When All Drugs Were Legal....There Wasn't a Drug Problem
wings.buffalo.edu — Images from the preprohibition era when many psychotropic substances were legally available in America and Europe - Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin.
pizzler- 1228 diggs
- digg it
- Overmind12812, on 04/25/2008, -30/+49Very true. Drugs became a "problem" when the government made it their problem.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -27/+14WRONG. Drugs are a problem. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Could you imagine, with the poor parenting we have today, what would happen if certains drugs were extremely more easily available to teenagers and kids??? LET's BE REAL HERE PEOPLE! Impressionable, peer-pressured kids? We would have far more people destroyed by drugs, that otherwise wouldve been good contributors to society, but instead are a burden.
I believe the government is lenient enough with the substances it allows.
I hate republicans tho.- jackalsclaw, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11pot is no worse then tobacco.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -6/+14I knew someone was going to defend weed. I'd say out of all controlled substances, weed comes closest to getting a pass. But all others are rightfully controlled.
- airquotes, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7The funny thing is drugs were not really made illegal or controlled in america because of a concern for the well being of the public, it was actualy out of anti-chinese sentiment and rich people who didnt want hemp to compete with their paper mills. Americans were very racist about the chinese who moved out west, the control of opium in the US was racism motivated.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1pot was first banned because of anti-Hispanic sentiment
- dixta, on 04/25/2008, -27/+11Yes it is. It'll give you lung cancer just like tobacco... but it'll also turn you into a complacent, red-eyed slacker who makes everything "society's problem, man" and oh yeah, there's also a good chance that abusing it will trigger psychosis, bipolar disorder, or worse (cases in point, about 3 people I know, including a close family member).
I am so, so, so sick of all these drugged up bums who are whining that drugs wouldn't be a problem if they were legal. I've seen the things that people can do with their lives when they give up pot and other substances... they turn themselves right around and do great things. And yet they still enjoy the odd drink and a cigarette, which is still legal.
ILLEGAL DRUGS are ILLEGAL for a GOOD REASON, and NOT part of some GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY you PARANOID HIPPIE *****. I can keep saying this till I'm blue in the face but it probably won't make a difference.... you'll go ahead and claim that I'm part of some "secret government agency conspiring to keep you down, man".- garvallagh, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15industry is not a good enough reason to ban drugs. numbnutz. You also sound extremely unlucky, i know alot of people who do drugs, but none of them a bums, most of them work in Advertising, the only bums i know (through sight only) are those who sleep close to the trainstation and most of those either have alcohol (legal) or mental problems, even the smack heads i knew in dublin we able to keep jobs
- regression, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10Fact part (mostly): Hmmm. As a preface, I'll say that I don't smoke pot. I have, I just don't like the high. The lung cancer thing is debatable. True, it does have carcinogenic properties. However, the amount of pot a person would have to smoke to reap the carcinogenic effects would truly be astronomical. Most people do no smoke enough to get cancer from it. So, to compare it to tobacco is not scientifically valid. The psychosis label is really misleading. How do you define psychosis? Can we say that psychosis is a loss of contact with reality? If that is the case, alcohol does the same thing. As a bartender, I can say it probably does a better job than pot at instigating psychosis. An example; Every week some drinks too much and enters into a "psychosis" where he thinks he can take on our bouncer. I would say this is a loss of contact with reality because, no you can't take on our 6'8" 380 pound bouncer. He ALWAYS wins. Pot cannot trigger bi-polar disorder. The only thing that can trigger it is a genetic predisposition towards it. Period. Go read some neuroscience books. Learn.
Opinion part: Yeah, there are some worthless bums out there. I'm sorry you've had that experience. There are also quite a few intelligent, productive, educated people out there that smoke. I can think of 2 chemists, a lawyer and an MD off the top of my head that get toasted on the weekends. So, basically, it comes down to personal responsibility. Your ability to regulate yourself. Some people have it and some don't. Those people that don't shouldn't ruin it for those that do. - XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7I don't completely disagree with you but:
1) You can also get lung cancer from breathing in car exhaust, second hand smoke, fumes from paint, etc. Its not like pot and tobacco are the only ways in the world to get lung cancer.
2) There are "drugged up bums" like you say, but there are also millions of Americans who use drugs and are perfectly normal productive citizens.
3) I was diagnosed with clinical depression and bipolar disorder before I ever used any drugs and to be 100% honest, one of the only ways I can really relax (I get anxiety attacks when my mood gets low) is by smoking marijuana. I've taken like 20 different prescriptions from my psychiatrist and they all give me terrible side effects. I don't smoke weed often, but I have before. - brandon81211, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Being this far in the comment tree I doubt this will even be seen. But Dixta, you are completely wrong. I am a professional in a good career, working full time and going to college full time with a 4.0 GPA. I am not a hippie, I do not blame societies problems or my problems on other people, and I'm not a slacker by any means. And I smoke pot.
What I do hate is people that stereo-type people, and people that misjudge things they don't understand.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -15/+3Well said. The weed obsession of my generation is pathetic. Do something useful with your time instead of trying to live in an altered state of mind that just anchors you to a ***** couch
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -6/+14I knew someone was going to defend weed. I'd say out of all controlled substances, weed comes closest to getting a pass. But all others are rightfully controlled.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -14/+1Think about the kids! Those stupid ***** kids!
- Shuukyoku, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8Yes, because my local heroine dealer insists that he see my ID to verify that I'm over the age of 21. He's a family man, wife, two kids of his own. He'd never let his evil evil drugs to fall into the hands of impressionable, easily addicted youths.
