[itistoday]

There's an interesting article on CNN that discusses the plans of a few crack-pot scientists to stop cocaine trafficking from Columbia using environmental warfare:

BOGOTA, Colombia -- Thousands of hungry moths may hold the key to eradicating cocaine production, Colombian scientists have said, but critics say the idea could open the way for "ecological mischief."

The researchers' plan involves breeding Eloria Noyesi moths in laboratories, then packing them up and dispatching them to the coca-producing areas of Colombia.

Once there, the moths, native to the Andean region of South America, would leap straight onto the nearest coca plant and lay their eggs on their leaves.

A week or so later, caterpillars would crawl out and eat the leaves, destroying the plant.

More than 100 eggs could be laid by each moth each month, Gonzalo Andrade, a biology professor with Colombia's Universidad Nacional, said.

He said it could be a natural way to eradicate the coca plants.

"It would be like fumigating the crops with moths," he said.
... (click above link to read more)...

Yes, why don't we attempt this little experiment and potentially destroy whatever ecosystem is currently in place in Columbia because of our own personal insecurities over a frivolous substance that isn't socially acceptable. What scares me most is that according to CNN's "Quickvote" thing, 42% of these online voters approve of this plan.

There has to be a better alternative for the Columbians. After all, you don't see very many cocaine farms in the United States, but we didn't declare jihad on our environment to accomplish this.

[ghporter]

The majority of coca growing in Columbia is not native to where it is; it's planted there and cultivated specifically for drug production. And using moths instead of poisons will do far less damage to the environment too. Would you rather have this done by releasing moths into the environment, or by flying airplanes over the fields and spraying horrendous poisons on EVERYTHING? They're going to try to kill the coca, whether you like it or not. At least moths that are nearly native to that area are less horrible to everything else around the plants than the alternative.

I don't think "crackpot" is the right word here at all. And I would not call cocaine use in the U.S. a "frivolous" concern, either. The drug industry uses crack to effectively enslave a huge number of people in this country every year. Those adicts (and yes it IS addictive) become money collectors for the drug pushers, turning their backs on careers and families, and turning to various levels and types of crime, just to get the money to buy crack. My sister-in-law's husband has destroyed their family with his crack addiction, not to mention the huge monitary and material costs he's incurred for them with his crack use.

It is too late to "control demand" in the U.S. as a means to reduce the drug trade; we need to address both ends of the problem. Poor Columbian farmers who are pressured-either economically or by threat of force-to grow coca are victimized just as much as my sister-in-law.

[The Godfather]

I am cool with the moth. Colombian farmers should be growing food, not drugs. There is a food shortage in Colombia

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The majority of coca growing in Columbia is not native to where it is; it's planted there and cultivated specifically for drug production. And using moths instead of poisons will do far less damage to the environment too. Would you rather have this done by releasing moths into the environment, or by flying airplanes over the fields and spraying horrendous poisons on EVERYTHING? They're going to try to kill the coca, whether you like it or not. At least moths that are nearly native to that area are less horrible to everything else around the plants than the alternative.

I would condemn both practices. There's no reason to spray poisons or introduce these moths. A better solution would be to provide better education and better jobs to the farmers, so that they don't have to grow it. A better solution would be to police the area better and get rid of the drug cartels.

I don't think "crackpot" is the right word here at all. And I would not call cocaine use in the U.S. a "frivolous" concern, either. The drug industry uses crack to effectively enslave a huge number of people in this country every year. Those adicts (and yes it IS addictive) become money collectors for the drug pushers, turning their backs on careers and families, and turning to various levels and types of crime, just to get the money to buy crack. My sister-in-law's husband has destroyed their family with his crack addiction, not to mention the huge monitary and material costs he's incurred for them with his crack use.

Cocaine is a very addictive drug, I'm not denying that. But nicotine is even more addictive than it, yet it is perfectly legal in the United States. Again, you are missing the better alternative. What we should do here in the United States is legalize cocaine and have the government control it; not the crime lords of Columbia. If this was done, Columbia would no longer be a problem, and nor would money. The price for cocaine would likely drop, and the purity would be regulated. When you buy a pack of cigarettes, or go out to the liquor store to grab a bottle of Vodka, you know exactly how much of the drug is in it. With illegal drugs today we do not know this. A line could be very pure, or it could be half baking soda. This makes it very hard for the user to judge how much he or she should have.

