Drugs - your opinion?

AppLeo said:

I don't have leadership qualities and I don't know anything. Just please forget everything I said.

I didn't realize what I was saying was stupid.

Click to expand...

Hey, you don't need to go the other way and have NO opinion :/ just not wanting people dead innit

Neptunian Rainbow said:

However, it is a really potent drug for some people. I myself am totally against using drugs since I want to dive deep within myself and process my emotions and I want to challenge and overcome my fears instead of escaping from life.

Tbh I would not even be able to use drugs if I would want to. I have Mars and Venus square Neptune and Neptune conjunct my ascendant. I have tried weed once in my life since I wanted to understand why people use it. I became VERY psychotic, the other people who used the same substance felt relaxed and nothing more. Within a few hours I returned back to normal but I did feel paranoid for a few months afterwards. That kind of paranoia is something that I have never experienced before.

The thing is that if some people want to be irresponsible, loose control and live in a fog, other people will have to take care of them and deal with the mess they cause for themselves and others.

Click to expand...

I know a pisces sun, who has neptune in the 4th square sun, merc and venus. Had the same thing happen when he was in his late teens. He smoked pot and went psychotic and blacked out, has no memory of what happened. The people he was with never wanted anything to do with him anymore because of how scary he was. He never touched drugs after that experience.

I have neptune in the 6th, opposite venus, inconjunct sun, trine merc. I've never touched a drug, and really don't understand why anyone would want to lose control over their faculties or person, isn't life difficult enough? Seriously.

I think anyone that has neptune in hard aspect to the luminaries, should avoid drugs and alcohol altogether, the potential for addiction and death caused by drugs is too high.

Anyone that has Mercury as ruler of their sun or ascendant and it's in aspect to Saturn, should avoid smoking at all costs. Also if Saturn is in the 3rd, smoking will likely kill you. Lungs are too susceptible.


Lastly, while drugs and getting drunk may seem "cool" in your teens and early 20s. Once you hit your 30s and beyond, if you are still participating in such activities the only thing you will be considered is a Loser, by almost everyone. Severe depression will also set in when everyone you know will seem to have stable careers, homes and families of their own. By that point you now have a serious battle with addiction on your hands with slim chances of breaking.

sounds dandy.

Legalizing addictive substances does.... exactly what for our children? What message does it send them? That their elders' desire to get high-- as an antidote to boredom (apparently, David)-- is far more important than the child's right to a safe and supportive home? Are we a society that hates its children?

Legalization has its arguments in its favour, and I think I'm aware of most of them, but what it doesn't address is the need to curtail drug addiction in the first place; and who besides the addict gets truly hurt. For starters, little kids in foster care, and parents of dead teenagers.

Lest anyone want a different kind of history lesson, a number of addictive drugs were perfectly legal in the US in the 19th century. A common one was morphine to numb the pain of childbirth. I highly recommend that history fans see the film A Long Day's Journey Into Night based on the Eugene O'Neill play. The playright's own mother became addicted to morphine as a result of her being given morphine during and after his birth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uVwAPVfDnI

Does anyone know how many kazillions of your hard-earned tax dollars go to rehab for people who cannot afford a private clinic-- and then lapse time and again once they are back in the situation where they got addicted in the first place? Or the cost of special needs babies born as addicts because their pregnant mothers couldn't get clean?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/health/kentucky-overdoses/

http://www.kentucky.com/news/special-reports/fifty-years-of-night/article44456310.html

(I also know the alcohol argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.)

At the least, we need a "Good Samaritan law" so that drug users will call 911 when someone overdoses. But this is different than full fledged legalization.

If legalization were entirely the solution, the oxycontin epidemic would never have happened. Families are being destroyed over a prescription drug that is entirely legal (although it is on the street, as well.) When addicts can't get anymore they turn to heroin-- previously addicted.

It gets worse. A lot of addicts-- who started out with perfectly legal pain killers prescribed by their family doctor-- will turn to just about anything to either get another prescription from another doctor-- or find them on the street.

These people "forget" to eat and they can become seriously malnourished. Some of them turn to theft or prostitution-- which at this point that an underaged girl is an addict, is hardly a "victimless crime." Poor mothers would trade their food stamps for pills. Where heroin is $10 a bag, it's a much cheaper high than the perfectly legal OxyContin.

I just hope young people don't think about making drugs seem cool or sophisticated.