Are some drugs dangerous? Yes. But making the ***** illegal doesn't do a damn thing for keeping the little ones away. Coming from a guy who grew up in a nice little suburb (which, for all you parents out there, could have been YOUR suburb for all you know), I had every opportunity to get my hands on all manner of *****. I started smoking pot when I was 20, but if I'd wanted to do any of that other *****, I could have. And I assure you that they do. Now, if the drugs were in the hands of a vendor who WILL be run out of business for selling to minors, we could maybe do something about the drug 'problem'. But you know what cures all this? EDUCATION *dun dududuuuuun*
Fact, our drug education plan teaches that they are all the same. So column A) regular stoner college student like myself and column B) meth addict. Take a close look and tell me that they are the same. But if kids don't know that, well they could do all manner of stupid stuff. Which, if they're over 18, living on their own, and not causing any harm, I'm pretty much okay with. - nycmac247, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1 heroine
spell check - XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4I agree with you wholeheartedly that parenting these days is terrible. I look around and I really think that a lot could be solved if people's parents paid a little bit more attention to them. I still think there is a better way than outright prohibition however.
- airquotes, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5The question for me is not are drugs good or bad, it is what is the role of our government... They changed the constitution to restrict these items, but guns are still widely available.. I just think it should be a personal freedom.. if someone becomes an addict, let them face the consequences though.. Education and freedom are the keys..
- KiraDnote, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4If we end the war on drugs, we won't have to worry about the heavily armed and vicious drug cartels that the war on drugs has created.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11pot is no worse then tobacco.
- wayupthere, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3yeah right pot is WAY BETTER then tobacco!!
- brandon81211, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9Yes, yes it is.
- jackalsclaw, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1less adictive
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0Ya think it makes any difference whether it's legal or not? If anything, being illegal makes it "cooler" to take the drugs.
- j0keR, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7It does matter. The fact that the United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned says a lot. It's because of the war on drugs.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prison-nation. ... - KiraDnote, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Have you noticed how drug cartels in Mexico are nearly as powerful (or maybe more powerful) than the government? This problem can be solved quite easily by ending the war on drugs.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Yeah, the war on drugs is lame. Where did I say it was good?
- j0keR, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7It does matter. The fact that the United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's imprisoned says a lot. It's because of the war on drugs.
- rmxz, on 04/25/2008, -1/+10Some research suggests that drugs are mostly a "problem" when living conditions are poor and stressed people (and stressed lab animals) will self medicate themselves with whatever's available to escape reality. For example, consider the Rat Park experiments which showed that poorly treated (typical lab cage) rats get addicted to morphine, but well treated ones (rats living in 200x the space of a typical cage with toys to play with and some privacy) don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
If true, this suggests that drugs "problems" might not be so much "problems" as "symptoms" of other aspects of society.- Daedalus81, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3What drives a rock star to do drugs then? Honest question.
- TritonX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Believe it or not, there is a lot of pressure being a rockstar, as said by rmxz it can be seen as a poor living condition by some. Some people cope with it better than other. I don't see a problem here though, a lot of people live a normal life and consume drugs in their free time, as long as they aren't endangering nobody, I don't see why we should legislate it. As said before, education is the only solution. Stop lying to the kid by telling them heroin is as dangerous as pot and maybe we won't have such a problem.
- jattea, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2pot>heroin?
- jackalsclaw, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2pot use : heroin use = hit by water balloon : hit by truck
- gregfadein, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4You're confusing drug use with abuse.
- TritonX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Believe it or not, there is a lot of pressure being a rockstar, as said by rmxz it can be seen as a poor living condition by some. Some people cope with it better than other. I don't see a problem here though, a lot of people live a normal life and consume drugs in their free time, as long as they aren't endangering nobody, I don't see why we should legislate it. As said before, education is the only solution. Stop lying to the kid by telling them heroin is as dangerous as pot and maybe we won't have such a problem.
- Daedalus81, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3What drives a rock star to do drugs then? Honest question.
- Yazilliclick, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9Sorry but what did that article prove? How did it prove there were no problems from drug use back then? Sorry but I think common sense would say there were problems, how major I don't know, but deciding to ban them didn't come from thin air, it arose like everything else from people noticing problems and complaining.
- Pake, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Drugs became a problem when society become closer (larger cities) and more people began owning cars.
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1This proves nothing.
The effect of these products is nothing compared to one hit of crack.
The pot of the 60's is not nearly as powerful as the pot available today.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -27/+14WRONG. Drugs are a problem. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Could you imagine, with the poor parenting we have today, what would happen if certains drugs were extremely more easily available to teenagers and kids??? LET's BE REAL HERE PEOPLE! Impressionable, peer-pressured kids? We would have far more people destroyed by drugs, that otherwise wouldve been good contributors to society, but instead are a burden.
- TresTriste, on 04/25/2008, -9/+30They're still legal, now they just have scientific names so we can pretend they aren't exactly the same thing the pusher in the alley offers!
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -15/+5'Exactly' may be an overstretch. Most pharmaceuticals DO NOT get you high, DO treat something, and DO NOT harm you.
- blagoaw, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7They treat something because doctors choose when they are used (at least that's the ideal -- how much might be prescribed and under what circumstances varies by doctor). All of them cause harm that is weighed against the benefits. It's hoped that the doctor will only prescribe when taking the drug will be beneficial. So on both those counts, it's not really the drug that's good - it's the doctor. Why don't we let doctors prescribe from a wider arsenal?
Some do get you very high and are in demand, but I do think it's true that most don't get you high.- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Ok, I'm fine with doctors being allowed to proscribe anything so long as the think it's the best treatment. Although barely any will be prescribed, and it won't really excuse people abusing drugs...