Then you follow up the legalization of cocaine (of course regulated just like cigarettes, with licenses to sell) with better education. The government would use the billions of dollars collected from taxing cocaine to create better education and drug awareness programs that actually work. The money from this could be used for a variety of other benefitial things like research to help those addicted to coke.

It is too late to "control demand" in the U.S. as a means to reduce the drug trade; we need to address both ends of the problem. Poor Columbian farmers who are pressured-either economically or by threat of force-to grow coca are victimized just as much as my sister-in-law.

It is never too late to control the demand as I said. Today the government does not control the supply of cocaine; Columbia does. If you legalize it, suddenly all your problems disappear.

One final thing that you should realize is that you cannot blaim cocaine for your sister-in-law's husband's addiction. Sure, it's partially responsible because it is an addicting substance, but the bulk of the blaim rests on both his shoulder's, and the government's. Had he been properly educated about the substance, he could have made the right decision. There is no drug to my knowledge that "hooks" you the first time you try it. To become addicted to cocaine means allowing yourself to become addicted.

Edit: Today all that children are taught about cocaine in schools is that "it is very bad, don't do it!" Their reaction to such idiotic statements should be obvious. Children should be taught in biology exactly how these drugs work, why you become addicted, and where side-effects come from. If you eliminate the alluring mystery potential that illegal drugs have, you eliminate the craving for them.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

frivolous substance

You've obviously have never met many crack heads.

[invisibleX]

Sounds great. Can't see a single flaw at all.



I'm just curious though: what is supposed to eat the moths?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Sounds great. Can't see a single flaw at all.



I'm just curious though: what is supposed to eat the moths?

Hah! This really reminds me of that Simpson's episode. You guys remember which one I'm talking about?

[SVass]

Who is accepting financial liability for "accidental" damage caused by these moths? What if they also destroy more valuable property? Who will pay? sam

[The Godfather]

Zimphire: your quote is incorrect.

Everyone else: the South American country in discussion is spelled C-O-L-O-M-B-I-A.

The Colombian farmers know that they are doing wrong by selling coca. I don't know what's keeping their government from appropriating Escobar's lands and re-hiring the farmers to grow food.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I would condemn both practices. ... Cocaine is a very addictive drug, I'm not denying that. But nicotine is even more addictive than it, yet it is perfectly legal in the United States. ... It is never too late to control the demand as I said. Today the government does not control the supply of cocaine; Columbia does. If you legalize it, suddenly all your problems disappear. ... One final thing that you should realize is that you cannot blaim cocaine for your sister-in-law's husband's addiction.

The fact that the production and distribution of cocaine is controlled and manipulated by people who murder, extort, and enslave millions of people makes it much different from nicotine.

At least tobacco is grown and marketed out in the open, and I have yet to hear of anyone killing or robbing for the money to buy a pack of smokes! Colombia does NOT control cocaine-the cartels control it. The government there is far too weak to be able to effectively control the cartels, and until and unless they can manage that control the cartels will continue to do as they want. That includes killing family members of farmers who refuse to grow coca.

Further, the immediate and drastic effects of cocaine make it a poor choice for legalization. There is no LEGITIMATE use for coke except for recreation, and there are far better ways to have fun than to corrode your sinuses, set your circulatory system up for shock and failure, and establish a serious addiction whose effects are far more drastic than the effects of nicotine.

I don't blame cocaine for my sister-in-laws's husband's problems, I blame him and the scumbag who sold him his first rock. It would be like blaming Custer's death on arrows, when he died (along with all of his men) because he was stupid and brash. No, I blame the availability of cocaine and the people who make it available for this problem, along with the guy for being soft enough in the head to think that either he was too strong for crack to control him (HA!) or that any drug would make his problems go away.

Godfather, sorry about the spelling error. You are 100% correct, and I have spelled the name correctly in this post.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Hah! This really reminds me of that Simpson's episode. You guys remember which one I'm talking about?

where bart finds the lizards and they breed and they use the pigeons to get rid of the lizards?
something like that.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The fact that the production and distribution of cocaine is controlled and manipulated by people who murder, extort, and enslave millions of people makes it much different from nicotine.