No, it's not about The Man, either. He'd make plenty off money off your addictions, if he could; just as he's done with OxyContin, alcohol and tobacco.

Just google "meth effects' images-- you'll see a series of before and after photos. Then you can learn what this stuff does to people's skin and teeth.

They call getting high getting "wrecked" for a reason.

References available upon request.

waybread said:

It gets worse.

A lot of addicts

-- who started out with perfectly legal pain killers

prescribed by their family doctor--

will turn to just about anything
to either get another prescription from another doctor
-- or find them on the street.

Click to expand...

waybread said:

It gets worse. A lot of addicts-- who started out with perfectly legal pain killers prescribed by their family doctor-- will turn to just about anything to either get another prescription from another doctor-- or find them on the street.

These people "forget" to eat and they can become seriously malnourished. Some of them turn to theft or prostitution-- which at this point that an underaged girl is an addict, is hardly a "victimless crime." Poor mothers would trade their food stamps for pills. Where heroin is $10 a bag, it's a much cheaper high than the perfectly legal OxyContin.

I just hope young people don't think about making drugs seem cool or sophisticated.

No, it's not about The Man, either. He'd make plenty off money off your addictions, if he could; just as he's done with OxyContin, alcohol and tobacco.

Just google "meth effects' images-- you'll see a series of before and after photos. Then you can learn what this stuff does to people's skin and teeth.

They call getting high getting "wrecked" for a reason.

References available upon request.

Click to expand...

The vast, vast majority of people who use painkillers never become addicted to them. That's fact.

But because of the current propaganda war, chronic pain patients are being hung out to dry. No drugs for many - they might become 'addicts' regardless of their history.

The government's function is NOT to protect citizens from themselves. How is our new prohibitionist society helping? Do you know that prohibition when it's been tried in the past didn't help, and lots of people died or became very ill from things like street alcohol? That that was how organised crime got a foothold in America?

Why do you think it's a good idea to do more of the same thing that didn't work, made things worse, and had all sorts of bad unintended consequences?

*

Just because pills are prescribed by a doctor
and administered by a pharmacy
that doesn’t mean they are safe for everyone

As prescription numbers continue to rise
the chance for prescription drug abuse rises as well.

Learn about the most addictive prescription drugs
including Adderall, Xanax, Codeine, amphetamines, and more.
begin learning about specific drugs that are commonly misused.

THE MOST ADDICTIVE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ON THE MARKET
http://www.healthline.com/health/addiction/addictive-prescription-drugs#Overview1

Personally I despise drugs, and take a harsh stance against them.

I do not follow the argument that they should be legalised to curv the drug traffick. Drug traffick should be crushed and destroyed.

To me the problem with drugs is that they affect your behaviour, and thus are not a "personal" problem. A person that is high can't interact with others in a normal way, thus having someone being high affects everyone around him.

Dirius said:

Personally I despise drugs, and take a harsh stance against them.

I do not follow the argument that they should be legalised to curv the drug traffick. Drug traffick should be crushed and destroyed.

To me the problem with drugs is that they affect your behaviour, and thus are not a "personal" problem. A person that is high can't interact with others in a normal way, thus having someone being high affects everyone around him.

Click to expand...

The problem with that, Dirius, is that we've been trying to do that for fifty years. It hasn't worked. It's made the whole mess worse.

Oddity said:

The problem with that, Dirius, is that we've been trying to do that for fifty years. It hasn't worked. It's made the whole mess worse.

Click to expand...

Well it depends on the country.

My country has "been doing that", but it really hasn't.

I don't think it has made it worse. The war on drugs did not expand their use. The counter-culture of the late 60's did that, which set the roots for the heavy abuse of hard drugs in the 70's and so on.

What made the drug problem worse is people defending them. Arists, politicians, etc. The moment we allowed society to tell our kids that using drugs was "ok" is the moment it spiraled out of control.

My parents told me since I was a kid that:"drugs are bad, don't use them, you will end up a homeless junky with no future, etc". ---- and I don't use drugs, not even recreational.

I do, however, see some merits in legalising certain drugs, although I personally would love to see them burned. But not every society is ready for that. My country isn't ready for that.

Key there, Dirius. Your parents told you. And that's how it should be. Parents should raise their kids. We shouldn't be looking to governments to protect us from ourselves in lieu of that. When we do that, we're saying that civil liberties, control over one's own person, is bad, and must be taken away from us. This is so profoundly wrong, except perhaps to those who have an implicit trust in the virtue of government, who believe that it is wiser and better than we are. But it's not. Government has no business in most private spheres.