- TheSlinky, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5See the thing is a lot people like you don't understand that drug use isn't always abuse
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3There isn't a legitimate 'use' for methamphetamine.
- TheSlinky, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I'm not advocating the use of ALL drugs, methamphetamine definitely does entail drug abuse. But things like marijuana, ecstasy, acid, shrooms, even occasionally cocaine when used in moderation or sparingly shouldn't be called 'drug abuse'.
- garvallagh, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9hahahahahhahahaha,
- blagoaw, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Of course a doctor can't prescribe a non-active substance and have it treat a disease - so it's important that the drug has active properties that are understood.. but I think some of the illegal substances would be valuable too if there weren't so much fear (and yes, sometimes potential) of them being abused and resulting in dependence.
- blagoaw, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7They treat something because doctors choose when they are used (at least that's the ideal -- how much might be prescribed and under what circumstances varies by doctor). All of them cause harm that is weighed against the benefits. It's hoped that the doctor will only prescribe when taking the drug will be beneficial. So on both those counts, it's not really the drug that's good - it's the doctor. Why don't we let doctors prescribe from a wider arsenal?
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -15/+5'Exactly' may be an overstretch. Most pharmaceuticals DO NOT get you high, DO treat something, and DO NOT harm you.
- s0crates82, on 04/25/2008, -9/+69Think about Prohibition: more people were drinking alcohol than ever, and the ones supplying it were getting it illegally, and making piles of money doing it. Gangs, and the wars between them, flourished. Heck, even the Kennedy family made it's fortune originally as a cadre of rumrunners.
When something is taboo, and out of the public eye, it becomes seedy and dangerous. Street corner prostitutes? Potential murder victims and almost certainly STD carriers. Backroom gambling? Fuel for organized crime and loansharking. Contrast those two examples with what happens in Nevada and you'll find well-guarded women that take very good care of themselves in brothels a few miles outside of town, and large casinos that have become so "wholesome" that some people think of Las Vegas as a great vacation spot to bring the kids to. - mal1964, on 04/25/2008, -5/+30For some people it wont matter if they're legal or illegal, They will always be a problem.
- Alex2, on 04/25/2008, -3/+45China had banned Opium back in the 1700's because it was a problem drug.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om1 ...- EpicSelekta, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5and Britain legalized it!
- bosssmiley, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8...by force ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ).
You know, that *could* be where the 420 lot are going wrong. Their campaign to decriminalise cannabis possibly has insufficient gunboat diplomacy and thrashing of Johnny Foreigner to be successful.
- bosssmiley, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8...by force ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ).
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11They had to ban it because The British wouldn't stop coming in and giving it to everybody to get them hooked.
- rmxz, on 04/25/2008, -13/+9"China had banned Opium back in the 1700's because it was a problem drug."
These guys ban human rights in Tibet and they ban half the Internet too.
Methinks they ban stuff just because they're control freaks.- Risingashes, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Really getting sick of you Americans.
If your own country has caused the deaths of over a hundred thousand people in the past 5 years you don't get to criticize other countries. No they wouldn't have been killed regardless.- culbeda, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5And we're really sick of idiots who denigrate an entire citizenry because they're too stupid to realize that 70 percent of the citizenry disapprove of the chimp who started this war.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I agree that Americans suck, but he's right, China sucks far worse.
***** China. Dog eating freaks.
- crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Why don't you spend some time reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sadda ...
You'll notice that the death toll we "created" already existed just wasn't publicized the same. US Troops are still finding previously undiscovered mass graves in Iraq.
Do I think we should be there? No. Do i think most people have a skewed view of how wonderful Iraq was prior to us being there? Yes.
- Risingashes, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Really getting sick of you Americans.
- HangerBaby, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Yeah. The Opium wars were about as bad as anything drug related can get.
Also, in the US... several people spent their lifes savings on opium based drugs
not to mention the opium shops all over the place
- EpicSelekta, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5and Britain legalized it!
- evb27, on 04/25/2008, -19/+11uhh yea but they became illegal because these are hard drugs and they became a problem
- sparsely, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5So tell me, what happened to suddenly make them a problem that didn't exist in the previous hundreds/thousands of years?
- smotpoker, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2The industrial revolution (transportation) and telecommunications?
- evb27, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5Well you see, over time people learned how to extract the psychoactive properties from opium and coca plants. With these extractions they would make cocaine and heroin, much more potent and potentially lethal. People would get addicted and die which made it a problem.
- burrgrinder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Distribution and potency.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4Your "hard drug" is my "make family guy actually funny drug"
- evb27, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1heroin and opium and cocaine make family guy funny to you?
- smotpoker, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5Interestingly, the worst drug in our country was invented by the Nazis and introduced by our government
- innocentsinner, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Fascism? It's fascism, isn't it?
- smotpoker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Haha, yeah right. Everyone knows we stole fascism from the U.K.!
No, my friend, the correct answer is METH! We stole *meth* from the Nazis, hooked our troops on it, and let them introduce it to the rest of the population.
Unlike drugs, Fascism isn't typically sought; just ignored/endured. Meth is most harmful drug and in more respects, IMO.
- smotpoker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Haha, yeah right. Everyone knows we stole fascism from the U.K.!
- innocentsinner, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Fascism? It's fascism, isn't it?
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4No, its people's lack of self control and the modern overbearing tendency of our government that made this a problem.
- sparsely, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5So tell me, what happened to suddenly make them a problem that didn't exist in the previous hundreds/thousands of years?
