Yeah random terrible drug dealers just chop up any thing they can find and mix it to have more product. It is very dangerous for their customers.

well obviously none of them exist then

if you could not know of any "taxes I know the governement" I can buy a new car

I did not vote because there was no option to make the laws tougher and step up the war on drugs.

Lotta doughy white boys who have never done hard drugs authoritatively extolling the virtues of pure high-grade heroin itt.

Voted first option, I'm against throwing someone in a cage regardless of how mild or not mild the drugs are.

You realize decriminalize was an option right?

It's not necessarily the purity, rather it's consistent purity.

Oregon did a study that tracked their meth related crimes and addicts in treatment vs. the purity of the meth on the streets and found a very strong correlation. While I agree dirty drugs are one problem, easy-to-get high grade stuff leads to more addicts on the streets. Even if it's legal, addicts still need expensive treatment and still commit crimes to get drug money.

Dammit I wasn't going down this rabbit hole. Unsubscribing now.

Drugs are bad.

I'm on my phone, somebody bump the drunk thread IMO.

I am sure that study is true but maybe it's because ppl prob buy the same amount most times 10,20,50$ bags. Then they would do the same amount they are used to but it would be much higher purity so they would get way more wasted.

Same thing can happens when ppl drink liquor who are used to beer only.

gotta love a big hot hairy wookie pole IMO

fyp

I don't see why drugs should be criminalized at all. In general, I would be all for legalizing anything, but drugs, like guns and cars, are very dangerous things that I think need to be regulated in some fashion. I'll vote something like that.

Like taking poison to cure a cold.

Right, I also don't support sending someone a bill and then throwing them in the cage if they don't pay it. Seems generally the same moral fiber.

Is there anybody who doesn't know the story of decriminalization in Portugal?

Basically, there was a rampant heroin epidemic. The government asked some experts what to do about it, they said decriminalize and institute treatment instead of prison time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...f-in-portugal/

Alcohol is far more physically damaging to a person than heroin is, and it's not even close. More people die from alcohol a year in the US than heroin, and it's not even close.


http://www.livestrong.com/article/16...d-death-facts/


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db81.htm


I'm about to post some more of that cdc.gov article ...


I've been using prescription opiates ... did you know heroin would be safer for me to use? If I had made it myself at least and knew it was pure ...


Heroin was involved in only 3000 deaths in the US in 2008, whereas alcohol, a regulated industry, was responsible for around 75,000 deaths (as per 2007 statistics). But there is a pretty significant amount of opiate related deaths ...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db81.htm


It is pretty interesting to me that a regulated, government overseen market, being the prescription drug market, is responsible for more deaths than heroin on the black market. How can that be? Why is that? Seems impossible, does it not?

Oh but it's not. Not at all. You see, the cause of it all is not opiates. Not morphine. Not codeine. Not thebaine or papaverine. The problem is ...

Give local yokels the power to ban stuff, and they will set about doing so.

This is absolutely absurd. See my previous post, specifically the part about alcohol being involved in 50% of traffic deaths.

former cop who is against the war on drugs ...

Opiate usage =/= opiate abuse.

Opiate abusers who are driving are more ****ed up when driving than alcohol abusers.

I have no issue with legalized opiates. I just think when you decide to use some heroin and pop some pills you should probably stay home, or at least let someone else drive.

but I'm the one on safari watching elephants while stepping on ants or whatever he said.

Exactly. The problem with heroin and being prohibited is that the user never knows the purity or strength unless they are absolutely positively getting stuff from the same supply. They could be taking a certain amount for their dose, have to get some from a different supply and take that same dose, it could be quite a bit stronger and bam, they just OD'd. Also it could have bad **** in it and **** up their veins and ****. That's just what comes with prohibition and monopoly though. Users would be best suited in a free market, with lots and lots of suppliers and dealers, and lots and lots of competition for their business. The best businesses will get the most business, and I believe it could end up being like a methadone clinic type spa type deal. Come in, get your heroin, relax in our spa, get a massage ... instead people have to dodge the cops and prison and get god knows what from really shady ****ers in back alleys, not having any idea how pure or safe their **** is.

Lirva alcohol is not worse than opiates ffs. Your argument is ****ing awful. Deal with different usage rates.

Oh absolutely. Just like if you have some drinks.




Not in my personal experience. I've driven on both opiates and alcohol and I personally drive a lot better on opiates than alcohol. imo, a person would kinda have to be near ODing on opiates to be at the level of motor impairment on alcohol. That is to say, if a person had five screwdrivers and was hammered and was very dangerous behind the will, a person on opiates would have to be near death from a fatal overdose to have that same impairment, and if they were at that level I don't think they'd even make it to behind the wheel.

Are there not heroin test kits like there are for MDMA? If not, why not?