At least tobacco is grown and marketed out in the open, and I have yet to hear of anyone killing or robbing for the money to buy a pack of smokes! Colombia does NOT control cocaine-the cartels control it. The government there is far too weak to be able to effectively control the cartels, and until and unless they can manage that control the cartels will continue to do as they want. That includes killing family members of farmers who refuse to grow coca.

Perhaps you misread or misunderstood my post... I'll try again: If the United States government legalizes cocaine, then you won't have any of that. No murder, no enslavement, etc. It will be grown here in the good ol' US of A just like tobacco is.

Further, the immediate and drastic effects of cocaine make it a poor choice for legalization. There is no LEGITIMATE use for coke except for recreation, and there are far better ways to have fun than to corrode your sinuses, set your circulatory system up for shock and failure, and establish a serious addiction whose effects are far more drastic than the effects of nicotine.

WTF? And what are the "legitimate" uses for alcohol? What are the legitimate uses for tobacco? "except for recreation"? Cigarettes are just as bad as coke, and are in some ways even worse. You have no argument here.

I don't blame cocaine for my sister-in-laws's husband's problems, I blame him and the scumbag who sold him his first rock. It would be like blaming Custer's death on arrows, when he died (along with all of his men) because he was stupid and brash. No, I blame the availability of cocaine and the people who make it available for this problem, along with the guy for being soft enough in the head to think that either he was too strong for crack to control him (HA!) or that any drug would make his problems go away.

Blaiming a drugs availability is the same as blaiming the drug. The blaim rests on his and the government's shoulders.

[Zimphire]

Making cocaine legal wont stop the problems associated with it.

Sorry.

Alcohol is legal, and it's problems still exists.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Making cocaine legal wont stop the problems associated with it.

Sorry.

Alcohol is legal, and it's problems still exists.

Oh really? I haven't seen mob bosses shooting up the streets for a while now... Hmm.. I guess you wouldn't remember something before you were born, but that's why you should've been paying attention in your history class.

[ghporter]

I disagree with the proposition that at this time U.S. legalization of cocaine would be either practical or effective. This may have been a possibility in the 1970s, but as early as the 1980s the drug cartels were too much in control to make it work. Further, if you examine the physiological reactions a person experiences when using cocaine, versus when they use alcohol, you'll see that there's a major difference-the systemic results of cocaine are far more drastic and wide-ranging than any other "recreational drug" you mention.

I'm not saying that either alcohol or nicotine are "good" per se, just that they don't hold a candle to the powerful and exceptionally negative effects of cocaine. Additionally, since the government is (slowly) moving toward a position that nicotine is something that needs control, it seems unlikely that any move to legalize a drug that has become the personal demon of so many people and has been the vehicle for so many enormously bad things (from crackheads killing for a rock to the oppression of so many farmers in Colombia) would make much progress. Any advocates for such a move would likely be seen as interested only in their own financial advantage from the controlled availability of the drug. Politically it's just not a viable proposition.

I don't say that the husband is blameless, but the government certainly didn't force farmers to grow coca instead of corn, didn't induce couriers to swallow a dozen latex-coated ingots of coke so bring it into the U.S. and crap it out later, didn't cause the lab in the States to reduce the coke to crack, and didn't force the scumbag dealer to sell the stuff.

It is rampant and uncontrolled greed that was the cause of those actions, greed of a sort and magnitude that makes the robber barrons of the late 19th and early 20th century look like Mother Theresa. Further, most of those robber barrons saw the negative effects of their actions and tried to make ammends by becoming philanthropists of the highest order. Do the Escobars do anything like that? No. (Some cocaine millionaires helped their own villages for a bit, but they degenerated into local despots who did more harm than they ever did good.) They can make money off their drug slaves so they do what they do, and ignore the well known and widespread results of their actions. I personally hope that they all rot in hell for what they do.

Could their monitary inducements be reduced by legalization? Perhaps. But until their power base, both here and in Colombia is reduced and their uncontrolled influence on so many other people, most of whom are innocent victims of the drug trade, then they will continue to be a menace to humanity.

