Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

Up in Smoke: Drug Legalization and Dealing

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really, assuming your friends are looking for larger amounts too.

Look, I wasn't trying to brag, I was stating that I take pride in being on the right side of history i.e. it should be legalized. And because I felt it should be legal, I looked to the bootleggers of yesteryear as an example on how to take action. 

I'm going to give the bolded the eye roll.  You're either getting 30-50 people high a couple times a day or you're getting fewer people really fucking high.  

Even with bootleggers, alcohol ruins lives.  It's not like they were heros or something.  My objections and language were to characterizing selling weed in highschool as a positive.  I agree that it's less bad than being an overt racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DMC said:

Yes, this is rather uncontroversial - and not in contradiction with how this conversation started, or at least when I entered into it, saying:

Obviously, as you said, the politician should express regret and show compunction for the behavior.  But I don't think selling weed in high school should be disqualifying, and you seem to pretty much agree based on the bolded.

I also took issue with you stating (on post #206 of the last thread) that selling weed as a kid is "at least as bad as racism or sexism."  Considering the context of the discussion, that's essentially saying that I should (at least) feel as bad about my high school behavior as I should if I was one of the individuals in Northam's yearbook photo.  I find that ridiculous - I would feel much (much) more guilt about the latter, and I think any reasonable person should too.  And it's hard to not take personal offense to such a statement.  

I made it crystal clear in post #218 that unrepentance was what is disqualifying in my eyes - at least when we're talking about weed alone. 

As for the comparison to racism I had very mild forms of racism in mind at that point (i.e. bad jokes or poor-taste disguises that constitute ordinary racism but have little societal impact in themselves and don't always mean the individual will defend racist ideas) that to me may indeed be less harmful to society than selling weed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 12:25 PM, Bittersweet Distractor said:

Up until the mid 1920s most traditional recreational drugs, most notably heroin and cocaine were legal in a lot of European Countries and I believe the US too, it was the moralizing pressure on said Countries by the prohibition stance US that convinced them to ban them.

Personally I'm in favour of drugs being legalised,regulated and taxed, nothing has proven there would be a huge uptake in drug usage, like others have said education and treatment should be available for those in need of it, plus it would instantly be a huge blow to organised crime and end all the pointless,avoidable violence and death.

Reasonable.  Honestly, the people who want to do hard drugs, are going to do so regardless, at best society could try to do is make it so that the conditions they do it in are at least a little safer.  I would suggest designating areas where any drug goes provided the consumption of them remain in the area and ban advertisements for said drugs most anywhere else outside  the designated area. Also, a few stickers here and there warning of the clear affects. I mean by virtue of cocain being legal before America even knew the severity of it didn’t gridlock the country. An outright ban on most of these drugs hasn’t yielded any significant success. And has made it so that there’s hundreds of thousands of people of people murdered over gangs trying have an monopoly on the trade.  the subsequent terror said gangs are able inflict upon entire countries due to massive wealth that they generated from the drugs they sold is also bad.  

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Was unclear about the gang thing. I meant to cconvey the meaning of Having designated areas for drug use will stop the hundreds of thousands of murder by gangs not cause it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Reasonable.  Honestly, the people who want to do hard drugs, are going to do so regardless, at best society could try to do is make it so that the conditions they do it in are at least a little safer.  I would suggest designating areas where any drug goes provided the consumption of them remain in the area and ban advertisements for said drugs most anywhere else outside  the designated area. Also, a few stickers here and there warning of the clear affects. I mean by virtue of cocain being legal before America even knew the severity of it didn’t gridlock the country. And have it so that there’s hundreds of thousands of people of people murdered over gangs trying have an monopoly on the trade. And the subsequent terror said gangs are able inflict upon entire countries due to massive wealth that they generated from the drugs they sold.  An outright ban on most of these drugs hasn’t yielded any significant success. 

Agreed!, I think we’re very much on the same page here.

I also think peoples views on drugs have changed a great deal in the last few years, the US has legalised weed, that is something which would be unimaginable a couple of decades ago, sadly this is an area where the UK is lagging behind, I don’t smoke it, but I’m very pro it being made legal.

Another thing I’ve noticed change in the UK is the attitude to cocaine use, it has gone from being rare and frowned upon to rife and pretty much socially acceptable across a lot of different demographics.