- SillyRabbits, on 04/25/2008, -4/+43Umm, there was still a problem then. The only difference is that there wasn't a social support system to keep people alive (shelters, emergency rooms, etc.). And, it wasn't openly discussed in the media. Once people started down the road of self destruction, they didn't last very long. Opium dens predated crack houses by hundreds of years.
- mal1964, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3This was home to many, The Insane Asylum
- koroviev, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5There was a problem then. Drugs can lead to problems. Unfortunately, when you give authority for a goverment to fix the problems with drugs, a lot more problems will be cerated than solved.
- fantasticjon, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Its the age-old question of freedom versus responsibility.
- 9bpm9, on 04/25/2008, -13/+8This article is a joke. Companies like Coca Cola used coca leaves in their drinks, but it wasn't pure cocaine like is sold today. The cocoa leaves gave the negative and the positive affects of the substance, pure cocaine only gives you the positive and causes extreme addiction because you want those positive affects back. Now the amphetamine section, the American government is being hypocritical about that, they're illegal, yet they give them to fighter pilots all the time. If our military can take them, why can't the public?
- tehblister, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I don't know if they do still give it to the pilots or not, but it might have something to do with fighter pilots flying 14+ hour missions inside of a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. If long-haul truck drivers drove in trucks that cost 32-million dollars, they might get amphetamines too.
- cnorris1, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Truck drivers do get meth or one of its legal cousins
- atact88, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0The public doesn't generally decide the fates of other people via 500 lb bombs.
- Risingashes, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1So the people that do should be trippin'?
- atact88, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3they're on stimulants, not trippin' like people on popular narcotics do. It's essentially a form of adderall.
- Risingashes, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1So the people that do should be trippin'?
- tehblister, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I don't know if they do still give it to the pilots or not, but it might have something to do with fighter pilots flying 14+ hour missions inside of a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. If long-haul truck drivers drove in trucks that cost 32-million dollars, they might get amphetamines too.
- turiya04, on 04/25/2008, -7/+39Simply because people were not aware of or concerned with problems 50, 100, or 200 years ago, does not mean the problems did not exist. This "article" is silly and willfully ignorant.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3Your right having the united states jail 1/4th of the entire worlds prisoners is a much better solution.
- turiya04, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Which is exactly what I was proposing! You read right between the lines, you clever fellow, you.
- imikedaman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Did you actually look at the article? Whoever submitted this added their own inaccurate editorial to what was nothing more than a set of historical records that mocked the 19th century's ignorance about the huge dangers the drugs posed.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3Your right having the united states jail 1/4th of the entire worlds prisoners is a much better solution.
- thinman1189, on 04/25/2008, -1/+24So many lies have been told on the subject that it's hard to tell what's true anymore.
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5I think it's fairly clear pot should be taxed and most hard drugs should be focused on but you're completely right in the big picture.
- Shuukyoku, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Well, too often I think the debate gets focused on what's good and bad for you, and I don't think thats the issue. The way I see it, the only criteria that we should use is a) is this substance dangerous to others (see PCP, meth, and crack) and b) does the consenting adult, armed with full knowledge of what is being presented, have the right to control his/her own chemical makeup. Some drugs probably are bad for society, but its that b) that gets me. I just can't justify legislating my own substance choices on others.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -9/+18Innacurate title.
The second paragraph states: "By the beginning of the 20th century, problems with habitual use of cocaine and opiates was becoming increasingly apparent. This led to the removal of these substances from some products (e.g., Coca Cola) and to the introduction of the Pure Food and Drug Act..."
There was obviously a ***** problem. I can't stand drug obsessed losers that ***** lie about the addictiveness of drugs and the ability of people to excercise good judgement in using them- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6See but that was a problem because people had no idea what they were taking. The only drugs that should be banned are those that have been proven to be chemically addictive. Virtually no hallucinogenic drugs are addictive and the government has no place banning drugs like that.
i mean for ***** sakes you can't ban gasoline just because people sniff it. I agree drug abusive is a bad thing, but all you do when you ban everything is move the problem down the line. I mean by all accounts Caffeine should be illegal because it's highly addictive, same thing with tobacco.- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4That's the thing. We don't ban everything. We allow more manageable substances on the market. Tobacco (even tho it is highly addictive and a big killer) and alcohol are more manageable because I beleive it simply comes down to a matter of taste. When you shoot up heroin or do a line of coke, the high is so much more euphoric and intense that it is, right off the bat, more addictive and controlling in your life, and simply put, has the potential of locking in far more addicts. Far more. Alcohol does cause a dependency, but only in a smaller percentage of people than does coke, heroin or methamphetamines. Very few people are habitual smackheads, methheads or cokeheads to the extent they arent doing massive amounts of damage to their bodies.
- wayupthere, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4marijuana is addictive its taking over my life vincent! help me!
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -11/+4Hey, stupid. I didn't single out marijuana. And it is addictive, you ***** loser.
- crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1No it's mentally addictive just like wacking off can be. Go read some facts moron.
- coldwayz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4actually, weed is not addictive physically.... but some people do develop a psychological need.
Weed shouldn't be banned really. tobacco is worse than weed (more addictive, more health risks), but it's legal anyway.
oh yeah, wayupthere? the THC in weed causes sperm loss by 50%. Great stuff, isn't it?- TritonX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3"but some people do develop a psychological need."
By that you mean, people enjoy it once in a while like they do with beer and/or alcohol?
Seriously, saying people are psychologically addicted just mean they enjoy it, and why shouldn't you do something you enjoy that doesn't destroy your body, but some people think this argument is enough to classify weed with hard drugs. - crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1... sarcasm??????????
