Guest guest Posted May 18, 2000 Report Share Posted May 18, 2000 I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? --wally Re: Solid alcohol >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > >Originally Mikena@... > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry >experiments. >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Hi Wally: Nicely said. I never heard the slogan during treatment. However; I heard it frequently in AA but only from drug users who were frequently marginalized at meetings because of their cross addiction. Frequently they didn't even have a problem with alcohol but attended because they preferred AA meetings to the drug variant A's. Some of the people I used to associate with told me they preferred AA to the drug variant A's because they perceived better recovery rates and less harmful relapses in AA. By saying and believing this slogan it helped them feel that they were in the appropriate A. I tried not to judge but I always thought this was a fancy bit of reasoning. I believe the reason most AA's don't buy this line of reasoning is the added negative connotation associated with term drug addict. It's one thing to be an alcoholic but quite a completely unacceptable proposition to be thought of in the same breath as a drug addict. Sort of like: " Hey we may be alcoholics but we're no damn druggies " Drug users/abusers were always at the bottom of the pecking order in AA so I can well understand why someone in this position would want to reform AA. For the reasons stated above they've got about a snowball's chance in hell of making any headway though. Re: Solid alcohol I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? --wally -----Original Message----- >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Wally I agree with you here. It amounts to gross misinformation (and that's still understating it imho) to state, as they do at stepzone http://www.recovery.org.uk/qna/qna.html (first on list of " FAQs " ). that there is no difference between, for example, heroin and cannabis. In this case the differences include obvious facts of pharmacology, physiology, and law. But that's the troulble with stepNazis -- they're RIGHT, huh/what? Yours, . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: <12-step-freeegroups> >Subject: Re: Solid alcohol >Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:38:38 -0400 > >I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not >heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some >common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I >heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they >were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a >recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put >everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " >slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of >drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd >have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really >it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > >--wally > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > >Originally Mikena@... > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > >experiments. > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Doug: Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it is the step nazis who have the biggest probem if anyone in an AA meeting mentions drugs. They have even gone so far as to have unlisted meetings to keep out people who did not conform completely to their view. If any of them had bothered to do any research they would realize that in the " early " days of AA that they are so nostalgic for, it was very common for alkies to take " goof balls' (barbiturates) in the morning to stop the shakes and still stay relatively high. When Dr. Bob performed that operation the day after his slip, he had 1 bottle of beer and a goof ball immediatel before the operation! If there is a God he must have been present in tht operating room. lol BTW, the controversary over drugs didn't get serious until the 80s. This was because a different type of drug user was coming to the meeting`s which brought a different class of addict. The crack epedemic tipped the balance in may rooms with the majority now beng " cross addicted " . When I came in in 1980 noone ever even hinted that I should keep my story to alcohol. In fact, for a while I was continuously asked to qualify because the group was hearing something different. Of course, I told the PG 13 version of my adventues. Basically I was not a threat. When the groups started to perceive the crack heads as threats than " the singleness of purpose issue suddenly became very important. I'm oversimplyfing but have to get to work. Originally Mikena@... Wally I agree with you here. It amounts to gross misinformation (and that's still understating it imho) to state, as they do at stepzone http://www.recovery.org.uk/qna/qna.html (first on list of " FAQs " ). that there is no difference between, for example, heroin and cannabis. In this case the differences include obvious facts of pharmacology, physiology, and law. But that's the troulble with stepNazis -- they're RIGHT, huh/what? Yours, . