Legalise 2003

Post by **hubird** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 4:07 pm

just back from Legalise Amsterdam, 30 sound systems on trucks, oe-ah-oe-ah-oe-ah aaaaahhhhhhh

Lucy in the Sky again, lotsa Diamonds

mind mind mind

I don't like the big ones, but just for today:

And now:

http://www.legalize.net/

_________________
Let There Be Dr*gs not war!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-06-08 10:36 ]

siberiansun · Post by **siberiansun** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:24 am

legalize what? drugs? for what reason?

i for one does NOT agree with this whole legalize movement.
why should we legalize more stuff that kills us?
why make it easier for kids to get a hold on drugs?
how can a n y o n e argue that doing drugs is better than NOT doing drugs?

[ This Message was edited by: siberiansun on 2003-06-08 08:33 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:21 am

Siberiansun, it reads 'Legalize' not 'Apply'

actually (ok, imho) this would solve a large part of drug problems - might even make certain kinds of war superfluous - but I don't want to drift (too much) in the political direction.
For me it once was one of the most appealing (and attractive) aspects of drugs, that their use was illegal and dangerous in various aspects.

But I can't resist to adress the hypocratic 'illegalizers'.
We owe them lots of billions in economic loss and almost endless personal pain due to the fact that blood donations were rewarded significantly in the 70s and noone sorted out the junkies. I've known several of them doing this on a regular base.
In those years it was almost impossible to get one-way-injectors. Welcome Hepatitis C (for a decade there was a 10% risk to aquire that in any operation using blood conserves - it's incurable btw) and HIV.
And who cares about a few hundred drug addicts dead per year ?
In Germany we have 7800 deathly traffic accidents (a lot caused by young, inexperienced drivers) and about 25% of our inhabitants (20 million) suffer from a disease called metabolic syndrom (too much fat food, too little motion - basically) which increases the risk of cardiac death etc etc.
So who's to blame a few smokers ?
I'm also against uninformed kids, but honestly, even that can't keep you from anything - I was certainly one of the best informed kids in my class (the best in chemics those days...)

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-06-08 09:27 ]

Post by **hubird** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:36 am

you're just looking at the consumption side, Sib.
there are many good reasons to legalise drugs and put it in a health or 'medical' legislation.
Terrorism, military underground movements and world drugs maffia are totally feed by trade of drugs.
All violence and killings by the alcohol maffia in the United States 70 years ago evaporated after legalising the drug alcohol.

Personally I just like it from time to time

I'm still a healthy and reasonable man.

_________________
Let There Be Music!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2003-06-08 10:35 ]

siberiansun · Post by **siberiansun** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:38 am

On 2003-06-08 09:21, astroman wrote:
Siberiansun, it reads 'Legalize' not 'Apply'

I sure get your point Tom

but it's already too easy for kids to access alcohol. why make it easier to get drugs?

(jee i start to sound like a dry stick....)

Post by **hubird** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:53 am

also:

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 2&forum=31

cheerz

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:40 am

On 2003-06-08 09:38, siberiansun wrote:
(jee i start to sound like a dry stick....)

I wouldn't say so, it's a reasonable attitude which may develope over the years - today I'm more on that side too.
While I wouldn't want to miss those drug experiences on one hand, I also have to admit they held me away from other important things. Like two sides of a story.
Imho kids can handle this better than adult people (I wouldn't dare hallucinogenes today) but with a proper education there are no severe problems to expect imho.
At least not compared to alcohol, which can have a significantly deeper impact. Some of my worst experiences were with closely related alcohol addicts. It's the hell on earth.
Seems to be a regular part of human life to search for sensations, but if you happen to 'drop out' on something it doesn't matter if it's chemical, physical or mental - just depends on your attitude.
There's a lot missing in current education regarding exactly that process of developing a personality.

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-06-08 11:40 ]

virtualstudio · Post by **virtualstudio** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:14 pm

On 2003-06-08 09:38, siberiansun wrote:

I sure get your point Tom
but it's already too easy for kids to access alcohol. why make it easier to get drugs?

