Political Crossfire Forums

[Boneman]

This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

[Prole]

Interesting stuff.

Article wrote: After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis.
On what grounds do they make this claim? It seems to be entirely conjecture, or at least no more valid than the claim that alcohol causes aggression because of preexisting psychosis.

Boneman wrote: I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.
Heroin users are really only dangerous when they're trying to get heroin (or money for heroin); the drug itself makes people pretty passive. And marijuana users are generally much more passive than your average bear.

Also, you're only factoring in violence, when accidents that occur while using drugs are a big factor too when considering danger to other; whether intentional or unintentional, a threat is still a threat. Driving high certainly isn't safe. But then again, neither is driving drunk...

[ieatfood]

Boneman wrote:

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

or maybe its an argument that we need to ban alcohol

[Demonic Spoon]

lol. Yeah, that would work real well. We tried that before.



As to the OP...


http://Prohibitionist.justgotowned.com

[The Grandmaster]

ieatfood wrote:
or maybe its an argument that we need to ban alcohol

Ieatfood:
Is that really something you would want us to try to do? Is that what you really want?

Demonic Spoon wrote: lol. Yeah, that would work real well. We tried that before.

As to the OP...

http://Prohibitionist.justgotowned.com

Man, I love that new link floating around. I f***ing love it. :lol:
After I watched it again, I minimized the browser and just listened to the chant for like 10 minutes. Its just awesome. :lol:

[00timh]

Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk. Spare us your feeble attempts to proove that drugs should be legalized by taking certain sentences out of a report which Also show the exact opposite of what you are saying here. See look what I can do- (from the same report)

In the future, medications may reduce violence by reducing cocaine craving and by blocking the aggression-promoting effects of opiate withdrawal and alcohol consumption-

So cocaine produces violent effects too...

After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis.

And it also says about Alcohol...

Patterns of aggressive behavior and substance abuse often become intertwined starting in childhood. Early childhood aggression is a predictor of later heavy drinking, and the combination is associated with an above-average risk of adult violent behavior, especially among those who also abuse other psychoactive drugs.

So that would also indicate that violent tendencies are already there.
The grandaddy of all in this report is this...

Much of the evidence for specific links is suggestive rather than conclusive.

So basically, nothing is conclusive in this report.

[perdidochas]

Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.

[inmylineofsight]

man im zooted

[Saint Jimmy]

Of all the drugs i've ever had, i've only ever become aggressive when drunk, when i'm not quite drunk enough to puke and pass out, but drunk enough to walk shout and punch and headbutt stuff really hard..... it just depends on mood before you start drinking, who you're with, and whether you have violent mood swings anyway now and then...

[Selfish_Meme]

I think alcohol could definitely afford to be 'limited' probably by making it more expensive.

I also think other drugs could be made legal, just expensive, like marijuana and maybe ecstasy.

Some like heroin and cocaine are too addictive to be allowed in normal distributuion.

[slitedeviance]

perdidochas wrote: It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.

True, true.

Wander round Berlin (where 24 hour drinking is mandatory!) and you find wasted happy people wandering round in a daze, looking for the next spot to hit.

Take the same walk in my hometowm of Bristol (where 24 hour drinking is legal, but mostly unavailable) and you get plenty of 'tards smashing up the local 24 hour shop or Kebab van.

If people want these substances to become legal then responsibility must be taken for the effects these have societally.

I'm quite serious in my thinking that the day Mary Jane becomes legal in the UK, the economy will collapse. There would be no way I would turn up to work. no way I'd move off the sofa!

And Selfish_Meme, although Ecstasy is ridiculously cheap in the UK, skunk is damn expensive.

Hence why I am broke all the time...

[Boneman]

slitedeviance wrote: perdidochas wrote: It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.

True, true.

Wander round Berlin (where 24 hour drinking is mandatory!) and you find wasted happy people wandering round in a daze, looking for the next spot to hit.

Take the same walk in my hometowm of Bristol (where 24 hour drinking is legal, but mostly unavailable) and you get plenty of 'tards smashing up the local 24 hour shop or Kebab van.

If people want these substances to become legal then responsibility must be taken for the effects these have societally.

I'm quite serious in my thinking that the day Mary Jane becomes legal in the UK, the economy will collapse. There would be no way I would turn up to work. no way I'd move off the sofa!

And Selfish_Meme, although Ecstasy is ridiculously cheap in the UK, skunk is damn expensive.

Hence why I am broke all the time...
How does the legality of marijuana effect how often you use it though?