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: <12-step-freeegroups> >Subject: Re: Solid alcohol >Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:38:38 -0400 > >I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not >heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some >common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I >heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they >were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a >recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put >everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " >slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of >drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd >have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really >it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > >--wally > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > >Originally Mikena@... > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > >experiments. > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone bills too big? Don't worry, beMANY! http://click./1/4113/2/_/4324/_/958733912/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Hey Wally. I was referring to legal vs. illegal drugs, and the vilification of anyone who uses illegal drugs. People who use legal, prescription drugs are not vilified (unless they do something violent like Phil Hartman's wife) but rather praised for dealing with their problems. Of course drugs have different effects. But all dangerous drugs are not illegal, and all illegal drugs are not necessarily any more dangerous than legal drugs. I happen to think pot, booze and tobacco should all be equally available. They should be regulated and taxed and the income from taxation should go into treatment. and I will stop now before writing a 20,000 word treatise on How Government Should Be Run. Judith, needing her own web page more and more each day On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:38:38 -0400, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not > heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some > common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I > heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they > were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a > recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put > everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " > slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of > drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd > have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really > it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > > --wally > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > >Originally Mikena@... > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > >experiments. > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 > Drug users/abusers were always at the bottom of the pecking order in > AA so I can well understand why someone in this position would want > to reform AA. : The above statement may be true where you atttended meetings. Do you mind telling me in what part of the country you attended? Yet, in other areas of the country it is just the opposite. The addicts look at the " pure alcoholics " with a degree of scorn and condescension. This is especially true at meetings where the average age is below 45. Come to think of it it is more like 50. The early baby boomers like myself, Graduated from High School the year of the " Summer of Love " , 1967. By 1969 the summer of Woodstock, students who graduated in that year are now 48. I don't know if any studies have been done on the issue of what percentage of new members are pure alcoholics, pure drug addicts, and cross addicted. (Nice way of saying Garbage Head, which if someone perceives this term as derogatory it is the one I use for myself) Where I go to meetings alkies who are under 50 and never experiemented with drugs are looked upon as dullards. Guys and gals in their 50 s and up are not labeled as uninteresting, risk averse juice heads, because when they were growing up it was considered " cool " to drink. To be " one of the boys " many of these guys embellish or even lie. For instance, one woman who used to take a powerful diet pill Dexamyl, while drinking, hardly mentioned it the first time she qualified. By the tenth time you would of thought she was the Queen Speed Freak of the Upper East Side. Perhaps in her mind by now, she believed she was. Believe me I am not criticizing her. It is human nature. One more point , you state: when talking about drug addicts changing AA that " For the reasons stated above they've got about a > snowball's chance in hell of making any headway though. " . I have to disagree with this just on the mathematics of new members. I'd say at least 75% of new people or relapsers coming into AA are below 55. Of this number I would guess 80-90% have a drug problem as well as an alcohol problem. With each passing year, the old time pure alcoholics will be leaving AA behind,either because of death illnesss or the general trend which seems to show that there are very few geriatic sober members of AA who attend meetings with the regularity of someone in lower age brackets. And who will be taking their place? Pure Alcoholics? I think not. It is only a guesstimate based on observation but by the year 2010, 90% of AA members will also have a problem with drugs. I understand your friends who even though they are not alcoholics but drug addicts would rather go to AA. However dismal the odds are, they are better in AA than in NA. This is all so human. People wanting to be better than their fellows. The need to be accepted by the " in group. " But. when it comes right down to it ,the guy who is strunng out on cheap wine, when all is said and done is not much different than the couple who have a couple of is before dinner, a bottle of wine during the meal, and a little cognac to finish on a high note. What strikes he as one of the sorry states of human nature is that so many people need to put themselves, or their group, on a higher level then another group. It really dosen't matter to me if a person is " cross addicted " or not. The goal of any treatment modality should be help people get better. When we start putting labels on everything, and