- TritonX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3"but some people do develop a psychological need."
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -11/+4Hey, stupid. I didn't single out marijuana. And it is addictive, you ***** loser.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6See but that was a problem because people had no idea what they were taking. The only drugs that should be banned are those that have been proven to be chemically addictive. Virtually no hallucinogenic drugs are addictive and the government has no place banning drugs like that.
- Koushiro, on 04/25/2008, -9/+13Ummm, there wasn't a drug problem? Yeah, ask China how that whole opium thing went and then say there wasn't a drug problem. There have been a rather large amounts of data in the past in places other then the United States that psychotropic drugs are a general hazard to society as a whole. Is the "War on Drugs" a good or useful idea? Not in the least, but you guys can't just write everything off like that. If your life sucks so much that you feel like you have to use these things, or if you want to use them cause they make you feel good please just buy a gun and blow your brains out so you don't have to think anymore.
(Side effects of gunshots to the head include headaches, ringing in the ears and a slight chill in the remains of the skull. Ask your doctor if your stupid enough to try taking the advice of some random person on Digg.)- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2Your an idiot who needs to get his facts straight. enough said.
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5"If your life sucks so much that you feel like you have to use these things, or if you want to use them cause they make you feel good please just buy a gun and blow your brains out so you don't have to think anymore."
I'm not really sure where this comes from, but I'm a perfectly productive individual. I make an honest living and I do pretty well considering what I came from. If I come home from work, use drugs, don't drive around messed up or anything like that, what is the problem? I enjoy my life. I'm not some crazy depressed addict. I've never had a craving for a drug in my life. I just enjoy that extra bit of relaxation once in a while after a long day of work.- Robbothehood, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0He doesn't have a problem with you then. He qualifies it as people having lives so terrible they need drugs to escape, which is clearly not you. I personally would feel sorry for someone whose life has gotten so bad that drugs are the only thing that makes their life worth living.
- GrantTheGr8, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Dugg for the disclaimer. Made me laugh.
- radikul, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2They'll be legal when they can solely capitlaize on the production of it.
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3A 300 billion dollar black market begs to differ.
- magiclava, on 04/25/2008, -9/+13Drugs became a problem when people realized how addictive they were and how many people were hooked on them at the turn of the 20th century (a greater percent than today). I love all these stoner drug apologists who think the whole world would be a better place if we all just smoked weed all day with the odd hit of cocaine/heroin(drug of your choice) every now and then, and that 'the man' is alway trying to kill their buzz... Just put your pipe down for a second and grow up.
/rant- wayupthere, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2where did you find an odd hit of cocaine and heroin? cocaine and heroin are addictive, weed is not.
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6Put down your pipe for three weeks, and see if you wont be jonesing for a hit. Weed is addictive. *****, gambling is addictive! Anything that causes pleasure is addictive. The brain reads it the same ***** way. However, when you introduce an actual substance into the brain, then the potential for addiction is far more. Weed falls into that category. Of course, certain drugs are more effective at causing addiction than others.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -7/+8As opposed to a world where people line up around the block to get there daily morning dose of caffeine? stand outside in the cold to smoke some tobacco? And meet up after work to drink some alcohol?
People who think the banning of certain drugs and imprisoning of there users need to look around. Our entire society is already addicted on drugs you can't just bash on a certain group of people because they have picked a different drug that doesn't support american industry.- magiclava, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I was picking on a certain group because the article relates to a certain group and most of the apologists here are defending a certain group. You could very easily replace the drug references with others, especially alcohol (as you mention).
- magiclava, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I was picking on a certain group because the article relates to a certain group and most of the apologists here are defending a certain group. You could very easily replace the drug references with others, especially alcohol (as you mention).
- Vincent21212, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3Amen, brother.
- nycmac247, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1nice try but your thought lead to current drug war sucking sound in economy imho
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3I don't think there would be any problem at all with weed being legal. None. Up the penalty for driving while under the influence (would have to spend some money to develop some sort of test on whether you are currently high) to very very severe, which they should do anyways, so people don't drive around stoned (which to be honest, is much safer than driving around drunk, but I digress). While I do wish I could enjoy cocaine legally, I do agree with you that if it was legal, far too many people who lack the self control that some users have would have extreme problems.
- wayupthere, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2where did you find an odd hit of cocaine and heroin? cocaine and heroin are addictive, weed is not.
- FizzanoMatrix, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Shouldn't Dulcolax be on that list somewhere.
- robotbling, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3yeah, let's go back to that system now that everyone knows the true effects of these drugs :/
- forgiste, on 04/25/2008, -8/+1Most people only demonize heroin because most people don't like needles... But it has medicinal properties, not only that if it were legal addicts could get it provided by pharmacies, and could ensure quality.
- masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Except heroin addicts have extremely high odds of dieing from OD because it's such a strong addiction/toxic, and they aren't treating anything. You have a good point though too about quality.
- blagoaw, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I suspect social and life concerns are enough to prevent a lot of people from trying these things - and that this occurs whether or not the drugs are legal. Being hooked on heroin's clearly a mess, and it's apparently a spiral that just about any human can't expect to escape.. and that's the reason why most people stay away from it. The opportunity to get it exists whether it's legal or not.
- GeorgeStone2, on 04/25/2008, -7/+13If there was there wasn't a problem... Why did they become illegal?
Come on now.- blagoaw, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Alcohol's got problems and it was illegal for a time.. so similarly, it's possible that some drugs were banned due to real problems despite not being any more harmful than alcohol. The bans were just never repealed because they didn't have as much of a popular foothold. I agree with you though - the headline is asinine.