Speaking personally I experimented with recreational drugs a bit in my early 20s, I went clubbing, I had fun and did what young people do, now, at almost 31 I’ve zero interest in them, or drinking if I’m honest, people grow up, get married, have kids and that lifestyle just doesn’t appeal- this has been the case for me, and many of my friends anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As for the comparison to racism I had very mild forms of racism in mind at that point (i.e. bad jokes or poor-taste disguises that constitute ordinary racism but have little societal impact in themselves and don't always mean the individual will defend racist ideas) that to me may indeed be less harmful to society than selling weed.

Well, I thought it was reasonable to assume you were referring to something akin to the scandals currently going on in Virginia.  Not sure what you have in mind here, but "poor-taste disguises" doesn't seem to have much significant difference to change my point.  Bad jokes, I guess yeah, although it'd depend on the joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 3:36 PM, Iskaral Pust said:

I believe it’s called psychological addiction, to distinguish it from physical addiction in substances like heroin and cocaine.  

The different terms I've seen used in the academic setting is psychological=addiction, physiological=dependence. 

On 2/7/2019 at 9:59 PM, mormont said:

I'm not a fan of this binary. For a start, there's an accompanying implication that psychological addiction isn't serious. It is. It can be, over the long term, much harder to beat than physical addiction. For another thing, most drugs (legal or illegal) have both physically and psychologically addictive properties, and the two are not independent of each other. 

The distinction is important for precisely the opposite of your concern - physical dependence is a problem, but it's one that can be treated and managed in a variety of ways depending on what is appropriate. Addiction can be much harder to treat, and while getting past the withdrawal symptoms can be one of the hurdles to avoid trying to kick an addiction, just clearing that hurdle doesn't mean you've dealt with the addiction.

Another reason for the distinction is there are a great many drugs used for medical reasons that have withdrawal symptoms ranging from as bad to very significantly worse than the one that I feel is seen as the worst in pop culture - opioids generally and heroin specifically. Both in terms of unpleasantness and danger to your health. As mentioned earlier alcohol withdrawal can kill you, caffeine withdrawal - which was mentioned in the us politics thread like it's not dependence inducing - can be very severe, and other drugs can cause major psychologicsl changes with the potential to blow up your life and that's leaving side anything causing suicidal ideation.

Dependence is a medical issue to be aware of and to be managed. Very few people are addicted to the vast majority of these drugs.

Personally I've been dependent on oxy after surgery and my withdrawal was relatively easy with my managed weaning. And that was after an exceptionally high dose for 4-5 months, I'm not claiming this after a week on it. I had a few nights of severe anxiety which was managed with valium and some hot flushes.

I've withdrawn from caffeine twice which has given me the worst migraines of my life (and I suffer chronic migraine so I've got a good comparison) and my third attempt the withdrawal was so severe it wasn't helped by morphine (given in hospital) and I'll never knowingly attempt it again. Brook also gets severe migraine but also gets severe muscle aches through her whole body like she's been beaten that last for a week or more.

My worst withdrawal was an epileptic medication I tried for my migraine, topomax. I was only on it for 3 weeks and didn't get past 1/2 the dosage necessary for therapeutic effect. Withdrawal lasted 2 months, including depersonalization and other behavioral effects that almost ended my relationship and disrupted my work and study.

My very long winded point is that it's very complicated, and also very individual - most people have minimal difficulty withdrawing from caffeine but much more withdrawing from potent opioids. Dependence is important to treat as a discrete issue that is interwoven with addiction rather than two halves of the same. It's also not enough on it's own to justify banning drugs. If we really want to reduce problems with addiction, we need to address the psychological and societal problems that make people want to lose themselves in the first place. Heroin is a painkiller and it eases psychological pain as well as physical, and that's at the root of a lot of it's use. You can treat someone's dependence, but if they don't want to quit they'll just be back on it as soon as they get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm going to give the bolded the eye roll.  You're either getting 30-50 people high a couple times a day or you're getting fewer people really fucking high.  

This is an odd take. I would have figured you understood the game better than this. If you know a dozen people who want zips, you get a HP.

Quote

Even with bootleggers, alcohol ruins lives.  It's not like they were heros or something.  My objections and language were to characterizing selling weed in highschool as a positive.  I agree that it's less bad than being an overt racist.

It’s not even comparable. By a wide margin. Doing so is laughable and insulting.