[macintologist]

Aren't there secret elements of the US Government that depend on these drug sales in Columbia to fund their Black Ops?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Oh really? I haven't seen mob bosses shooting up the streets for a while now... Hmm.. I guess you wouldn't remember something before you were born, but that's why you should've been paying attention in your history class.

its when did I specify what problems I was talking about? Nice knee-jerk there.

I am talking about the abuse, the physical problems, the drunk driving, the people STEALING, yes STEALING to support their alcohol habit.

This STILL goes on even though it's legal.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Aren't there secret elements of the US Government that depend on these drug sales in Columbia to fund their Black Ops?

That's the Canadian government. You have the two confused. Easy to do really.

[Zimphire]

Kilbey do you really expect us to believe Canada has "Black Ops" ?

[Azzgunther]

When the issue of legalization comes up, you have to acknowledge that the current laws against drugs are not keeping them out of the hands of those who would use them. Addicts will be addicts, and they have a genetic basis for their affliction. They find drugs, however they can get them.

Is the issue really about drug-users, then, or something else? Put another way: would you have alcohol and nicotine banned in the U.S. just as cocaine and marijuana are? It seems to me that this nation is blindly optimistic about the effects that a drug war and laws are having to control drug use. It is not working. Our nation has more people in prison, both grossly and proportionally to population, than any other. It costs approx. $35,000 for EVERY prisoner to spend a year in the joint. This is not working. Perhaps it is time to get off the soapbox and face the reality that proper education and tolerance are the course of action that will lead to the least harm. As I said earlier, drug users will use drugs. It cannot be stopped. Start thinking of ways that we can make it the least destructive to society. Look for ways to make it the least harmful to addicts. Start thinking of ways that we can keep the most people from using in the first place.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Kilbey do you really expect us to believe Canada has "Black Ops" ?

Good one!

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

Our nation has more people in prison, both grossly and proportionally to population, than any other. It costs approx. $35,000 for EVERY prisoner to spend a year in the joint. This is not working.

It may be a reflection of the fact that the police is not as effective in other countries.
How do you come up with the $35K/year figure. Those jails must be in really nice downtown neighborhoods

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

its when did I specify what problems I was talking about? Nice knee-jerk there.

I am talking about the abuse, the physical problems, the drunk driving, the people STEALING, yes STEALING to support their alcohol habit.

This STILL goes on even though it's legal.

Don't you think I knew what you were referring to? And boy, you really are an idiot if you think alcohol is the problem behind any of those problems you mentioned. I will attempt to explain this to you in terms even your fanatically religious ass can understand:

1) Drunk driving, stealing, etc, will still occur whether or not you make alcohol illegal.
2) Drunk driving, stealing, etc is not primarily caused by alcohol. It is caused by something that you are severly suffering from, and that is stupidity.
3) Making it illegal will only cause MORE problems in ADDITION to those we already have. Again, refer to that link I gave you (prohibition).

Smart people don't drink and drive. No matter what you do to alcohol, we will always have stupid people. So the solution is to limit their numbers, not the number of drinks they can buy.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

When the issue of legalization comes up, you have to acknowledge that the current laws against drugs are not keeping them out of the hands of those who would use them. Addicts will be addicts, and they have a genetic basis for their affliction. They find drugs, however they can get them.

Is the issue really about drug-users, then, or something else? Put another way: would you have alcohol and nicotine banned in the U.S. just as cocaine and marijuana are? It seems to me that this nation is blindly optimistic about the effects that a drug war and laws are having to control drug use. It is not working. Our nation has more people in prison, both grossly and proportionally to population, than any other. It costs approx. $35,000 for EVERY prisoner to spend a year in the joint. This is not working. Perhaps it is time to get off the soapbox and face the reality that proper education and tolerance are the course of action that will lead to the least harm. As I said earlier, drug users will use drugs. It cannot be stopped. Start thinking of ways that we can make it the least destructive to society. Look for ways to make it the least harmful to addicts. Start thinking of ways that we can keep the most people from using in the first place.

Glad to see there's some intelligence in this place.

