Do you think you know enough addicts to make that kind of statistical analysis of them as a group?

TR

No, i know several non-addicts though.
People who use drugs on special occasions to get that sick ride once in a while but can still go months without using anything.

I dont know how it is in US but in Europe there are several large trance/techno festivals, Q-base and Sensation white being among the bigger ones (afaik?) and the drug usage here is quite extensive.
You can probably argue that many of these are addicts but i'm also quite certain that many save drug usage for occasions such as these.

Edit: To simplify my opinion a bit, I think its wrong to assume anyone who uses drugs (in a casual maner or however you can say it...) is a drug addict.
I know i sometimes go a bit far, but i like a good argument, and they do need to be started:munchin

How do you know that?

IMHO, there are few, if any casual (non-addicted) users of heroin, opium, codiene (natural or synthetic), cocaine, or amphetimines.

TR

Being able to take it or leave it is an argument I have heard several recovering addicts relate as their feeling while their addiction was developing. The illusion that they are "in control", that they can stop using or disregard the use of drugs any time they choose. The tragedy for them comes when they can no longer leave it alone. The addicted people I have met who are recovering didn't start out with their use of drugs or alcohol saying that they were going to become addicts. That's the humanity of the disease that makes it a tragedy, IMO.

"Things are tough all over"
 

LarryW--

Well said.

I would add that we should not forget the impact that even "casual" use of "recreational" drugs can have on the life of the user, his/her family, and friends.

It doesn't take a glass pipe or a syringe to send a father to an early grave, or to see him joined decades later by a life long friend, and then by his older brother. (Although a pipe did play a significant role with the last.)

It can be as simple as an empty cigar box, some rolling papers, and a "harmless" green herb, along with cans of beer, badly mixed sangria, a small spoon, and a short vial.

From there, it is a blur of missed appointments, unkept promises, watching a star crossed marriage capsize, a badly understocked pantry, fending for oneself, vital life lessons going untaught, bad habits being imitated, seemingly endless hours alone. An attempted homicide. The life of a latch-key kid.

Then there's the night before Thanksgiving. The national network news broadcasts have not yet ritualized the counting of days that Americans have been held hostages in Iran. The phone rings endlessly until one awakes from a troubled sleep, knowing what the call means before the receiver is picked up.

The voice on the other side asks "Is your father home?" One prays quickly, silently, vainly, while opening a door to find a room with a made bed. One picks up the phone, answers the question, "No" and is told "I'll be right over."

A moment later, a lifetime later, one learns that what was feared is what is true now and forever. The answer to the second question of the evening--"Do you want to be alone?"--is the same as the answer to the first question. "No."

In my opinion, the fact that the state cannot legislate morality does not mean that the state should legislate chaos.

Just my $0.02.

Would it be accurate to say that EVERY addict started out with the thought they could "take it or leave it"? I wonder how many meth, heroin or cocaine addicts NEVER smoked marijuana?

Just an opinion, but I would think taking that first drug, of any type, is more likely to lead to addiction than taking that first drink, smoking that first cigarette or playing that first slot machine.

Of all the addictions out there, which leads to the most crime, most health problems, most family relationship problems, most job problems, most loss of personal control? I don't really kinow. But what I do know is, in the families I know,...drug addiction is the worst! Suicide, homicide, property crimes and just plain family despair.

I think it is a pathetic cop-out to consider drug legalization.

My .02

I'm not saying drugs are good in any way, but to get addicted you need to use them more then is "safe" for your body and mind.
Most people are in my opinion are able to recognise this line and stay a healthy distance away from it, yet so many succumb to it and become addicts.
So upto the point where a person actually is addicted, which is probably alot earlier then when he becomes aware of it, he will still have made conscious decisions to take drugs and increase the amount of drugs hes taking, neglecting the fact that hes going to far with it.

So in my opinion for each addict saying he once was in control, i think there are several more who stays in control.
How often a person uses drugs i think is also very related to his social circles and wether his friends will tell him to get a fucking grip if they feel he's slipping or if they will just feed him more.

As for knowing all this, i can't really know much without having done extensive research,
But suppose i hang out in some social circles where drugs are more or less accepted but not used much.
I'm not saying i use drugs here, but i know for a fact its possible to go for years and use drugs on occasions and not become addicted.

This all being said it's also important to recognise the differences in drugs, some are alot more addictive then others.
And once you cross the line and start injecting drugs into your body you're pretty much there already...


Hope I haven't derailed the thread to much here:confused:

Think i was wrong in my earlier asumption that there isn't any statistics on this.
I came across this: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#066

I may have misread some statistics here so correct me if im wrong.

This document claims that about 20% of everyone beetween 18-25 years in the US has tried an illegal drug, 16% of these having done marijuana.
And as you can see the use is down to 11% with people 26-34 years of age.
After that its 5% for people 35 years and above.