I live in one of the overdose capitals of the world. The law doesn't seem to be helping much. Harm reduction, however, works.

Oddity said:

The vast, vast majority of people who use painkillers never become addicted to them. That's fact.

But because of the current propaganda war, chronic pain patients are being hung out to dry. No drugs for many - they might become 'addicts' regardless of their history.

The government's function is NOT to protect citizens from themselves. How is our new prohibitionist society helping? Do you know that prohibition when it's been tried in the past didn't help, and lots of people died or became very ill from things like street alcohol? That that was how organised crime got a foothold in America?

Why do you think it's a good idea to do more of the same thing that didn't work, made things worse, and had all sorts of bad unintended consequences?

Click to expand...

Oddity, please do not trot out the old trope about Prohibition in the 1920s. History does not repeat itself.

You have not addressed my points about children.

The government very much protects citizens from themselves-- and from others. Were this not the case, we could abolish speed limits on highways, most crimes, and just forget about police protection.

If someone without independent wealth chooses an unsafe course of action and needs major medical care as a result, guess who pays for them? You and I do. If s/he has little kids getting harmed or winding up in foster care, we support them, as well.

Chronic pain patients are given drugs of various sorts. For some, psychologists working with pain management techniques are effective.

But don't lecture me: with moderate arthritis and bad feet, I live with chronic pain. I refuse to take prescription pain killers for it.

Organized crime in the US pre-dated Prohibition. (Tammany Hall?)

Don't get me started on white collar crime in this country. You don't need the Mafia to explain how ordinary people get cheated, threatened, and bilked.

That's great for you, Waybread. I hope that if your arthritis gets worse, or if something else happens, that Canada's chill effect has eased up a bit, so that if you need pain killers, you can get them.

You prefer that your taxes don't go to other people's medical care. I guess you like them going to more police, more armies, more prisons. Which is okay, I won't change your mind on this.

If the state wanted to 'protect' us from drugs, might they regulate things like production, instead, to make sure that a drug is what it's sold as? Or should we keep continuing the spiral of drug wars, death, and harm?

Prohibition is not the answer. Unless, of course, it's all working well as is. Not seeing that where I live.

Oddity said:

Key there, Dirius. Your parents told you. And that's how it should be. Parents should raise their kids. We shouldn't be looking to governments to protect us from ourselves in lieu of that. When we do that, we're saying that civil liberties, control over one's own person, is bad, and must be taken away from us. This is so profoundly wrong, except perhaps to those who have an implicit trust in the virtue of government, who believe that it is wiser and better than we are. But it's not. Government has no business in most private spheres.

I live in one of the overdose capitals of the world. The law doesn't seem to be helping much. Harm reduction, however, works.

Click to expand...

I have a different view, because that would create more recovering junkies, which isn't a good thing. Being a recovery addict is hard, I know a couple of individuals, and its terrible.

Yes I agree that legislation can help people, its just that to me we have to prevent it, rather than cure it.

What I care is that innocent people don't die from an overdosed driver running over by-standers.

I can't condone the libertarian approach on drugs because people under the influence are not in control of their own thoughts, body or behaviour, and thus can't be treated as "responsible" individuals while its effects lasts. I mean, we do stop drunk drivers, because they endanger others. So we kind of ignore personal liberties when one can't function under the banner of reason.

I know I'm a bit hard on the subject, and I don't say my point is the better one. Perhaps legalising is best, and its going to happen anyway.

EDIT: I know I'm kind of a weird individual that sometimes seems to bend to the left, and then on the right . My friends alwys tell me I'm a political contradiction lol.

Dirius said:

I have a different view, because that would create more recovering junkies, which isn't a good thing. Being a recovery addict is hard, I know a couple of individuals, and its terrible.

Yes I agree that legislation can help people, its just that to me we have to prevent it, rather than cure it.

What I care is that innocent people don't die from an overdosed driver running over by-standers.

I can't condone the libertarian approach on drugs because people under the influence are not in control of their own thoughts, body or behaviour, and thus can't be treated as "responsible" individuals while its effects lasts. I mean, we do stop drunk drivers, because they endanger others. So we kind of ignore personal liberties when one can't function under the banner of reason.