[Lancer409]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

I am cool with the moth. Colombian farmers should be growing food, not drugs. There is a food shortage in Colombia

unfortunately .. growing food doesnt put enough money in their pockets to survive. they're screwed by an ineffective government, and being ruled over by cartels (unless this is all us govt. propoganda) ...

in any case, what is the effect of the months to the ecosystem? (other moths/birds/insects/plants)

i was hoping for them to breed some strain that only eats coca plants, or to make a agent that only affects coca plants .... a genetically modified solution, instead of dumping loads of moths.


i wonder if it'll have the whole "foreign animal in local environment totally tips the balance" kind of affect. like all those chinese crabs/mussels/fish that get dumped in american waters from boat ballasts ... and how they are dominating the local ecosystems because they have no natural enemies or any way of controlling their population..


just a thought... guess i gotta go order my 5A rentaspace now .. and start stockpiling


crap .. be right back .. gotta take care of this nose bleed

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Don't you think I knew what you were referring to?

Then why did you post something irrelevant to what I was talking about Einstein?
I mean the fact you just admitted that you did it on purpose makes it even worse.

And boy, you really are an idiot if you think alcohol is the problem behind any of those problems you mentioned.

When did I say that? You are knee-jerking again.

I will attempt to explain this to you in terms even your fanatically religious ass can understand:

Don't bother. You've just lost any credibility you ever had.

Folks, this is why Cocaine should never be legalized.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Then why did you post something irrelevant Einstein?

It wasn't irrelevant.

When did I say that? You are knee-jerking again.

right here: "I am talking about the abuse, the physical problems, the drunk driving, the people STEALING, yes STEALING to support their alcohol habit."

Don't bother. You've just lost any credibility you ever had.

Folks, this is why Cocaine should never be legalized.

Hopefully this translates to you shutting the **** up.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

It wasn't irrelevant.

Lets see, you claimed to KNOW what I was talking about, yet post something ENTIRELY different than what I was talking about. yet claim it was relevant.

right here: "I am talking about the abuse, the physical problems, the drunk driving, the people STEALING, yes STEALING to support their alcohol habit."

Um, where does it say that alcohol is the main problem these people have? It doesn't. You knee-jerked again.

Hopefully this translates to you shutting the **** up.

You don't need any cocaine. You could actually use a few (dozen) xanax.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

It may be a reflection of the fact that the police is not as effective in other countries.

The point is that even though the police are not effective, it IS costing us tens of billions of dollars per year to fund them and their prisoners.

Originally Posted by The Godfather

How do you come up with the $35K/year figure. Those jails must be in really nice downtown neighborhoods

Googled.

You get numbers ranging from $22,000 up to $70,000 per inmate per year. It's my opinion that these people's crimes were against themselves. Most of them were causing no direct harm to anybody else. I don't want them in jail.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Lets see, you claimed to KNOW what I was talking about, yet post something ENTIRELY different than what I was talking about. yet claim it was relevant.

Hmm.. you're right, I thought you'd be able to make the connection yourself, but overestimated your intellectual capacities again... Sorry. Please let me make it up to you by showing you it was not irrelevant in the slightest:

You said: "Alcohol is legal, and it's problems still exists."
I said: "Oh really? I haven't seen mob bosses shooting up the streets for a while now... Hmm.. I guess you wouldn't remember something before you were born, but that's why you should've been paying attention in your history class."

You see, there I'm referring to a period in America's history known as Prohibition, that occurred after the 18th amendment was passed, outlawing the sale of alcohol. Now, using the two solitary neurons in your head, you should have been able to make this connection: that once, long ago, before Zimphire, alcohol was illegal like cocaine is today, and during that time, there were a lot more problems associated with alcohol than there are today, because it was illegal. So therein you see a point: If cocaine were legalized, there would be fewer problems today.

I apologize again for not spelling it out for you.

Um, where does it say that alcohol is the main problem these people have? It doesn't. You knee-jerked again.

If that's not what you meant then what did you mean to say by that statement? Are you then saying that you agree with me?

You don't need any cocaine. You could actually use a few (dozen) xanax.

Hardy-har har!

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Folks, this is why Cocaine should never be legalized.

Because you don't agree with an argument. Yours is similar to the logic used by the government, unfortunately. Ban it because it's disagreeable, and forget the consequences and fallout.