- bosssmiley, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6The same puritan control freakery that led to Prohibition in the US and the rise of totalitarianism in Europe perhaps?
The 1920s were a ***** up time; people turned to drugs to help them cope, abused them, got addicted, caused trouble for themselves & those around them, governments (as usual) tackled the symptom, not the problem.
(one Digger's off-the-top-of-my-head theory)
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -7/+8Yeah those drugs were soooo addictive and totally ripped our society apart, I mean can you imagine a world where people line up around the block to get there daily morning dose of hot drinkable drugs? or a world where people leave work so they can go stand out in the cold and smoke drugs? Or a society that feels the perfect way to wind down the day is to meet up with some friends and pound back a couple bottles of drugs. Parents that give children huge supplies of sugar flavored bubbly liquid drugs.(hint it comes in a plastic bottle).
if you think the banning of certain drugs actually prevents human drug addition I think maybe you need to look around.- DickInyerhole, on 04/25/2008, -6/+6Ill just go ahead and be the first to do this:
...........................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
- DickInyerhole, on 04/25/2008, -6/+6Ill just go ahead and be the first to do this:
- smacksaw, on 04/25/2008, -2/+13pizzler, you deserve a double-Digg down for this one.
I don't know which is worse - submitting this stupid ***** page we have all seen for the 40th time or adding your lame little editorial. Did you even bother to read this page? The entire tone is mocking the fact these drugs were legal and people abused them, gave them to children and were generally ignorant about it. That's a BIG ***** problem.
I think I'll bury this as spam since we've seen it before and you're counting on people to read your description and not the article. Oh, nice user icon, BTW. Total coincidence. - Mark2600, on 04/25/2008, -6/+5This can only end well.
Drugs are bad, so is Anarchy and Communism (I don't give a ***** if it's Marxist-Lenninist or whatever else you want to claim it is), they do horrible things to people, families, and strain social services. If the addicts stopped checking in and out of rehab every other week, just to relapse, and stopped draining my tax dollars, maybe we would have a more productive health care system.
Jesus...- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3***** YOU. Anarchy is the only type of government system I support.
- Cyber_Akuma, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1At first I would brush that off as somebody's attempt to be funny through sarcasm, but nowadays I just don't know anymore.
At least I hope that was sarcasm...
- Cyber_Akuma, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1At first I would brush that off as somebody's attempt to be funny through sarcasm, but nowadays I just don't know anymore.
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Have you ever been to the addiction services wing of a hospital? Most are incredibly small. I'm sure that in bigger cities they might be much bigger, but if your issue with drugs is because "addicts" drag down our healthcare system, you're just kidding yourself. Our healthcare system is ***** for a million other reasons, the least of which is probably drug addicts trying to rehab.
- wootup, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1"Drugs are bad, so is Anarchy and Communism"
Thanks, Mr. Mackey, for what is probably the dumbest sentence I've ever read on Digg. Do you believe ALL of your government's propaganda, or just these little beauties? Drugs can be a fun and enlightening experience for people who aren't prone to addiction and who know what they're doing, whether they're using legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco or illegal ones like marijuana or mushrooms. I doubt you know a thing about anarchism, but it's basically just the belief that all people should be free and equal, and that hierarchy is inherently unjust, so vertical power structures like governments and corporations should be replaced with horizontally-based structures based on discussion, consent and voluntary association... Hardly a bad idea. I don't particularly like communism, but something tells me your opposition to it merely stems from the fact that it would compel you to surrender some of your financial privilege to help other people... like, say, drug addicts who need treatment. Here's an idea: health is life, and life is not a commodity to be bought and sold on some market. Health care is a right. Read a book.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3***** YOU. Anarchy is the only type of government system I support.
- schwab002, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12I love seeing some of these old bottles, labels, and ads, but just because anyone could legally buy heroine or cocaine does not mean that people were free of drug problems. The problems that these home remedy snake oils caused were the major reason that the US government passed the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act (1914) prohibiting these drugs.
Also, there was a higher proportion of people addicted to opiates in 1914 than today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Ta ... - genki831, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3i just wish you could still buy these products. cocaine infused wine....pure freaking genius as far as im concerned!
- mal1964, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The Origins of Commitment for Substance Abuse in the United States
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/33.pdf - nvanstraten, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Hi there, I'm from Holland and I think you're right. Everything illegal is attractive. And the "wrong" people start making money from it. Legalise drugs, help the ones with the problems. It would solve a lot off problems.
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Something I saw the other day: Front page of a small town newspaper at the very top of the page (the part you see when you buy it out of a vending machine) says: Is Your Teen Using This Legal Drug To Get High? Well, long story short, it was an article on a hallucinogen (I've tried it- it's okay but its not really a high, its more an experience). I can guarantee 99.999% of kids in my area have never heard of it, but they have now.
- Rekbert, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5No drug problem back then huh? So people of that particular era could handle their cocaine and heroin better than todays?
- coldwayz, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Buried.
psychological harm is not measured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rational_scale_ ...
crack would be pretty high up there. addiction rate to crack..... 100%. The government has a responsibility to protect us, and crackheads.... well, they're not exactly boy scouts.- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Do you know who helped create the "crack epidemic" of the 1980s? Let me preface this by saying that this isn't some conspiracy theory, this is actually true. The U.S. (through the CIA) was secretly allowing South American militias which we supported politically to bring in cocaine to the U.S. At the same time, the U.S. was at the height of the war on drugs as far as the amount of drugs they were removing from the street. A few drug dealers in L.A. that had contacts with these South American fighters started making crack. Within a few years, these dealers had taken over the whole city and networked to other major cities using the cocaine that was brought in with the U.S. government's help.