(jee i start to sound like a dry stick....)

it's (imho)also very easy to get drugs now everywhere in the world,its just illegal!! it's naive to think children will take more drugs when its legal.maybe even less because its less rebelian then.

think about drug related crimes what will happen with that?think what happend when they forbid alcohol in the states.No I see absolutly no harm in a "fatty" once in a wile.and children are capeble enough to see the differnce between "hard-& softdrugs",as long as we keep on giving information about using drug's

the only drug I use is koffie and tabacco, and believe me is very easy to get here in A'dam

rgards
Terranova-Amsterdam

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 5:36 pm

Okay as pointed out this is part of a big fat previous thread but obviously it's a point of interest to musicians. The way I see it is this. Alcohol is more deadly and totally accepted here in the states. The hypocracy of this is not lost on our youth. Maybe the problem has to do with a fear of the unkown since alcohol has been the drug of choice in western culture for centuries. In my mind it is clear that people have experimented with drugs since the dawn of civilization. I blame the government and the church for the war on drugs. They want your hearts and minds and they don't like competition.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:57 am

Hey I was on Legalise too!

Pretty cool.
I must try not to get into another big drug debate here, but I just would like to illustrate how I feel:
You mustn't see it as if we're trying to make "drugs availeable easier to kids". Drugs are already easily available to kids, you are kidding yourself if you think making it legal would make it easier or more attractive to do drugs. We just want to make sure people don't get thrown in jail for smoking pot or taking a pill in the weekends. We want to make sure our medical system can finally benefit from all the positive effects certain drugs have.
We also fight hypocricy: it's totally accepted to do alcohol, while in fact it's one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs around. It's totally normal to stuff ourselves and our hyperactive and depressed kids full with prescription drugs like Prozac which wreck our bodies more than a lot of so called illegal drugs.
Legalisation cannot go without a big increase in public-awareness campaigns, better information on health-risks and strict government regulation though.
People who do drugs are not criminals, and do not belong in jail. The fact that we made drugs illegal put drug dealing into the hands of criminals.
We would like to see people accept the fact that there will always be people who do drugs in one form or another. We would like to see the money and effort spent to make drug users into criminals, redirected to reducing the harmful effects of drug use as much as possible, by doing more research into the substances themselves, and by educating people about the risks of taking them.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:57 am

I've had a notion before, that if certain drugs were legalized and controlled, there may be lesser risk of overdose or extreme misuse. Like, caffeine is ok in the density of coffee, but caffeine as a substance (pure) is quite deadly. Also nicotine. Now, if these substances weren't controlled and let loose at extreme densities, then we'd have lots of troubles.

If other substances were treated the same, then it may actually be safer.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:44 pm

Kensuguru:

It's a fear of the unkown, an irational paranoia.

I just watched an episode of the real life tv series "Cops" in which they had a sting operation going. They were selling small amounts of pot and then arresting the buyers. Not only would they have a criminal record but they have their cars taken away. This one guy an an obiously expensive car that he clearly loved. The cops seem to take a perverse pleasure in causing mental anguish to these people. It's insane but I see no end in sight.

j9k · Post by **j9k** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 3:19 pm

ive never seen a drug dealer check a kids id.

j9k

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:00 pm

On 2003-06-23 16:19, j 9 k wrote:
ive never seen a drug dealer check a kids id.

j9k

No joke. Growing up in the Chicago suburbs, I can say that when I was in highschool, it was easier to get heroin than a beer because there was no unregulated market for booze. If you wanted you either had to be 21 (or have an ID), get someone who is 21 to buy for you, or steal it from your parents.

For the hard drugs, you just need money and the street smarts not to get your ass kicked/killed by shady characters.

The merits (or lack) of drugs is a stupid question because the statement automatically infers abuse and addiction. Never does one hear about positive uses of substances that also have addictive side effects.

For instance, ecstacy had a tremendous success rate in marital counselling, however, as we all know it can make you manic depressive with extended use.

Cocaine has been used for ages as a local anesthetic much like morphine, but as morphine does not lend itself to social use, it stays on the good side of the drug list.

Marijuana of course is the motherload of bad reputations (and if anyone is interested in why that is -at least in the US, lemme know I'll post some links). And while it does have some side effects, it comes from the hemp plant which is one of the most versatile substances on this planet. It has been used to make clothes since the dawn of time and military uniforms for WWI & II (all of which lasted immeasurably longer than cotton or polymer-plastic based products), sails and rope for boats, it has medical value far beyond just cancer treatment and has an amazing nutritional value.

