I think GHB gets thought of as a rape drug because it's a clear liquid that's easy to sneak into a drink. I mean the Spodee I used to make for parties in college that had a half gallon of Everclear in it was probably just as rapey (inasmuch as it would get you may more ****ed up than you'd think upon tasting it, but then we were very open about what went in here).

From what I understand/recall, that's really different than say, a roofie.

I wrote a cop a $500,000 ticket for illegally parking yesterday. He came back as I was leaving it on his windshield and told me he was going to arrest me for public intoxication if I didn't take my dumbass ticket back. I wasn't even that drunk

LOL

re-read what I wrote

Is this what the politics forum is like on a daily basis?

No, ikes doesn't get banned for doing this in politics. (banned often enough at least)

Thought of? There's been many cases where it was used for that purpose. Not even rape, robbery sometimes.

This is the worst study in the world and I constantly see it get cited. Alcohol is the most harmful drug because it has by far the highest usage of any other drug.

So if all drugs became decriminalized, alcohol would no longer be the most used drug? Marijuana may become more popular, ok, but by any measure it is less harmful than alcohol: http://www.dpft.org/alcohol.htm

Is your contention that "harder" drugs will become much more abused?
At least one study has shown that after decriminalization, drug related deaths and teen use actually goes down: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization
http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/2...was-a-success/

He wasn't arguing anything about legality. I'm pretty sure that he's saying something along the line that, say, per use (like one night of drinking or w/e) alcohol is way less harmful than other stuff. It is clearly better to go to the bar and get drunk than it is to spend the evening shooting up cocaine. Marijuana is debatable, probably close to alcohol's harm level. You likely aren't gonna do much damage to yourself/others with pot. Clearly there are more alcohol related deaths/injuries/health issues because like 90% of the population uses alcohol and like 1% uses cocaine. Im pretty sure he wasn't arguing anything about legality and the effects of making a drug legal/illegal. Usage depends on a lot of different factors.

And don't nit that, i dont have any cool stats and studies because i dont care very much

This is my point.

Decriminalizing drugs is one thing. Making them available over the counter the way alcohol/cigarettes are would increase the number of drug users and decrease the price of drugs, allowing people to use more drugs.

Kevin, were getting closer to Politics with these last few posts. Still needs more Ron Paul and stories of police violence tho

People who want to use drugs will use them.
People who don't will not suddenly become drug fiends just because they are available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

In places where hard drugs have been decriminalized and regulated, and treatment programs made available for addicts, the negative consequences of drug use have declined significantly.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...riminalization

He isnt talking about decriminalizing, he is talking about selling cocaine at walgreens.

I am not arguing against decriminalization. I am arguing that the societal cost of heroin/cocaine/etc would become much larger if they were available as freely/cheaply as alcohol/cigarettes and the conclusions of that study, or at least the conclusions as reported in the media are intellectually dishonest.

Sorry for the politarding this will be my last post on the subject.

I guess that depends, doesn't it? Would more people using heroin / cocaine casually and the attendant costs be worth the trade-off of dismantling the organized crime around cocaine / heroin and being able to provide treatment for addicts who otherwise couldn't afford it?

I'll make this simple. Lets assume that instead of 90% of people using alcohol vs 1% using cocaine, that 90% of people used alcohol and 90% used cocaine as well, by whatever means and for whatever reason. Clearly cocaine would be the one causing more problems. That is Pudge's point I believe. The study is BS. Alcohol isn't "more dangerous" ...it just causes more problems than other things because of its massively widespread use.

Cigarettes are super cheap, easily available and as addictive as almost anything. Use must be skyrocketing.

Imagine how great this debate would be with ikes.

someone hasn't bought a pack in decades

Are we at the point where tax makes up more of the pack price than the actual cigarettes?

I was thinking of pointing Wookie and Elliot to this thread so they can see what a good politics thread looks like when you get rid of the trolls.

Cigarette tax varies radically by location. I think a pack costs close to 9 bucks in Seattle.