous. Of course the profit margin for these products would fall, but still wouldn't it be worth it for the decreased crime and increased security of knowing that drugs would be the responsibility of the government, and Not gun totting Lowlife's like Drug Dealers.

    I for one hope to see a Day when drugs are legal Highly Regulated but Legal. When are the Governments of the world going to realize that they're never going to win the war on drugs and that to think they are is just Naive, Stupid, Arrogant, and Extremely Ignorant. Oh and the same goes for Gambling and Prostitution.

    Getting back to the Addict Issue, I don't think they're guilty once their addicted. they're guilty of buying the drug, but come on every one makes mistakes. Sending them to jail is just cruel, They should at least be sent to rehab.
  8. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Apr 22, 2002
    Why not blame the drug users? Even God did it! To make the long story short, Eve ate the apple because she was charmed by the snake. Adam ate the apple because he listened to Eve. The end result, God punished everyone (the snake, and Adam & Eve) .

    The snake=the drug maker/dealer; Adam & Eve = the end users. Of course, it was God that planned the tree in the first place and yet God wasn't responsible for anything.
  9. Shaihulud

    Shaihulud Deity

    Dec 2, 2004
    Kingdom of Gore
    Drug users are guilty of course, in the literal sense. It is a crime to take drugs and they do. The reason that it is a crime is many, some as a direct consequences of taking the drug and others unintentional, helping a drug cartel to kill people and ruin more lifes. Lets not bring our personal experience to the discussion, because its true, illegal drug ruins life around the world. Therefore the people contributing to the drug trade is guilty. Now if they produce and imbibe their own drugs, their guiltiness becomes a personal thing.
  10. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Aug 28, 2005
    Stamford Bridge
    The reason that marijuana is illegal was strictly a political move, when it was banned.

    I could locate some literature for you, if you want.
  11. skadistic

    skadistic Caomhanach

    May 25, 2004
    Land of Mary
    It was a move to criminalize the mexicans in the SE of America. Pure racism at its best.
  12. Cube4

    Cube4 Warlord

    Aug 11, 2004
    El Paso, TX
    I saw a show on the history channel about this. I think it was called "a history of illegal drugs" or something like that. In it they also said that Reefer Madness was misinformation. Apparently the guy who killed his grandparents did so more out of Paranoid schizophrenia than because of Weed.

    @ Shaihulud

    The reason Drug Cartels and Now Terrorist sell Drugs is because they are Illegal.
    in the 17th or 18th century I don't quite remember when I read this was, any a long time ago people used Opium, and from what I read it was bad, worse than Alcohol, but many of them were casual users and not addicted.

    All right I found some thing on Wikipedia on Opium. (warning Long)
    Here it is:

    "The earliest clear description of the use of opium as a recreational drug came from Xu Boling, who wrote in 1483 that opium was "mainly used to aid masculinity, strengthen sperm and regain vigor", and that it "enhances the art of alchemists, sex and court ladies.". He described an expedition sent by the Chenghua Emperor in 1483 to procure opium for a price "equal to that of gold" in Hainan, Fujian, Zhejiang, Sichuan and Shaanxi where it is close to Xiyu. A century later Li Shizhen listed standard medical uses of opium in his renowned Compendium of Materia Medica (1578), but also wrote that "lay people use it for the art of sex", in particular the ability to "arrest seminal emission". This association of opium with sex continued in China until the twentieth century. Opium smoking began as a privilege of the elite, and remained a great luxury into the early nineteenth century, but by 1861, Wang Tao wrote that opium was used even by rich peasants, and even a small village without a rice store would have a shop where opium was sold.[7]"

    so far nothing Too bad has Happened, But keep reading the next Paragraph is Very important.