[00timh]

slitedeviance wrote: Wander round Berlin (where 24 hour drinking is mandatory!) and you find wasted happy people wandering round in a daze, looking for the next spot to hit.

I was stationed in Germany for 3 years and you have no idea what you are talking about.

[The Grandmaster]

Selfish_Meme wrote: I think alcohol could definitely afford to be 'limited' probably by making it more expensive.

I also think other drugs could be made legal, just expensive, like marijuana and maybe ecstasy.

Some like heroin and cocaine are too addictive to be allowed in normal distributuion.

Naw..I would say legalize cocain before herion. I think herion is definately supposed to be more addictive than cocain.
But as I understand it, cocain is not addictive at all to some people, if used in moderation.

[Sukoi]

Duplicate post...

[Sukoi]

perdidochas wrote: Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like why cannabis was made illegal in the first place. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger?

Quote: "In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
Phaleese... Responsible cannabis users are some of the most non-violent people on the planet and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families. Please, all of you prohibitionists, quit your ADDICTION to prohibition as it is brainwashing you and you may never recover...

[Lumina]

Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

What about PCP and 'roids?

[slitedeviance]

00timh wrote: I was stationed in Germany for 3 years and you have no idea what you are talking about.

No you're absolutely right. I guess having been there three times in the last year (once for the world cup, and that was excellent) would mean I don't know what I was talking about.

How long since you were stationed there?

[slitedeviance]

Boneman wrote: How does the legality of marijuana effect how often you use it though?

Several reasons:

Availability: To get some green, I have to make a phonecall (which will get through 50% of the time) place the order, wait for a phonecall back and hope they turn up. If it was available in Tescos I could pick it up with my dinner.

Price: Over in the UK (and especially with the recent arrests they've made) MJ is massively expensive. Whilst there would be a tax on top of the price, competition between stores for sales would bring the price down, in line with tobacco / alcohol.

Enviroment: If it was legal, I could sit in the middle of my town center with a spliff, enjoying the beautiful city I live in. I'd smoke on my way to work, on my lunchbreaks and after work. I'd spend summer blitzed and red eyed stumbling round in a haze. As it is, I smoke it when I'm at home, and on occaision in a park, hidden away.

[perdidochas]

Sukoi wrote: perdidochas wrote: Boneman wrote: This comes from a US Dept. of Justice report into links between drugs and violence.

Quote: Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms.

The full report can be read here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/psycviol.htm

I find this report interesting because it seems to indicate that a drunk is far more dangerous and aggressive than a pot head or even a heroin addict. This seems to pretty much destroy the prohibitionist argument that someone under the influence of illegal drugs is more dangerous to others than a drunk.

It's all cultural. In Germany, for instance, drunkenness isn't as associated with violence than it is in America. The name "assasin" comes from the word "hashish." THey used hashish, a cannabis product, to help psyche them up for killing. That is different culturally than the "peace love, etc." that we associate with pot.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like why cannabis was made illegal in the first place. Ever heard of Harry Anslinger?

I was actually criticizing the OP for demonizing alcohol, the same way marijuana was demonized. Personally, I think it's cultural. Our culture associates marijuana with peacefulness. Most pot smokers are peaceful. Our culture is mixed in terms of associations of alcohol--some are peaceful, others are aggressive. Hence, we have both associations. I'm of German descent, primarily. When I drink, I get happy, and affectionate, and I joke around a lot (and think I can dance). When my father drinks, he gets morose and depressed (thankfully, that part of his Scotch-Irish genes didn't pass to me, I got my mother's German alcohol genes). Please read for comprehension, not merely defending your drug of choice. My whole point was that different cultures cause different reactions to intoxicants. I would imagine that potsmoking with the Hell's Angels would be a different experience than potsmoking at the vegetarian commune, for that reason.



Sukoi wrote: Quote: "In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
Phaleese... Responsible cannabis users are some of the most non-violent people on the planet and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families. Please, all of you prohibitionists, quit your ADDICTION to prohibition as it is brainwashing you and you may never recover...

I was actually criticizing the OP for his anti-alcohol stance--it's hypocritical to demonize one drug, while advocating another. In terms of prohibition, it's a failed experiment (both in alcohol and marijuana). I'm still for prohibition of harder drugs (i.e. cocaine derivatives, most hallucinogens, and narcotics), but that is because of their greater risk of long term side effects.

Responsible alcohol users are also some of the most non-violent people on the planet, and most are just that, RESPONSIBLE people, who, BTW, hold down jobs and support their families.