And yes, I do think it’s somewhat heroic to have the guts to stand up against bad laws and be on the right side of history, which was my original point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is an odd take. I would have figured you understood the game better than this. If you know a dozen people who want zips, you get a HP.

It’s not even comparable. By a wide margin. Doing so is laughable and insulting.

And yes, I do think it’s somewhat heroic to have the guts to stand up against bad laws and be on the right side of history, which was my original point.  

I dont think that the majority of people who sell, do it because they are fighting the good fight, sure, they might recognize that the law is bullshit, but they are not freedom fighters, they just want money (or smoke for free), i think most of them are just entrepreneurs.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:59 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The different terms I've seen used in the academic setting is psychological=addiction, physiological=dependence. [snip]

This does strike me as a much more useful way to delineate. Thanks. :) And I'm sorry to hear of the troubles you and brook have had. 

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yes, I do think it’s somewhat heroic to have the guts to stand up against bad laws and be on the right side of history, which was my original point.  

Um, no.

No. You weren't being heroic. You weren't showing the guts to stand up against bad laws. How do I know? You weren't publicly protesting those laws. You weren't campaigning against them. You were just ignoring them. That is not making a heroic, principled stand against them: arguably it's the reverse. You can only make money selling weed to your friends if weed is illegal. If it's legal, they can get it themselves. 

I'm not in favour of weed being illegal either, and I've also sold a bit in my youth. But I wasn't making a principled stand and I never kidded myself that I was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I dont think that the majority of people who sell, do it because they are fighting the good fight, sure, they might recognize that the law is bullshit, but they are not freedom fighters, they just want money (or smoke for free), i think most of them are just entrepreneurs.

 

And? I’ve very clearly stated why I got into it. I come from an upper middle class to affluent background. I had more to lose than to gain. It was never about the money for me.   

34 minutes ago, mormont said:

Um, no.

No. You weren't being heroic. You weren't showing the guts to stand up against bad laws. How do I know? You weren't publicly protesting those laws. You weren't campaigning against them. You were just ignoring them. That is not making a heroic, principled stand against them: arguably it's the reverse. You can only make money selling weed to your friends if weed is illegal. If it's legal, they can get it themselves. 

I'm not in favour of weed being illegal either, and I've also sold a bit in my youth. But I wasn't making a principled stand and I never kidded myself that I was. 

Actually, not only was I doing that at the same time, I was directly petitioning law makers to legalize it, and have been doing so since before I ever thought about selling. And since I’ve quit long ago, I’ve worked for multiple elected officials and I’ve told each and every one that they should support legalization, so please do not tell me what I have and haven’t done nor tell me what my motives are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually, not only was I doing that at the same time, I was directly petitioning law makers to legalize it, and have been doing so since before I ever thought about selling. And since I’ve quit long ago, I’ve worked for multiple elected officials and I’ve told each and every one that they should support legalization, so please do not tell me what I have and haven’t done nor tell me what my motives are.

This is not a good look. You're telling people off for not taking into account information you didn't disclose to them. 

Let me put it this way, then: if you were petitioning for legalisation, then great. Yes. That was making a stand against bad laws. 

If you were selling weed at the same time, much as it may have been something you saw as motivated by the same feelings, it isn't really taking a stand. Taking a stand against a bad law is a public act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is not a good look. You're telling people off for not taking into account information you didn't disclose to them. 

Let me put it this way, then: if you were petitioning for legalisation, then great. Yes. That was making a stand against bad laws. 

If you were selling weed at the same time, much as it may have been something you saw as motivated by the same feelings, it isn't really taking a stand. Taking a stand against a bad law is a public act. 

And is making assumptions not a bad look too? Especially when I actually did say as much earlier in the week?

I wasn’t just petitioning, I was representing the student body through the aforementioned student body government, followed by me trying to persuade my bosses who could actually do something about. I went to the administration and petitioned them for leniency towards students who were caught with grass. I’ve even tried to convince cops that they should go easy on people they catch with small amounts. It’s an issue that’s important to me because I’ve seen good people have their lives destroyed because they were arrested, and I am well aware that I got damn lucky in the process of all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, I thought it was reasonable to assume you were referring to something akin to the scandals currently going on in Virginia.  Not sure what you have in mind here, but "poor-taste disguises" doesn't seem to have much significant difference to change my point.  Bad jokes, I guess yeah, although it'd depend on the joke.