    "Smoking of opium came on the heels of tobacco smoking, and may have been encouraged by a brief ban on the smoking of tobacco by the Ming emperor, ending in 1644 with the Qing dynasty, which had encouraged smokers to mix in increasing amounts of opium.[1] In 1705, Wang Shizhen wrote that "nowadays, from nobility and gentlemen down to slaves and women, all are addicted to tobacco". Tobacco in that time was frequently mixed with other herbs (this continues with clove cigarettes to the modern day), and opium was one component in the mixture. Tobacco mixed with opium was called madak (or madat), and became popular throughout China and its seafaring trade partners (such as Taiwan, Java and the Philippines) in the seventeenth century.[7] In 1712, Engelbert Kaempfer described addiction to madak: "No commodity throughout the Indies is retailed with greater profit by the Batavians than opium, which [its] users cannot do without, nor can they come by it except it be brought by the ships of the Batavians from Bengal and Coromandel."[19]"

    Now look what happened when some of it became Illegal, remember "Madak" Is Tobacco mixed with Opium.

    "Fueled in part by the 1729 ban on madak, which at first effectively exempted pure opium as a potentially medicinal product, the smoking of pure opium became more popular in the eighteenth century."
    huh I wonder why? Could it be because the idiots who banned it are now inadvertently Promoting the drug. There is a sense of danger to it, people want to use it because it is Illegal.

    In 1736, the smoking of pure opium was described by Huang Shujing, involving a pipe made from bamboo rimmed with silver, stuffed with palm slices and hair, fed by a clay bowl in which a globule of molten opium was held over the flame of an oil lamp. This elaborate procedure, requiring the maintenance of pots of opium at just the right temperature for a globule to be scooped up with a needle-like skewer for smoking, formed the basis of a craft of 'paste-scooping' by which servant girls could become prostitutes as the opportunity arose.[7]"

    Back then prostitution wasn't as looked downed upon as it is now. There is no mention of them becoming prostitutes because they were using the drug.
    From what I understood, this Relates to the first paragraph, The part that talks about being better with women. The Customer may not have even known the women was a prostitute, she was payed part of the Opium money.

    "Beginning in eighteenth century China, famine and political upheaval, as well as rumors of wealth to be had in nearby Southeast Asia, led to the Chinese diaspora(Oversees Chinese). Among the large numbers of Chinese who migrated from China, a significant number were opium smokers and brought the custom of opium smoking in the Chinese manner with them, as well as the social traditions of the opium den. The Indian diaspora distributed opium-eaters in the same way, and both social groups survived as lascars (seamen) and coolies (manual laborers). By the mid-nineteenth century, opium smoking was exported in the same way to the United States during the California Gold Rush. From West Coast cities such as San Francisco, opium smoking spread east to New York City, south to New Orleans and north to Canada. By the end of the nineteenth century there were opium dens, most of them Chinese-run, throughout North America including northern Mexico along the border with the United States. In Europe, France was the main center of opium smoking due to the relatively high number of returning French expatriates who had became addicted to the drug while being posted in French Indochina. Opium consumption in nineteenth-century Britain was common, although it was not smoked in the Chinese manner but consumed as laudanum. The vast majority of British literary figures who claimed to get inspiration from opium were "opium eaters", not opium smokers. The All-India Opium Act of 1878 formalized social distinctions, limiting recreational opium sales to registered Indian opium-eaters and Chinese opium-smokers, and prohibiting its sale to workers from Burma."

    The previous paragraph just talks about the spread of opium.

    "Because of the low social status of the workers, contemporary writers and media had little trouble portraying opium dens as seats of vice, white slavery, gambling, knife and revolver fights, a source for drugs causing deadly overdoses, with the potential to addict and corrupt the white population."

    uh oh Racism and misinformation keep reading to find out why.

    "By 1919, anti-Chinese riots attacked Limehouse, the Chinatown of London. Chinese men were deported for playing puck-apu, a popular gambling game, and sentenced to hard labor for opium possession. Both the immigrant population and the social use of opium fell into decline.[34][35] Yet despite lurid literary accounts to the contrary, nineteenth century London was not a hotbed of opium smoking. The total lack of photographic evidence of opium smoking in Britain, as opposed to the relative abundance of historical photos depicting opium smoking in North America and France, indicates that the infamous Limehouse opium smoking scene was little more than fantasy on the part of British writers of the day who were intent on scandalizing their readers while drumming up the threat of the "yellow peril" "

    From the section "Prohibition and conflict in China"

    "Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the import of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[19] Opium prohibition in China continued until 1860, and was later resumed."