Its easy to say the government has a job to protect us, but there is not always an easy way to accomplish that. There are consequences to every action, some which we don't see. I am of the belief that if drugs were less illegal (read: not completely legal like buy them at the gas station or anything) that we would have a lot less of a problem than total prohibition. For instance, if I personally could buy weed from a drug store and not worry about getting arrested for it or anything, I would probably never even mess with any other drug.
Also, no one with a sound mind does crack, because of that nasty addiction rate you speak of, I've seen it ***** up people in my family, but at the same time I will say that other drugs definitely deserve to be looked at again on their legality.- coldwayz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Ok, I've never actually heard of that. But I have heard of the LSD thing.
In my humble opinion these are the drugs that definitely remain banned:
LSD (it alters brain chemistry)
crack/cocaine
Meth (99% addiction rate)
Heroin (destroys your body)
- coldwayz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Ok, I've never actually heard of that. But I have heard of the LSD thing.
- loki49152, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0The government has a responsibility to protect us against foreign invasion, fraud, theft, violent crimes, etc. It does *not* have a responsibility - much less the right - to protect us from ourselves. Perhaps you are a helpless, infantilized adult-child, but the rest of us are expected to be self-sufficient and able to make our own decisions.
- coldwayz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1So, people trying to commit suicide shouldn't be helped?
Loki, on some issues, the government should be able to- and does - protect us from ourselves. I'm not saying that we should sacrifice freedom for security. But, do you think that, if every citizen was allowed access to extremely dangerous weapons, that we would all act in a "responsible fashion?"
I've worked in a drug clinic, and I've seen what crack can do to people. Trust me, that's one drug that we don't want everyone to have free access to.
- coldwayz, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1So, people trying to commit suicide shouldn't be helped?
- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Do you know who helped create the "crack epidemic" of the 1980s? Let me preface this by saying that this isn't some conspiracy theory, this is actually true. The U.S. (through the CIA) was secretly allowing South American militias which we supported politically to bring in cocaine to the U.S. At the same time, the U.S. was at the height of the war on drugs as far as the amount of drugs they were removing from the street. A few drug dealers in L.A. that had contacts with these South American fighters started making crack. Within a few years, these dealers had taken over the whole city and networked to other major cities using the cocaine that was brought in with the U.S. government's help.
- YamiJim, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6the only thing that outlawing drugs does is make Criminals rich, people who want to do them are going to do them,
it's just who's going to have the power to control and profit from it, that is the variable.
the rise of the American gangster came about because of alcohol prohibition, and then (smartly) it was repealed (too late, of coarse)
I do believe drugs need to be CONTROLLED (age/income whatever) but totally outlawing things (some) people can enjoy responsibly is stupid.
I work my ass off 40-60 hours a ***** week for my money, what i want to do on the weekend in my own house to my own body,(by myself or with consenting adults) is none of the governments god damn business. - shotgunefx, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Buried for the inaccurate title. Thought the content of the page is good.
- Memnochxx, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1It's not inaccurate, it's sarcastic.
- Hoybe, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4I think drug "problems" are hugely dependent on the type of drugs and also the type of people using said drugs. Meth, Heroin and some of your more destructive or addictive drugs need to have laws against their use and abuse. But marijuana? I mean, come on.... This stuff grows naturally in all sorts of places all over the world. It's not being manufactured as crystal meth or crack would be, it's just a plant...
In the words of the late Sam Kinison, "There is no war on drugs, there is a war on people who use drugs."
The government, in all their wisdom, needs to focus their attention on more important matters. When having the local police search for a suspect with little green leaves in his pocket outweighs searching for a murder suspect, we've got a priority problem.- XtheXlanternX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I hate to use a cliche like Tupac's "instead of a war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me," but its just so true. You do see rich people that get addicted to coke or heroin that ***** up their life, but they usually are able to seek treatment (although there are cases where they just completely ruin everything). What you see in much much much greater numbers though is poor people addicted to cheap drugs like crystal meth and crack (both much more addictive than the rich person's powder cocaine-- I'm not sure how addictive heroin is so I cannot comment).
- Zippo, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8The problem is that people will abuse them, legal or not... If you make hard drugs legal, then it makes it easier for desperate people to obtain them. Sure, crime might go down a little, but short of making the drugs FREE, people are still going to commit crime to get the money nessesary to obtain these drugs... and the drugs themselves seriously ***** people up.
Sure, legalize pot, whatever. But I see no reason to ***** legalize the terrible ***** like meth, crack, and heroin.- meinhookah, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0You're absolutely right. This just why we see alcoholics robbing people to .... oh wait
- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Humm they do ...you ever see video of a hold up and they steal beer and smokes? ...then shoot the owner?
- meinhookah, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0You're absolutely right. This just why we see alcoholics robbing people to .... oh wait
- atact88, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Here's your cocaine being made today http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f89_1208477780
For educational purposes only. I strongly condemn any attempt at purifying cocaine (good luck with growing coca in the first place) - jayscot, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Except that now that we are being taught that there is no creator and hence no meaning to life... drugs are about the only thing left to deal with the pain.
- raquel9e, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Not everyone needs a deity to bring meaning to their lives. I know my quality of life improved when I came to terms with the fact that it's okay to not believe in religion.
- jayrok, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Apparently, Rick James was quite correct. Cocaine is a helluva drug.