I dont think you have that many addicts in your country.

So where is the compromise that will prevent drug lords/drug dealers from getting richer/more dangerous while also keeping drugs like cocaine/meth illegal?

I hear a lot of talk about people becoming addicts, and that number being even higher if these drugs were legalized. I live in a very remote location in the US and I know drugs are being sold illegally here. Just the other day a few kids got stopped leaving a local school early, and school security found a gallon ziploc bag full of weed in the car. These are kids in a very small town in possession of a relatively harmless (in comparison to the more addictive), yet illegal, drug. If they're already living a destructive lifestyle and smoking/selling pot at their age, I think the odds of them moving on to something like meth eventually are very good.

As for the more addictive drugs, I've seen them here on the reservation as well. I recently had a run-in with a couple of locals that decided to threaten me because I was about to go for a run. Apparently a white guy running on "Navajo Land", as they put it, could be shot for trespassing. Both of them were drunk at the least, while one definitely looked like a meth addict to boot. (On an aside, they also chose to have this conversation with me while their kids were in the car. Talk about good role models!) And drugs aren't new to the rez, as I witnessed kids my age taking cocaine while I was in high school. That was about 15 years ago.

It is obvious to me that those who want to take drugs will always find a way to get them, and drug dealers will always be pushing their illegal drugs on the ignorant/naive among us. I personally have no interest in taking cocaine/meth, and I definitely don't want my children taking them. I don't know if the odds of my kids taking cocaine/meth would increase if it were legalized, but I do know that if it were legalized and controlled, they wouldn't have access to them until they were old enough to legally purchase them, and hopefully by then they'd be smart enough to know what the risks are and choose not to take them.

We can't protect everyone from themselves, but we can take the rug right from under the feet of the drug lords by doing more about the drug situation. Maybe legalizing these drugs isn't the best answer, but I really haven't heard of a better option, just moral/ethical disapproval.

This thread began with a discussion re: drug lords murdering the children and families of some LEOs killed in the line of duty in Mexico. In my heart I have such disdain for that behavior that it pales the discussion re: illegal drug use.

IMO, behavior that is victimless has been the argument for years re: the legalization of drugs. Drugs are not in and of themselves harmless. They have potential for great harm to people and to society. Drug manufacturing and distribution cannot IMO be considered victimless behavior, never mind whether it's legal or not. As for addressing the drug lords who make millions without regard for any of their clientele, and junkies who commit felonies to get the money to buy drugs, I am more hawkish on the matter.

Addiction is not defined by the number of days, hours, or minutes between usages.

What do you consider to be an acceptable number of addicts in a society, and would that number be higher or lower if usage were legalized?

Just because we are not doing as well in the war as we had hoped does not mean we are going to give up.

TR

Yeah, we're funding both sides like we do with foreign aid to Af, Pak, etc. that gets ciphoned off by corrupt foreign officials or paid directly to fixers.

Cartels would not command massive resources if we didn't hand over dollars.

Recalibrating Drug Laws Based On Science

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.24ff49c.html

Richard

Fusion of Crime and Terrorist Organizations
 

The Congressional Research Service just issued a report on the convergence of criminal syndicates and terrorist groups. The report mentions one Mexican cartel influenced by religious extremism (not Islam), but not much on the narcos in LATAM.

"Over time, a purely criminal group may transform, adopting political goals and new operational objectives. These organizations can form alliances with existing terrorist organizations or foreign governments to help achieve their strategic aspirations. Or they can initiate, direct, and perpetrate terrorist attacks without external assistance, resulting in the group becoming labeled a terrorist organization. Criminal syndicates often already possess the operational expertise needed to engage in terrorist acts. They may already employ terrorist specialists to conduct surveillance, transfer money, purchase weapons, build bombs, and eliminate rivals. A criminal organization can easily transfer this apparatus toward politically motivated ends. The result is either a truly evolved criminal-turned-terrorist group or a 'fused' criminal-terrorist organization that seeks to develop ties with like-minded ideological movements. The use of criminal skills for terrorist ends raises the concern among some experts that terrorists may seek out criminals for recruitment or radicalization, believing them to be a higher skilled partner than non-criminals. A criminal’s participation in terrorist activity, however, brings greater scrutiny from law enforcement agencies and politicians.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat...eda_and_th.php

KHAT!
 

Interesting controversy over fact-based research in the UK.

No. 1 on the experts' list was an easy call: heroin. It's extremely addictive and, by any measure, destructive to the user and the society around him. Cocaine came in second, followed by barbiturates and street methadone.

Then the list got interesting. Alcohol, which has always been legal in England and was only briefly outlawed in the United States, took the fifth position, above tobacco (9), marijuana (11), LSD (14) and ecstasy (18). The least harmful drug in all respects was khat, a stimulant derived from the leaves of an African shrub.