    I don't understand why he couldn't just prohibit Opium smoking in court and punish those who defied the rule. Also note that users were never punished, thus he never dealt with a large part of the problem. when I say punished I mean by forced treatment. from what I understand this was a Medium drug, and the withdraw wouldn't have been as hard as with the more potent Heroin.

    "Some competition came from the newly independent United States, which began to compete in Guangzhou (Canton) selling Turkish opium in the 1820s. Portuguese traders also brought opium from the independent Malwa states of western India, although by 1820 the British were able to restrict this trade by charging "pass duty" on the opium when it was forced to pass through Bombay to reach an entrepot.[19] Despite drastic penalties and continued prohibition of opium until 1860, opium importation rose steadily from 200 chests per year under Yongzheng to 1,000 under Qianlong, 4,000 under Jiaqing, and 30,000 under Daoguang.[37] The illegal sale of opium became one of the world's most valuable single commodity trades, and has been called "the most long continued and systematic international crime of modern times".[38]"

    once again note what's happening, since the addicts aren't being dealt with The demand never really went away.

    In response to the ever-growing number of Chinese people becoming addicted to opium, Daoguang of the Qing Dynasty took strong action to halt the import of opium, including the seizure of cargo. In 1838 the Chinese Commissioner Lin Zexu destroyed 20,000 chests of opium in Guangzhou (Canton).[19] Given that a chest of opium was worth nearly $1,000 in 1800, this was a substantial economic loss. The British, not willing to replace the cheap opium with costly silver, began the First Opium War in 1840, winning Hong Kong and trade concessions in the first of a series of Unequal Treaties."

    "Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906 China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population was addicted - 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly.[39] From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction.[40]"

    Of course they eventually did make it illegal, But the part after that talks about the communist in the Mao Zedong era and we all know how trustworthy that information is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Do you really think they were actually able to get rid 100% of the Opium, because I don't, they just never wrote about the failures. they made sure that any one who did know about the failure either shut up or Permanently shut up If you know what I mean. :ar15:

    I have another interpretation of this here goes.
    The Garden Eden was made up by either God or the Aliens(which IMHO makes more sense) as foreshadowing of the concept of Heaven which would be talked about in more detail later in the book. They Made up a place that was perfect where all your needs are taken care of. Then they made up a reason to kick man out of it, The Tree of Knowledge. This was done to Establish the difference between Man and God. God takes a paternal Role here He is taking care of the humans babysitting them if you will. Who knows maybe he got tired of babysitting them, or felt it was time for them to go out on their own, they Grew up. God knew Perfectly well what he was doing when he told them about the Tree, He knew that by telling them they would eventually not be able to resist, and they would get what he wanted them to have Knowledge. The way I see it God got tired of waiting, so he created the snake in order to temp them and it worked. God finally had a reason to Kick the humans out, Plus he finally had the kind of humans he wanted knowledgeable humans. This wasn't really a punishment but more of a test. "If the Humans survive then I did a Good job, if they die then I can always Create more And try again." is what I envision GOD Thinking at the end of the Story.

    As to the reason why God wasn't punished, Who would punish God he is at The top according to the Religion There is no one above him. Also why should God be punished he did a good thing, albeit using deceitful means but a good thing nonetheless. Who knows, maybe the God of this story, had already tried other methods, with Robert and Stephanie, or Patrick and Donna, ETC....
    Maybe he told Robert and Stephanie that it was ok to eat from the Tree and they ate and were confused when God Kicked them out for no apparently good reason, and they were scared of the the World. With Patrick and Donna he may have told them to eat as much as they wanted from the tree, and they did. Then he told them they had to go, but they had eaten to much and they spent most of their time thinking and not enough time doing things and thus died. Well anyway he Finally succeed with Adam and EVE. maybe God or the Aliens thought telling us about the people before Adam and Eve made the story too complex, and less open to interpretation.
  13. Fugitive Sisyphus

    Fugitive Sisyphus Escape Artist

    Sep 1, 2005
    I am not God.

    "I believe laws should not be based on religion but of the natural laws of man. Let God punish those who break God's laws and man punish those who break the laws of man."
  14. Dezzilisk

    Dezzilisk THIS GUY.

    May 4, 2007
    If they legalized drugs then the prices would be lower, meaning less people would be Burgled:)

    Vote for the legalize canabliss party:king:

Share This Page