[von Wrangell]

I suggest the people who want to legalise these various drugs get work at the nearest acute rehab centre in their area.

Perhaps they should try to contain a 17 year old suffering from withdrawal symptoms and serious DT from short cocaine usage.

I myself is against alcohol just as much as the rest of these drugs but to compare cocaine to alcohol is just highlighting the ignorance that is rampant in the legalisation camp of this debate.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I suggest the people who want to legalise these various drugs get work at the nearest acute rehab centre in their area.

Perhaps they should try to contain a 17 year old suffering from withdrawal symptoms and serious DT from short cocaine usage.

I myself is against alcohol just as much as the rest of these drugs but to compare cocaine to alcohol is just highlighting the ignorance that is rampant in the legalisation camp of this debate.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that better efforts are necessary in the education of the public regarding the real consequences of these substances.

I have a theory that there are many drug users who fell into addiction because of their education (or lack of) when they found out that the truth is overstated. For example, I was led to believe that Marijuana was a life-wrecker and a threat to society. Then I saw my friends smoke it and guess what? They went on with their lives the next day. When our educators and politicians overstate things kids will not believe them anymore. Therefore, harmful drugs like Cocaine take the same threat level to these people as more benign ones (which are, roughly, not a threat at all) and we have misinformed people using everything without fear.

Legalize the harmless drugs, educate people with a responsible and clear curriculum, and then in twenty years we'll see how the usage of harder drugs decreases.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that better efforts are necessary in the education of the public regarding the real consequences of these substances.

I have a theory that there are many drug users who fell into addiction because of their education (or lack of) when they found out that the truth is overstated. For example, I was led to believe that Marijuana was a life-wrecker and a threat to society. Then I saw my friends smoke it and guess what? They went on with their lives the next day. When our educators and politicians overstate things kids will not believe them anymore. Therefore, harmful drugs like Cocaine take the same threat level to these people as more benign ones (which are, roughly, not a threat at all) and we have misinformed people using everything without fear.

Legalize the harmless drugs, educate people with a responsible and clear curriculum, and then in twenty years we'll see how the usage of harder drugs decreases.

There are no harmless drugs. THC is just as harmful to the brain as any other drug. But because it takes longer to leave the body the effects are often slower to set in. That and that you don't get the same withdrawal symptoms(as "serious") as with the water-soluble drugs.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itistoday

A better solution would be to provide better education and better jobs to the farmers, so that they don't have to grow it.

Nobody grows cocaine because there's nothing else in the world they're educated enough to do. It's not as though it takes more brainpower to grow legitimate crops.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There are no harmless drugs. THC is just as harmful to the brain as any other drug. But because it takes longer to leave the body the effects are often slower to set in. That and that you don't get the same withdrawal symptoms(as "serious") as with the water-soluble drugs.

Yep. Pretty much harmless. There are no definitive studies that point to serious cognitive damage caused by THC as far as I know. It's comparable to cigarette smoking in its effects to a user's health, and will not cause desperate addiction-driven crime.


Would you compare THC to the cardiovascular and organ-damaging MDMA, hyper-addictive heroin, and methamphetamines it really is relatively benign. You are overstating things, and that's the dangerous root of the drug problems that exist today.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

Yep. Pretty much harmless. There are no definitive studies that point to serious cognitive damage caused by THC as far as I know. It's comparable to cigarette smoking in its effects to a user's health, and will not cause desperate addiction-driven crime.


Would you compare THC to the cardiovascular and organ-damaging MDMA, hyper-addictive heroin, and methamphetamines it really is relatively benign. You are overstating things, and that's the dangerous root of the drug problems that exist today.

I don't have time at the moment to dig up all the studies showing the detrimental effects of THC at the moment so for now I'll just state that you are talking BS right now. Go educate yourself about THC before making these claims. And no, I don't mean on legalise-it.com or any similar sites. Pubmed.com is a good start.

[analogika]

Oliver North disapproves.