Yes and no. Thing is I haven't had time to read about the Virginia affair so I don't have a strong opinion about it yet. What I may say at this point is that using a KKK attire in a yearbook doesn't qualify as a joke anymore in my eyes, it reads more as taking a stand. I even made a comment about it saying it wasn't done in 1964  (though I erroneously thought the yearbook was from 94, as I said I haven't read about it). So yes it was a reasonable assumption but no if anything I'd made it quite clear I wasn't taking that affair lightly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes and no. Thing is I haven't had time to read about the Virginia affair so I don't have a strong opinion about it yet. What I may say at this point is that using a KKK attire in a yearbook doesn't qualify as a joke anymore in my eyes, it reads more as taking a stand. I even made a comment about it saying it wasn't done in 1964  (though I erroneously thought the yearbook was from 94, as I said I haven't read about it). So yes it was a reasonable assumption but no if anything I'd made it quite clear I wasn't taking that affair lightly. 

Thoughts on Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party? Because on the spectrum of awfulness, Nazis trump Klansmen IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So yes it was a reasonable assumption but no if anything I'd made it quite clear I wasn't taking that affair lightly. 

Ok, but it doesn't matter you made clear you weren't "taking it lightly," point is it those examples or something like it were the most obvious cases to assume you were referring to based on the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just moved to California (where Cannabis is fully legal) and it's amazing really. Being able to go into a shop and get information about different products and find something that best suits your needs is something I never imagined 15 years ago. Back then you had to know a guy, be very discreet, and could only choose between low, mid, and high grade without really knowing what you were getting.

Legalizing other substances is something I'd have to do more research on, but at the least I feel that legalized marijuana is a positive thing overall. Of course we're only just beginning to wade into the mire with regard to taxation and all the other economic ins and outs, but time will tell on that.

 

 

Edited by Joey Crows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is an odd take. I would have figured you understood the game better than this. If you know a dozen people who want zips, you get a HP.

It’s not even comparable. By a wide margin. Doing so is laughable and insulting.

And yes, I do think it’s somewhat heroic to have the guts to stand up against bad laws and be on the right side of history, which was my original point.  

Your math is weird.  A dozen people wanting an ounce a piece means you need 12 ounces.  That's 3/4 lb.  And even  if you're moving less, like a quarter pound a week, assuming one person goes through an 1/8 oz a week, you're keeping 32 people high.  

Even if youre just selling ounces, where does it go?  It's not like 4 people are each smoking an ounce a week.  

Can't believe you're doubling down on the principled highschool weed dealer, Johnny Appleweed angle.  Sorry dude but this is laughable and certainly eye-roll worthy.

Eta: "the game"?  Really lol ok Avon Barksdale

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought people stopped buying 'ounces' in the 80s?  

I do agree that there is going to always be a black market for weed unless or until it's legal to grow your own everywhere, because now that the gov. has seen the tax potential, the price will probably stay very high, meaning black market weed is going to still have a place in the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Thoughts on Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party? Because on the spectrum of awfulness, Nazis trump Klansmen IMO.  

And on the spectrum of societal impact it's close to zero. The Virginia thing matters because there are decision-makers involved. Was that a trick question?

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Ok, but it doesn't matter you made clear you weren't "taking it lightly," point is it those examples or something like it were the most obvious cases to assume you were referring to based on the context.

I think the real point is that you wanted an argument I would "lose" and it didn't really matter to you what I was trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addicts will do anything to justify getting their fix and dealers will apparently do anything to justify their operation. oy.

Like Rippounet I grew up poor, but in a relatively middle class small town and it was certainly the upper crust kids (who could easily fail upwards consequencefree into a successful life no matter what their high school behavior was) who got high and drunk.  A lot of poor kids could get weed, but if you're trying to help your parents make rent, you don't have a lot of spare cash to get high with, and frankly it was easier to get cigarettes for my fellow poor kids, so most of them (that were working with me at minimum wage fast food jobs) just smoked constantly. booze was tougher if you were poor and underage, weed was definitely more availble, but like weed, booze was invariably class accessible as all the upper crust kids had parents freely making alochol accessible out of some sick and perverted sense of 'doing good' or containing the damage.

And if you were poor the hammer fell fiercely and frequently to destroy you for weed or alcohol use as a minor. if you were rich, there was no hammer to be afraid of, (those kids literally had nothing to lose) or the authorities let you use the hammer on poor kids, which would prove you were a good kid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×