then divide main categories into sub categories. For instance, Cocaine addicts especially of the non crack variety consider themselves on a much higher plane than other drug users. So rather than go to Narcotics Anonymous they formed Cocaine Anonymous. These are the coke heads who were affluent in the 80s, and they don't like to rub elbows with the Welfare Mom from uptown. Hope I have made my position clear, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 In a message dated 5/19/00 3:32:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, waltertrice@... writes: > Ever notice how when somebody comes > out for legalization or decriminalization they drop out of sight? Milton > Friedman, for instance, who had his own TV Now that you mention it, I haven'tr seen him saying much about drug legilization lately. The same goes for the Mayor of Baltimore Smoltz. Even Buckley is a little quieter. Equally distresssing, contrary to other movements in this country once a few big names get behind it others usually follow, Well in this case they haven't. The only reason why decriminaliztion is being fought so hard makes perfect sense but is so evil that I do not like to even think about it. Suppose tomorrow (This can't hapen logistically but lets play make believe) the US Supreme Court led by a coalition of Libertarian Conservatives -Scalia, Kennedy and 3 moderate liberals, s, Soutter and Ginsberg, declared all laws against drugs for " personal use " an infringement of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, as well as a blatant disregard of the states rights 10th amendment. If this scenario happened, who would be the winners and who would be the losers? You alluded to it when you were talking about the monetary return from legal drugs and what it can accomplish. In reporting when a big story breaks that involves all sorts of shady deals the ruling premise is TO FOLLOW THE MONEY. What would replace this cash cow that is responsible for so much of the wealth and turmoil in the world. Getting less paranoid for a second--there is a whole Drug Industrial Complex that employs many people that would be severely hurt if drugs were legalized. No more DEA. Prisons would be cut by at least a half. A lot of out of work gurards. The gap in campaign contributions which is probably funded by drug sales will dry up. I can think of a lot more but I have to finish something I'm working on now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Mike It's true that only AA " hard liners " got onto me when I shared about " drugs " , but I lose you when you come in with " treatment speak " about " cross addiction " . Aside from the discussion about drugs/alcohol, an addict is an addict, whether he/she is addicted to booze, smack, coke, you name,is addicted to the extent that the substance/fluid concerned exrecises a measure of physiological addictiveness. (The going rate seems to be roughly H. and booze joint 1st, coke and nicotine equal 2nd, caffeine and cannabis co-3rd.) Cliques form composed of the hardest drinkers, the meannest junkies, the wackiest poly-addicts, etc. If we're going to use the term " stepNazis " then I suppose we could restrict it to the component members of such clique or inner groups, who seem characterised by their psycho-bullying, soul-stealing, moral blackmailing, ignorance, and self-righteousness. With people like that around and telling you what to do, it's hard to remain an innocent bystander. Maybe you ought to stop playing along, then you can tell them to " get real " . . >From: MikeknapNY@... >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: Solid alcohol >Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:58:17 -0400 (EDT) > >Doug: > >Perhaps I misunderstood you. But it is the step nazis who have the >biggest probem if anyone in an AA meeting mentions drugs. > >They have even gone so far as to have unlisted meetings to keep out >people who did not conform completely to their view. > >If any of them had bothered to do any research they would realize that >in the " early " days of AA that they are so nostalgic for, it was very >common for alkies to take " goof balls' (barbiturates) in the morning to >stop the shakes and still stay relatively high. > >When Dr. Bob performed that operation the day after his slip, he had 1 >bottle of beer and a goof ball immediatel before the operation! >If there is a God he must have been present in tht operating room. lol > >BTW, the controversary over drugs didn't get serious until the 80s. This >was because a different type of drug user was coming to the meeting`s >which brought a different class of addict. > > The crack epedemic tipped the balance in may rooms with the majority >now beng " cross addicted " . > >When I came in in 1980 noone ever even hinted that I should keep my >story to alcohol. In fact, for a while I was continuously asked to >qualify because the group was hearing something different. Of course, I >told the PG 13 version of my adventues. Basically I was not a threat. > >When the groups started to perceive the crack heads as threats than " the >singleness of purpose issue suddenly became very important. I'm >oversimplyfing but have to get to work. > > >Originally Mikena@... > ><< Message5.txt >> ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Judith: I agree with you that pot, booze and tobacco should all be legal and taxed. Most people in the harm reduction movement have agreed on this. Of course there is a difference of opinion among policy wonks over what kind of tax should be applied since " sin taxes " are regressive taxes which hit the poor the hardest. Where the trouble comes in is dealing with the drugs that are more harmful than the three we have mentioned. I don't know if harm is the right