The difference between these and most 'acceptable drugs' is that illegal ones are, in addition to having side effects (which almost anything that we intake does) is that the illegal ones do not require sophisticated equipment to produce and as such cannot be part of a controlled market as any joe off the street with a patch of dirt or a chemistry set could make. Obviously there are exceptions and I don't condone people getting high to the point of uselessness...
but this whole drug war BS is far too political to actually make sense within the parameters in which it's usually discussed.

People abuse drugs because they are unhappy, bored, don't know what it can do to them, or combinations therein. Taking away drugs does nothing to change any of those factors. And if people's safety from drug abuse is the real issue, remember that tobacco kills more people worldwide every year than any other drugs combined. So our 'legitimate' tobacco empires in the US are actually the largest drug cartel ever. And they have govt. support. As was already mentioned, booze is the same.

Anyway. I've gone on long enough. Rantus endicus.

Sam

[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2003-06-23 21:07 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:39 am

well said, Sam - exactly the points

appended: just had my laugh of the day - 90% of all Euro banknotes in Germany have traces of cocaine

while this isn't funny in itself (co is a real poison - a line affects the brain like 3-5 bottles of vodka, a single line!) it's another proof of the already mentioned hypocracy. We currently have a small drug affair with a prominent journalist / TV moderator going on here (obviously started to fill summer's news hole) and the shouters have already been heard...

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-06-24 10:18 ]

Post by **garyb** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:35 am

governments are the biggest drug traffickers,especially here is the u.s.a....

dehuszar · Post by **dehuszar** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 10:05 pm

On 2003-06-24 12:35, garyb wrote:
governments are the biggest drug traffickers,especially here is the u.s.a....

Yeah, anyone that's willing to listen to good info on this (who won't immediately dismiss it as conspiricy theory garbage) check out Expert Witness Radio (http://www.expertwitnessradio.org) which airs on WBAI in New York. I stream it over the internet from WBAI.org.

The host, Mike Levine, is an Ex-DEA agent and gets all sorts of govt. people with consciences and good intentions on the air.

Anyway, he's discussed many times how (speaking as a DEA agent) the CIA often traffik'd drugs to help fund projects which they could never get approval to appropriate tax dollars for.

The drug war has been an excuse to militarize for years. We spend billions of dollars spraying South America with poisons and hire the most vicious thugs to 'keep the peace' (a.k.a. killing people into servitude), while our precious Northern Alliance which we've propped up in Afghanistan has regained the crown as the largest producers of heroin in the world.

Our jets fly over the poppy fields every day. Not one ounce of pesticide hits a petal on a single flower because they are our ruthless drug-producing dictators, and not the competition.

I'm going to stop there as I have very strong feelings about this stuff and can go on for too long if not restrained (and I seem to recall JC not being to fond of political rants).

Anyone that is interested in more info though, plz email me, as I've got great documentaries, articles, and audio recordings (which won't abuse any copywrights I assure you) on the topic as well as all sorts of other good political stuff.

Peace and good fortunes,
Sam

p.s. if there are any Pulsarians from South America with any exposure with (or denial of) the statement I made above, I'd love to get a personal insight on the matter. Thanks.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:07 am

as far as I know, current US policy on marijuana stems from the early 20th century, during which time there was a certain amount of hysteria over this new 'scourge' coming in from Mexico. The hysteria was so great that a black murder defendant was convicted of being under the influence of the drug a day or two after smoking a joint.

The current laws in the US still stem from this period.

PS. I got this info from a very good book I had on marijuana prohibition.. if I find the book again or remember its title I'll post the details.

peace

j9k · Post by **j9k** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:36 am

i thought marijuana was almost legalized in the 70's except for opposition from duppont which is a major leader in plastics. i don't think any government has a problem with people getting stoned it's the effect that hemp would have on the economy. they just keep lieing to themselves. as long as hemp can compete with the oil industry it will never be legal at least not here. i also heard it makes great paper why cut down trees.
j9k

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:52 am

Yes, Dupont just developed nylon back then, they wanted to replace the old hemp stuff with it. Plus the drug being considered at the time as a black peoples thing from the south, it was easy for Dupont to pass their anti-weed law.

In the meanwhile, coffeeshops in the Netherlands can legally sell, but not buy grass or chocolate. Where do they get the stuff? From the same maffia that's armouring guerillia etc?

For years there's also been large belgian import to holland, where belgians drive to buy it legally.

We're limited to carry 5 grams in Belgium, by law, wherein it's described as 'a daily dose'. Anyone tried to smoke 5 grams on one day? Please report

One crazy world we're living in...