[von Wrangell]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...146&query_hl=3

here's a good start

I'll add more to this post as I have time:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...348&query_hl=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...381&query_hl=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...886&query_hl=3

A good review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...608&query_hl=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...825&query_hl=3

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There are no harmless drugs. THC is just as harmful to the brain as any other drug. But because it takes longer to leave the body the effects are often slower to set in.

How on earth is that supposed to work? Drugs are only harmful once they leave your body? As long as I keep myself high on acid, it's not going to fry my brain?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How on earth is that supposed to work? Drugs are only harmful once they leave your body? As long as I keep myself high on acid, it's not going to fry my brain?

water-soluble vs. fat-soluble. Effects of THC consumption takes longer to set in. I should have worded the above post better though

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Nobody grows cocaine because there's nothing else in the world they're educated enough to do. It's not as though it takes more brainpower to grow legitimate crops.

Dude... that's not what I'm talking about. More educated = not farmers.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by itistoday

If you legalize it, suddenly all your problems disappear.

One final thing that you should realize is that you cannot blaim cocaine for your sister-in-law's husband's addiction. Sure, it's partially responsible because it is an addicting substance, but the bulk of the blaim rests on both his shoulder's, and the government's. Had he been properly educated about the substance, he could have made the right decision. There is no drug to my knowledge that "hooks" you the first time you try it. To become addicted to cocaine means allowing yourself to become addicted.

Edit: Today all that children are taught about cocaine in schools is that "it is very bad, don't do it!" Their reaction to such idiotic statements should be obvious. Children should be taught in biology exactly how these drugs work, why you become addicted, and where side-effects come from. If you eliminate the alluring mystery potential that illegal drugs have, you eliminate the craving for them.

I'm all for decriminalization to the extent that small-time users are put in treatment and not in jail, and the ban on even researching the medical uses of marijuana borders on insane, but legalizing cocaine is a wrong-headed idea. You personally might not have a predilection to addiction, but I have seen first-hand people going from having never done the stuff to being basket cases within months. The urge is pretty much uncontrollable, and willpower doesn't even enter into the equation.

Education is good, yes, but cocaine for sale at the corner liquor store is goddam stupid. Sorry to swear at you, but really.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I don't have time at the moment to dig up all the studies showing the detrimental effects of THC at the moment so for now I'll just state that you are talking BS right now. Go educate yourself about THC before making these claims. And no, I don't mean on legalise-it.com or any similar sites. Pubmed.com is a good start.

Thanks for the links, I read through them. They do nothing to refute my claim that the effects are relatively benign, though. Certainly not worth the mystical nature to which we've elevated THC. MOST certainly not dangerous to the general public.

From one of your own links:

"Cognitive impairments of various types are readily demonstrable during acute cannabis intoxication, but there is no suitable evidence yet available to permit a decision as to whether long-lasting or permanent functional losses can result from chronic heavy use in adults."
Link

There's no need to insult me or imply that I'd use BS propoganda websites. I'm a neuroscience undergrad and have in fact spent some time investigating the physiological and psychological effects of different drugs. THC as a threat is simply not worth the discussion, as it is relatively harmless and you will not find substantial evidence that it has caused the general public any harm. The same can not be said for our ridiculous laws, which create the perfect environment for crime syndicates and black markets.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Hmm.. you're right, I thought you'd be able to make the connection yourself, but overestimated your intellectual capacities again... Sorry.

Now now, don't blame your posting irrelevant material on me.

You see, there I'm referring to a period in America's history known as Prohibition,

Well duh. It was still irrelevant to what I was speaking about.

So therein you see a point: If cocaine were legalized, there would be fewer problems today.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe some problems would go away, while new ones pop up.

I apologize again for not spelling it out for you.

No, you should be apologizing for being a knee-jerking mouthy punk.

If that's not what you meant then what did you mean to say by that statement? Are you then saying that you agree with me?

Well I agree with the fact that people who abuse alcohol usually have other problems before the abuse started yes.

Same with people who use cocaine. They probably have issues also.

But that is also irrelevant.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

Because you don't agree with an argument. Yours is similar to the logic used by the government, unfortunately. Ban it because it's disagreeable, and forget the consequences and fallout.

I am against getting arrested for crimes against oneself.

But to say, the problems would disappear if made legal is quite a stretch.