word, since tobacco and alcohol directly causes more ill health and is responsible for more deaths than Heroin. When I say I was once clean and sober for 11 years it is true in the sense that I didn't drink or use controlled substances. The withdrawal and post traumatic syndrome were uncomfortable but bearable. But cigarettes were and are a different ball came. I tried during my first 7 years of sobriety to quit smoking. Couldn't do it. I finally got scared enough after waking up every morning with a hacking cough, and continually wheezing when I talked. Since I was then about 30 pounds overweight, I had a hard time climbing the stairs. I stayed stopped for over 2 years, but not a day went by that I did not think of cigarettes and sometimes the compulsion was so bad that is is a miracle I made it that far. I never experienced compulsions like that after stoping Methadone, Heroin, alcohol or any other drug. Well, I'm smoking a Marlboro Light at the moment. Maybe when I start getting other things together will I give stopping a try again. Well I regessed again, sorry. Back to how we are going to fix the drug problem. Heroin and other opiates I would control but let adults who are addicts have access to them at their real market price. Instead of paying $10 for a bag that probably contains less than 20% Heroin, causing the addict to spend up to $100 a day with the money usually gotten by illegal means. I'm sure when my apartment was burgalized 4 years ago some junkie stayed high for a few days. Most of the policy wonks, with some differences, like this idea to deal with Heroin. But when we get to the drugs that cause problems in themselves, like Cocaine. Barbiturates and Amphetamines there is really no consensus how to deal with them. Actually alcohol fits more in this category because people some people will do violent things under its influence just like they will on Coke, barbs or speed. Marijuana, tobacco and opiates, do not cause the user to at violent or commit crimes. Interestingly enough the safest drug out of all of them is unadulterated opiates. It causes no harm to the mind and very little to the body. Perhaps this is why Buroughs lived such a long life. By the time he was 70 he had given up all drugs including tobacco, except opiates. He managed to live to the ripe old age of 80 something. I think in his lst few years copping Smack on the streets became too much for him and he went on Merthadone Maintanince. BTW, speaking of OZ before Burroughs lived most of the year in a nice middle class house in Kansas. Perhaps he to wanted something form the wizard! Finally Judith, no one has a clue how to deal with drugs like crack and PCP.Their use in itsef causes violent behavior. Well, there is still time to iron these small problems out. Any issue that has F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Schultz, and the ACLU on the same side has a good shot at being resoled. Are you at all familiar with the Lindesmith Institute and what Sorros is trying to do? If not I can sed you some references. Sorry for rambling again, Originally Mikena@... Hey Wally. I was referring to legal vs. illegal drugs, and the vilification of anyone who uses illegal drugs. People who use legal, prescription drugs are not vilified (unless they do something violent like Phil Hartman's wife) but rather praised for dealing with their problems. Of course drugs have different effects. But all dangerous drugs are not illegal, and all illegal drugs are not necessarily any more dangerous than legal drugs. I happen to think pot, booze and tobacco should all be equally available. They should be regulated and taxed and the income from taxation should go into treatment. and I will stop now before writing a 20,000 word treatise on How Government Should Be Run. Judith, needing her own web page more and more each day On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:38:38 -0400, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is not > heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some > common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I > heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they > were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a > recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put > everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a drug " > slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of > drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then they'd > have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. Really > it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > > --wally > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > >Originally Mikena@... > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > >experiments. > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Up to 60% OFF food! Buy Now and Shipping is Free. http://click./1/4016/2/_/4324/_/958750956/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Hi Judith -- It's just that I am leery of vague slogans, that's all. They mean too little and too much at the same time. Whenever I hear one I feel like somebody is trying to trick me ;-) Re vilification of illegal drug users, isn't it just wrong to break laws, even when the laws are bad ones? (Though I would make exceptions, like the breaking of REALLY REALLY bad laws in the spirit of deliberate civil disobedience, when the purpose of the law-breaking is a public political statement.) Among other things, illegal drug users are providing funds to groups of people who sell illegal drugs, and a lot of these people are genuine villains -- the type who shoot customers, other dealers, and sometimes innocent bystanders just for kicks. Clearly there is something wrong with the system we have for dealing