- shortstick, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I agree if they were to legalize pot for adults, it would be a diversion away from hard drugs, for those who are inclined to use something. It's not that dangerous, and people could use a laugh.
- anup1965, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Drugs are still legal, now they just have scientific names so we can pretend they aren't exactly the same thing the pusher in the alley offers!
- uziko, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1for medicinal purposes, not for recreational purposes
- rmmcclay, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Among the many reasons for drug prohibition is the simple fact that many of the remedies such as opium and cannabis tinctures kept the doctors away.
That the criminal-justice-detention system is extremely profitable is yet another. - sogangsta, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4The only REAL drug problem, is finding real good drugs.
- gkiltz, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0And if alll attitudes were legal, there wouldn't be an Attitude Problem either!
- sassip, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I have seen casualties of drugs in family and friends. It can be horrible. There are no easy answers. Some "addictive types" will use drugs to mitigate reality some to enhance it occasionally. In 1875, the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance prohibiting the smoking of opium in smoking-houses or "dens." It was passed when the rest of the country was accepting of drug usage. It seems that the reason was that the Chinese who were imported to work on the railroad smoked Opium. Soon white men and even women were smoking opium side by side with the Chinese, a life-style which was widely disapproved, thus the first anti-drug law in the US.
The Civil War helped raise the incidences of drug-addiction. In the Battle of Antietam, as many as 23,000 soldiers were killed and/or wounded "in one day" lots of pain there and no MASH units. In 2001, excessive alcohol use was responsible for approximately 75,000 preventable deaths (cdc.gov)
Alleviating human suffering, whether physical or psychological takes many forms, the simplest (not necessarily the best) is drugs. Last year 15 million antidepressant prescriptions written for children & teens. (www.antidepressantsfacts.com) It's a tough question that does not need a simple answer. - apphappy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0I think a major shift needs to happen in the US in the way we think about drugs and the people who use them. The "War on Drugs" has turned drug use into a moral issue as opposed to the public health issue it really is. I think illegal drugs should be legalized and controlled like any other pharmaceutical. Users need to be treated, not imprisoned.
- apphappy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0If you are going digg this comment down - I would at least like to know why.
- RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2When drugs were legal we also lynched people and Jim Crow laws were in effect. Things like the Tulsa and Rosewood massacres weren't unheard-of. When we started giving minorities more civil rights we came up with mechanisms that allowed us to put them in prison for very long minimum mandatory sentences. It's a way of discriminating against minorities without obviously discriminating against minorities. Trust me, if you have money you can get high and not go to jail. In California I can go get a prescription and buy some weed from a dispensary.
- NewGTGuy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2If 51% of a group of people (i.e. state congress) can raise there hand and make a law (e.i. wear a seat-belt, don't smoke pot, wear a bicycle helmet) you are no longer a citizen, you are a slave.
We have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and Property and as long as we don't infringe on someone else's rights we are not breaking the law. All this other ***** is an issue of political jurisdiction.- uziko, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1i don't think you get this whole "democracy" thing we have going on, and yes we are a democracy, not in the pure form but it's still a democracy
- NewGTGuy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1We live in a constitutional republic. Not a democracy. We have inalienable rights which basically state that we can do whatever we want as long as we don't infringe on the inalienable rights of others.
Stop getting your education from the federally sponsored brainwashing camps (schools).
- NewGTGuy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1We live in a constitutional republic. Not a democracy. We have inalienable rights which basically state that we can do whatever we want as long as we don't infringe on the inalienable rights of others.
- uziko, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1i don't think you get this whole "democracy" thing we have going on, and yes we are a democracy, not in the pure form but it's still a democracy
- soljerchim, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0"Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy heroin." ....again, and again, and again...
- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1And you could go into a brothel and "do" that 9 yo again and again ... and after she was a burned out heroin addicted whore by 20. laying in the street you didn't have to worry about giving her welfare payments . You could just sent her to an insane asylum. Is that REALLY better?
- Inquisition, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Let me start by saying that I didn't read every comment in this thread, so sorry if this has already been said.
I think that the OP is trying to relay the fact that, as a whole, our society was different back then. This atricle also demonstrates how, when something is forbidden, it is sought after more (human nature, I guess.) It kind of works like the use of alcohol in some European countries; when it is freely available to anyone as tall as the bar, it isn't romanticized, and therefore isn't sought after as some sort of "forbidden fruit." - soljerchim, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3also i have had many friends who smoked pot hardcore for years and when they stopped they suffered withdrawal symptoms like night sweats, trouble sleeping, and others. i'm not going to say pot is addictive, because it isn't, but after a certain point it does become more than just a "psychological dependency" and more a physiological one screwing with regular brain chemical production.
- Lothar121, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1That doesn't mean it should be illegal. Prohibition is worse.
- RationalXubrnce, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Well the crime that goes with it wasn't a problem but at one time 5% of the US population was addicted to opiates. I don't like the drug laws at all but lets not be naive enough to think all problems with drugs will magically disappear.
- plod, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Something worth noting is that when substances are made illegal they tend to exist in much stronger/concentrated doses because it's more cost efficient to move them around. During prohibition people made liquor and moonshine, not beer. If drugs were legalized I think their average potency would be reduced which may allow for more moderate consumption without people getting totally messed up.
- jessehadden, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Drugs are a problem because they tend to lead people to pursue less materialistic, more spiritual lives that encourage them to work less and live more. Drugs lead people to live subjectively-defined lives, rather than submitting themselves to the consensus of the collective. This tendency towards individuality and liberty must be curtailed. Propriety must be attended-to. Go Freedom USA!
- mistergoomba, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1in 50 years vicodin will be illegal.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