That was his original assertion.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

Thanks for the links, I read through them. They do nothing to refute my claim that the effects are relatively benign, though. Certainly not worth the mystical nature to which we've elevated THC. MOST certainly not dangerous to the general public.

From one of your own links:

"Cognitive impairments of various types are readily demonstrable during acute cannabis intoxication, but there is no suitable evidence yet available to permit a decision as to whether long-lasting or permanent functional losses can result from chronic heavy use in adults."
Link

There's no need to insult me or imply that I'd use BS propoganda websites. I'm a neuroscience undergrad and have in fact spent some time investigating the physiological and psychological effects of different drugs. THC as a threat is simply not worth the discussion, as it is relatively harmless and you will not find substantial evidence that it has caused the general public any harm. The same can not be said for our ridiculous laws, which create the perfect environment for crime syndicates and black markets.

They are talking about "cognitive impairments". Nothing else.

And trying to throw around qualifications will get you nowhere.

von Wrangell, B.Sc. Molecular Biology, M.Sc. Immunology.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

They are talking about "cognitive impairments". Nothing else.

Well that's conveniant, because you and I are also talking about cognitive impairments! Please see the post that you responded to above where you state:

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

There are no harmless drugs. THC is just as harmful to the brain as any other drug. But because it takes longer to leave the body the effects are often slower to set in. That and that you don't get the same withdrawal symptoms(as "serious") as with the water-soluble drugs.

to which I retort:

Originally Posted by Azzgunther

Yep. Pretty much harmless. There are no definitive studies that point to serious cognitive damage caused by THC as far as I know. It's comparable to cigarette smoking in its effects to a user's health, and will not cause desperate addiction-driven crime.

--------------------

And so, you are starting to flake out on this argument. We are talking about cognitive impairments, and you are attempting to steer the argument away from a sure crash. This is the common pattern when I discuss THC with dogmatic people. You will not steer this away from the basic truth that THC is a highly exaggerated threat. You have not offered any compelling evidence to the contrary, and in fact what evidence you did offer disproved your own claims.

Originally Posted by von wringell

And trying to throw around qualifications will get you nowhere.

von Wrangell, B.Sc. Molecular Biology, M.Sc. Immunology.

You asked me to educate myself, and I told you that I was already more than fundamentally familiar with the material. Nothing more. Kudos on your degrees, though

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by chris v

I'm all for decriminalization to the extent that small-time users are put in treatment and not in jail, and the ban on even researching the medical uses of marijuana borders on insane, but legalizing cocaine is a wrong-headed idea. You personally might not have a predilection to addiction, but I have seen first-hand people going from having never done the stuff to being basket cases within months. The urge is pretty much uncontrollable, and willpower doesn't even enter into the equation.

Education is good, yes, but cocaine for sale at the corner liquor store is goddam stupid. Sorry to swear at you, but really.

Well I too know many people who have tried cocaine, and I can tell you that it's not like that at all. You do have control over it, willpower is a factor. I've known many highly intelligent individuals who were able to try it, and stay off of it. It's less addicting than nicotine. Those "basket cases" you refer to simply let themselves slip, and weren't cautious enough (and weren't educated! That's where the government should step in like I outlined above).

This may or may not be their fault btw. One of the many problems with having these drugs illegalized is that no one knows what they're getting. If they were legalized, you would know exactly how much was in it. When you're used to taking x-amount of lines because you mostly have weak stuff, and suddenly you're given very pure stuff, you probably will be surprised and not expecting to take that much. Over dosing sometimes happens like this.

Legalization has many other benefits as well. Check out this graph:

The 18th amendment was enacted in 1919 and repealed in 1933. Note how homicides steadly increase during this period and then suddenly drastically drop after it was repealed. Same thing will happen with illegal drugs today. We all agree that drug users will do drugs whether or not drugs are illegal. But one of the many benefits of legalization is that while you'll still have people killing themselves, you won't have people killing others.

Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=...bition.alcohol

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Had he been properly educated about the substance, he could have made the right decision. There is no drug to my knowledge that "hooks" you the first time you try it. To become addicted to cocaine means allowing yourself to become addicted.

Most Americans can't control how much food they stuff down their throats. Now, imagen cocaine being thrown into the mix.