with illegal drugs in the USA. We have managed to put more of our citizens in jail than any other civilized country has, and we have managed to create a bunch of drug cartels in South America with a combined annual income equal to our Defense budget. (I mean, it's getting serious! They're already buying submarines from the Russians. How long 'til they have nukes?) I don't see much hope for legalization. Ever notice how when somebody comes out for legalization or decriminalization they drop out of sight? Milton Friedman, for instance, who had his own TV series and bestseller, and was a darling of the Reaganauts -- when's the last time that guy was heard from in the mainstream media? --wally Re: Solid alcohol >> >> >> >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. >> > >> > >> >Originally Mikena@... >> > >> > >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry >> >experiments. >> >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ >Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite >Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Up to 60% OFF food! >Buy Now and Shipping is Free. >http://click./1/4016/2/_/4324/_/958750956/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 On Fri, 19 May 2000 15:29:57 -0400, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > Re vilification of illegal drug users, isn't it just wrong to break laws, > even when the laws are bad ones? (Though I would make exceptions, like the > breaking of REALLY REALLY bad laws in the spirit of deliberate civil > disobedience, when the purpose of the law-breaking is a public political > statement.) Among other things, illegal drug users are providing funds to > groups of people who sell illegal drugs, and a lot of these people are > genuine villains -- the type who shoot customers, other dealers, and > sometimes innocent bystanders just for kicks. I think drugs, sex and gambling are a huge part of the US economy. People participate in this economy in legitimate, formalized ways and illegitimate, informal ways. (Just as people participate in the construction economy informally, eg, working for cash under the table.) I disagree with the idea that people who use illegal drugs are worse than people who don't. And I don't have good evidence for that belief. It's part of a general, larger belief that poor people, who have fewer resources overall, are more likely to find themselves in the " informal " economy just to make ends meet. Not because they're evil, just because they are willing to do anything to feed their kids. And they do drugs more, because it sucks being poor. > Clearly there is something wrong with the system we have for dealing with > illegal drugs in the USA. We have managed to put more of our citizens in > jail than any other civilized country has, and we have managed to create a > bunch of drug cartels in South America with a combined annual income equal > to our Defense budget. (I mean, it's getting serious! They're already buying > submarines from the Russians. How long 'til they have nukes?) I remember from a program about the war on drugs, footage from Colombia, some men singing a folk song about the heroic Pablo Escobar. In many parts of the world, the definition of " villain " is " American. " I would very much like to see that change. > I don't see much hope for legalization. Ever notice how when somebody comes > out for legalization or decriminalization they drop out of sight? Milton > Friedman, for instance, who had his own TV series and bestseller, and was a > darling of the Reaganauts -- when's the last time that guy was heard from in > the mainstream media? I heard someone say that you have to accept higher rates of use and higher rates of addiction with legalization. I say, if it lowers rates of violent crime, go for it. Judith _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 See, here's the thing. People in countries where they are very upfront about killing you if you say the wrong thing, still say the wrong thing. In the US, maybe they'll kill you, and maybe they'll discredit you, but I still think--and I don't think this for anyone else, but I do think it for myself--that in the US, if you can make a good case, and if along the way to making your case you are decent to the individuals you meet, regardless of whether or not you believe what they believe, you have a chance of really having an impact on public policy. I also think that most people in the US are working so hard to pay their bills and make a better future for their kids, that they don't have a lot of time for involvement in politics and policy. So I say, if you raise good kids, and pay your bills, you really are involved in an important way in public life in the US. But I envy Europe and other places in the world where they don't have a religious right. People who think they have what it takes to police the rest of us, because they believe in the Bible. I know religious people who are not at all fascist, but most of the people--actually all of the people--I know are middle class or working class or poor. I guess I am thinking of a small group of people who have the most money, the most power in terms of knowing other people who have the most money, and who think they need to protect democracy and christianity. (Domhoff, Who Rules America?) On the other hand...having done a lot of work in the public, non-profit sector, a lot of wealthy people have values very similar to mine. They have foundations and give a lot of money to causes I believe in. So you can't paint with too broad a brush. Judith I like the rich taste of money, it's the greed I can do without. On Fri, 19 May 2000 16:40:59 EDT, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > In a message dated 5/19/00 