I know I'm a bit hard on the subject, and I don't say my point is the better one. Perhaps legalising is best, and its going to happen anyway.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm fine with laws against driving while intoxicated. If you're doing that, you're putting other people at real risk, which you don't get to do. So don't take it that that's what I want. I don't.

But I do believe that adults are competent to decide what they put in their own bodies, and that it's parents who should raise their children and not the state.

If you want to hurt yourself, you can. I can't stop you. If you're unaware of the harm, I can advise you of it and hope you won't do it, but that's about as far as I can rightly go. The government - it really can't stop you either, without going fascist on us, and in this situation - causing more harm than it's alleviating.

Oddity said:

Hey, I'm fine with laws against driving while intoxicated. If you're doing that, you're putting other people at real risk, which you don't get to do. So don't take it that that's what I want. I don't.

Click to expand...

I know, I just used it as an example. I mean we do allow tobacco and alcohol, which are already dangerous drugs in our society. I'm a smoker myself, and regardless of trying to quit for years, the addiction always seems to come back.

The problem is that once the addiction sets in, is there for life, and its always seductive to start over. And as we know, life is hard, and that little bit of temporal relief drugs provide is always appealing.

The reason I partake on the stance against drugs, is to prevent individuals from getting hooked up in the first place. To me seems best.

I do think that anyone with a drug problem should be helped, and we do need to invest more money in helping people recover.

Oddity said:

But I do believe that adults are competent to decide what they put in their own bodies, and that it's parents who should raise their children and not the state.

If you want to hurt yourself, you can. I can't stop you. If you're unaware of the harm, I can advise you of it and hope you won't do it, but that's about as far as I can rightly go. The government - it really can't stop you either, without going fascist on us, and in this situation - causing more harm than it's alleviating.

Click to expand...

Well but again, the state also does get involved. Children living upon dire conditions are taken away form their parents, and we do get involved on potential suicidal patients. We do breach personal liberties all the time.

And in this case we aren't really fighting personal liberties. I don't say we should jail-up some random guy smoking pot in a party. I think we should crush the guys that are selling it to him.

To me the reason that the war on drug fails, is cause society doesn't help on it. Most people use drugs. Most people don't help prevent it. Most role models promote drug use. Its society who fails at it.

Oddity said:

That's great for you, Waybread. I hope that if your arthritis gets worse, or if something else happens, that Canada's chill effect has eased up a bit, so that if you need pain killers, you can get them.

You prefer that your taxes don't go to other people's medical care. I guess you like them going to more police, more armies, more prisons. Which is okay, I won't change your mind on this.

If the state wanted to 'protect' us from drugs, might they regulate things like production, instead, to make sure that a drug is what it's sold as? Or should we keep continuing the spiral of drug wars, death, and harm?

Prohibition is not the answer. Unless, of course, it's all working well as is. Not seeing that where I live.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Oddity. I've had osteoarthritis in my knees and very flat, pronated feet for about 20 years. If I don't wear my serious orthotics I limp and get a lot of foot pain. I have had a knee joint replacement. I have osteoporosis, which means that my bones are turning into chalk. Recently the arthritis seems to be showing up in my hips and some finger joints. Because of the joint pain, I don't sleep well. But so far I have refused to take prescription sleep aids or pain killers.

I am fine with paying my fair share of taxes-- in two countries-- and notably, for little kids. But I simply want everyone to understand that there are costs associated with drug abuse that other people pick up.

Oddity, you have a bad habit of putting words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe. How would you feel if I seriously misrepresented your words?

Yes, we are our brother's keeper. If a man chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, hits his head on the pavement, and is permanently, severely brain-damaged, someone else is covering his medical costs and life-long care. And maybe supporting his children.

The American insatiable appetite for drugs has turned several Latin American regions into virtual narco states. The problem is well beyond your purview. Some plant-based drugs don't grow in cool climates. Some of them are simply manufactured in other countries and smuggled in.

Legalizing drugs isn't going to stop the American (and Canadian) appetite for the ever-better high.

But what can be done is to decriminalize certain aspects of drug use.

Decriminalising would be a step. Though I guess most folks think the current system of drug war is working well? That without all the corruption, murders, and current illegal situation things would be worse?

I truly don't understand that. Presumably you are aware, since you mentioned it, of the cost of the war on drugs in human terms, like what it's done in Mexico. That's all acceptable collateral damage?

Again, I don't get it. It's not working. It's hurting people, it's encouraging violent crime, and corrupt governments are utterly complicit.

I don't see an end to prohibition as making this a worse situation.