3:32:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > waltertrice@... writes: > > > Ever notice how when somebody comes > > out for legalization or decriminalization they drop out of sight? Milton > > Friedman, for instance, who had his own TV > > Now that you mention it, I haven'tr seen him saying much about drug > legilization lately. The same goes for the Mayor of Baltimore Smoltz. Even > Buckley is a little quieter. Equally distresssing, contrary to other > movements in this country once a few big names get behind it others usually > follow, Well in this case they haven't. > > The only reason why decriminaliztion is being fought so hard makes perfect > sense but is so evil that I do not like to even think about it. > > > > Suppose tomorrow (This can't hapen logistically but lets play make believe) > the US Supreme Court led by a coalition of Libertarian Conservatives -Scalia, > Kennedy and 3 moderate liberals, s, Soutter and Ginsberg, declared all > laws against drugs for " personal use " an infringement of the equal protection > clause of the 14th amendment, as well as a blatant disregard of the states > rights 10th amendment. > > If this scenario happened, who would be the winners and who would be the > losers? > > You alluded to it when you were talking about the monetary return from legal > drugs and what it can accomplish. > > In reporting when a big story breaks that involves all sorts of shady deals > the ruling premise is TO FOLLOW THE MONEY. > > What would replace this cash cow that is responsible for so much > of the wealth and turmoil in the world. > > Getting less paranoid for a second--there is a whole Drug Industrial Complex > that employs many people that would be severely hurt if drugs were legalized. > > No more DEA. > Prisons would be cut by at least a half. A lot of out of work gurards. > The gap in campaign contributions which is probably funded by drug sales will > dry up. > > I can think of a lot more but I have to finish something I'm working on now. > > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 > Quite frankly I do not see the difference between street drugs and > prescription drugs. Then quite frankly youre a blind ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 > You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > So do you guys never smoke, drink coffee, or do chocolate? Never take aspirin? Ignorance is ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Hi Apple *Of course* chemically active herbs are drugs. Most refined drugs are derived from them anyway. The psychoactive drug in St 's Wort is hypericin, and one dasy you might be able to get it in little pills in blister packs just like any other antidep - if it isnt found to have too seriuous adverse reactions in clinical trials. It is thought to have an action like an MAOI, powerful antideps that are rarely precribed now because of their adverse reaction profiles. P. > > You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > I would even say herbs are drugs. I take st. john's wort and it's > just > as potent as any perscription antidep. > Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Pete. I am intelligent and well-informed. I think I support most of what I say with pretty thoughtful arguments, as much as you do. what I can't support with evidence, I identify openly as a belief. I do not appreciate being called ignorant. Judith On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:38:31 -0000, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > > > You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > So do you guys never smoke, drink coffee, or do chocolate? Never take > aspirin? > > Ignorance is ignorance. > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 > > > I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is > not > > heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some > > common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I > > heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they > > were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a > > recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put > > everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a > drug " > > slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of > > drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then > they'd > > have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. > Really > > it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > > > > --wally > > > > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > > > > >Originally Mikena@a... > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > > >experiments. > > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite > Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 So Mike, As you do tobacco, how are you different form someone taking barbs or two glasses of wine to sleep? > > > I'm still confused. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. But aspirin is > not > > heroin. Similarly, Seconal is not alcohol, even though they may have some > > common effects. What exactly is that slogan supposed to mean, anyway? I > > heard it mainly in treatment centers, and I always assumed that what they > > were saying was, essentially, since " a drug is a drug " it follows that " a > > recovery is a recovery " and that's why it's ok for us (i. e. them) to put > > everybody on the same ol' 12-step assembly line. Also the " drug is a > drug " > > slogan implicitly demotes the significance of the cultural components of > > drug use and addiction, and if they paid any attention to those then > they'd > > have to chuck the disease theory and they'd all be out of business. > Really > > it's an *advertising* slogan, is it not? > > > > --wally > > > > > > Re: Solid alcohol > > > > > > >You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > > > > >Originally Mikena@a... > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > >Remember four years of good friends, bad clothes, explosive chemistry > > >experiments. > > >http://click./1/4051/2/_/4324/_/958688369/ > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite > Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Up to 60% OFF food! > Buy Now and Shipping is Free. > http://click./1/4016/2/_/4324/_/958750956/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 I dont think I called you ignorant Judith - it was in response to Mike's post - but if you REALLY think there is no difference between using street shit with a dealer's ass for a vending machine and taking a prescribed drug as prescribed, then imo you are ignorant. > > > You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > > > So do you guys never smoke, drink coffee, or do chocolate? Never take > > aspirin? > > > > Ignorance is ignorance. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite > Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 I saw part of a documentary on A & E a few weeks back and I turned it on in the middle so I'm not sure exactly what the show's title was. What I heard when I was watching was that before drugs such as cocaine were illegalized, in their basic form they were far less addictive than they are today. Somehow today's processing causes a higher addictive state. I say it should be legalized and put back into Coca-Cola where it rightfully belongs. jan Re: Solid alcohol > Judith: > > I agree with you that pot, booze and tobacco > should all be legal and taxed. Most people in the harm reduction > movement have agreed on this. Of course there is a difference of opinion > among policy wonks over what kind of tax should be applied since " sin > taxes " are regressive taxes which hit the poor the hardest. > > Where the trouble comes in is dealing with the drugs that are more > harmful than the three we have mentioned. I don't know if harm is the > right word, since tobacco and alcohol directly causes more ill health > and is responsible for more deaths than Heroin. > > When I say I was once clean and sober for 11 years it is true in the > sense that I didn't drink or use controlled substances. The withdrawal > and post traumatic syndrome were uncomfortable but bearable. > > > But cigarettes were and are a different ball came. I tried during my > first 7 years of sobriety to quit smoking. Couldn't do it. I finally got > scared enough after waking up every morning with a hacking cough, and > continually wheezing when I talked. Since I was then about 30 pounds > overweight, I had a hard time climbing the stairs. > > I stayed stopped for over 2 years, but not a day went by that I did not > think of cigarettes and sometimes the compulsion was so bad that is is a > miracle I made it that far. I never experienced compulsions like that > after stoping Methadone, Heroin, alcohol or any other drug. > > Well, I'm smoking a Marlboro Light at the moment. Maybe when I start > getting other things together will I give stopping a try again. > > > Well I regessed again, sorry. > > Back to how we are going to fix the drug problem. > > Heroin and other opiates I would control but let adults who are addicts > have access to them at their real market price. Instead of paying $10 > for a bag that probably contains less than 20% Heroin, causing the > addict to spend up to $100 a day with the money usually gotten by > illegal means. I'm sure when my apartment was burgalized 4 years ago > some junkie stayed high for a few days. > > Most of the policy wonks, with some differences, like this idea to deal > with Heroin. > > But when we get to the drugs that cause problems in themselves, like > Cocaine. Barbiturates and Amphetamines there is really no consensus how > to deal with them. > > Actually alcohol fits more in this category because people some people > will do violent things under its influence just like they will on Coke, > barbs or speed. Marijuana, tobacco and opiates, do not cause the user > to at violent or commit crimes. > > > Interestingly enough the safest drug out of all of them is unadulterated > opiates. It causes no harm to the mind and very little to the body. > Perhaps this is why Buroughs lived such a long life. By the time > he was 70 he had given up all drugs including tobacco, except opiates. > He managed to live to the ripe old age of 80 something. I think in his > lst few years copping Smack on the streets became too much for him and > he went on Merthadone Maintanince. > > BTW, speaking of OZ before Burroughs lived most of the year in a nice > middle class house in Kansas. Perhaps he to wanted something form the > wizard! > > Finally Judith, no one has a clue how to deal with drugs like crack and > PCP.Their use in itsef causes violent behavior. > > Well, there is still time to iron these small problems out. Any issue > that has F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Schultz, and the > ACLU on the same side has a good shot at being resoled. > > > Are you at all familiar with the Lindesmith Institute and what > Sorros is trying to do? If not I can sed you some references. > > > Sorry for rambling again, > > > > > > > Originally Mikena@... > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here: > http://click./1/4054/2/_/4324/_/958755483/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Oh come one, my name is right there. It's an INSULT Pete. When have I insulted you? and I'm NOT ignorant for disagreeing with you. MDs and PhDs and all the other alphabet soup people disagree with each other, and not because they are ignorant, but because there are a lot of different ways to interpret data. If you think for one brief second that you are not expressing your own biases, rather than some objective reality, then think again. It DOES lower your credibility. Judith On Sat, 20 May 2000 01:21:05 -0000, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > I dont think I called you ignorant Judith - it was in response to > Mike's post - but if you REALLY think there is no difference between > using street shit with a dealer's ass for a vending machine and > taking > a prescribed drug as prescribed, then imo you are ignorant. > > > > > > > > You said it Judith! A drug is a drug. > > > > > > > > > > So do you guys never smoke, drink coffee, or do chocolate? Never > take > > > aspirin? > > > > > > Ignorance is ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite > > Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Kind of like if we change income tax to a flat percentage rate. Would put alot of accountants and CPA's, bookkeepers, tax lawyers out of work. What a tangled web we've weaved in the good old USA! jan Re: Solid alcohol > In a message dated 5/19/00 3:32:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > waltertrice@... writes: > > > Ever notice how when somebody comes > > out for legalization or decriminalization they drop out of sight? Milton > > Friedman, for instance, who had his own TV > > Now that you mention it, I haven'tr seen him saying much about drug > legilization lately. The same goes for the Mayor of Baltimore Smoltz. Even > Buckley is a little quieter. Equally distresssing, contrary to other > movements in this country once a few big names get behind it others usually > follow, Well in this case they haven't. > > The only reason why decriminaliztion is being fought so hard makes perfect > sense but is so evil that I do not like to even think about it. > > > > Suppose tomorrow (This can't hapen logistically but lets play make believe) > the US Supreme Court led by a coalition of Libertarian Conservatives -Scalia, > Kennedy and 3 moderate liberals, s, Soutter and Ginsberg, declared all > laws against drugs for " personal use " an infringement of the equal protection > clause of the 14th amendment, as well as a blatant disregard of the states > rights 10th amendment. > > If this scenario happened, who would be the winners and who would be the > losers? > > You alluded to it when you were talking about the monetary return from legal > drugs and what it can accomplish. > > In reporting when a big story breaks that involves all sorts of shady deals > the ruling premise is TO FOLLOW THE MONEY. > > What would replace this cash cow that is responsible for so much > of the wealth and turmoil in the world. > > Getting less paranoid for a second--there is a whole Drug Industrial Complex > that employs many people that would be severely hurt if drugs were legalized. > > No more DEA. > Prisons would be cut by at least a half. A lot of out of work gurards. > The gap in campaign contributions which is probably funded by drug sales will > dry up. > > I can think of a lot more but I have to finish something I'm working on now. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: > http://click./1/4052/2/_/4324/_/958768873/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 LOL You know if they put it in Pepsi. I would finally understand the words in their theme song. " ...the joy of Pepsi Ba ba ba ba ba " Re: Solid alcohol I saw part of a documentary on A & E a few weeks back and I turned it on in the middle so I'm not sure exactly what the show's title was. What I heard when I was watching was that before drugs such as cocaine were illegalized, in their basic form they were far less addictive than they are today. Somehow today's processing causes a higher addictive state. I say it should be legalized and put back into Coca-Cola where it rightfully belongs. jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 On Fri, 19 May 2000 21:31:36 -0400, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > I saw part of a documentary on A & E a few weeks back and I turned it on in > the middle so I'm not sure exactly what the show's title was. What I heard > when I was watching was that before drugs such as cocaine were illegalized, > in their basic form they were far less addictive than they are today. > Somehow today's processing causes a higher addictive state. I say it should > be legalized and put back into Coca-Cola where it rightfully belongs. > > jan My husband's grandma said she remembered them pouring a spoonful of powdered cocaine into the soda fountain Coca Cola. Talk about the pause that refreshes... Judith _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Hi Judith, and didn't our great grandma's carry around those little snuff boxes! jan Re: Solid alcohol > On Fri, 19 May 2000 21:31:36 -0400, 12-step-freeegroups wrote: > > > I saw part of a documentary on A & E a few weeks back and I turned it on > in > > the middle so I'm not sure exactly what the show's title was. What I > heard > > when I was watching was that before drugs such as cocaine were > illegalized, > > in their basic form they were far less addictive than they are today. > > Somehow today's processing causes a higher addictive state. I say it > should > > be legalized and put back into Coca-Cola where it rightfully belongs. > > > > jan > > My husband's grandma said she remembered them pouring a spoonful of powdered > cocaine into the soda fountain Coca Cola. Talk about the pause that > refreshes... > > Judith > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite > Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 72% off on Name brand Watches! > Come and buy today and get free shipping! > http://click./1/4011/2/_/4324/_/958787353/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.