Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Lesser politicking - bad billsFollow

QuoteReply
#52 Mar 23 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I am not commenting in any way on the veracity of the arguments on either side here. Criminalization of drug use of any sort is asinine and counterproductive on so many levels that the arguments of the finer points on the periphery make anyone engaging in those arguments look like retards, regardless of their position.


The irony here is that the very same people cheering this change in sentencing for crack dealers would be the first to condemn a move to legalize all drugs (including crack) as racist because black kids in the ghetto would be buying the much more addictive crack cocaine, while the white kids in the suburbs would be able to afford the far less addictive powder form. You know I speak truth...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#53 Mar 23 2010 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that the very same people cheering this change in sentencing for crack dealers would be the first to condemn a move to legalize all drugs (including crack) as racist because black kids in the ghetto would be buying the much more addictive crack cocaine, while the white kids in the suburbs would be able to afford the far less addictive powder form. You know I speak truth...

I do. Which is why I pointed it out yesterday...
Quote:
- Give Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson something to agree with the religious right about
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#54 Mar 23 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
Cocaine is addicting. Honestly, I don't know if the method makes any difference in the addictiveness, if it does it's likely just related to the dose. However, the form of the cocaine doesn't determine the method of use... so it's a moot point.


Yes. It does. You know nothing about crack cocaine, do you?

Crack cocaine is left with impurities in order to allow it to be able to be smoked, which vastly increases the rate at which it enters the blood stream, resulting in a very fast and very euphoric high. Powder cocaine requires more refinement and removes those impurities, making it safer to use (it used to be used medicinally, remember?). It creates a much less intense high, and a more leveled out effect over time.

To make crack out of powdered cocaine, they actually add stuff to it (usually baking soda), then heat it to change the chemical composition back to a form which can be smoked. That is the entire purpose of using that form of the drug.

The base ingredient is the same, but the similarity of the two drugs ends right there. They are completely different in terms of effect. No one would do a line of coke one night, and then smoke a rock of crack the next and claim that the effects were the same despite perhaps the exact same amount of cocaine being used.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#55 Mar 23 2010 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
gbaji wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
All drugs are designed to addict, dork.


No. They aren't. Stop and think about what you just said. Drugs which are addictive tend to be placed on restricted lists exactly for that reason. Some, which aren't very addictive at all (like pot) are placed on restricted lists for other purely silly reasons. But to make such a broad statement about "all drugs" is absurd. Drugs are "designed" to produce whatever physiological effect was intended (or sometimes unintended). Addiction is a side effect in almost all cases.


Yeah, that was careless and not what I intended to say but my point was so simple I sure don't care to expound. I'm gonna blame years of drug abuse for my apathy.

Quote:
Quote:
And you're asking the wrong dude about his experiences with coke and crack. I've known lots of very everyday people, doing every drug you can imagine.


What percentage of those who used crack would you categorize as "addicts" compared to those of cocaine, or meth, or pot, or heroin?


My anecdotal evidence would suggest a hierarchy of skankiness as follows:

meth>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>powder>>>>crack>>heroin>>>>>>>>>>>pot.


Quote:
Anyway, all irrelevant. Look at this: There are a hundred kinds of heroin, we prosecute them all the same. There are a million varieties of meth, we punish them all the same. There are two kinds of coke, and we punish them totally differently.


None of those other drugs have so dramatically different an effect based on their formulation though.
[/quote]

Yes they do. Meth is powder, rock, crystals and all very different in terms of usage and high. Heroin is powder, rock, viscous and ditto. Pot is easily divided into two categories, and is awesome. Pot brownies don't get me as high as bong rips. Powder cocaine is versatile; smokable, snortable, bangable, ingestable. Rock cocaine is all of those things, too, but really only smokable. Do you see how ridiculous this is? You're a bad human for believing what you do.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#56 Mar 23 2010 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Guenny
Sage
****
4,042 posts
catwho wrote:
I believe, if I'm remembering my 420 facts correctly, that there has never been a confirmed case of someone being addicted solely to marijuana. People who switch from tokes to cigs have problems, as do people who use pot in addition to other substances, but no one has been reported to be directly addicted to pot by itself.


Marijuana is said to be "emotionally" addictive. Side effects of a marijuana "detox" usually include irritability, depression, and weird, vivid dreams (truth). Also, nobody ever, anywhere, ever ever, has died of a marijuana overdose.

Quote:
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce
death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as
much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied
marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would
theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within
about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.


And for perspective, cocaine:

Quote:
# Lethal dose: Although this drug has been in use for more than 5000 years, the toxic dose or the amount of cocaine that will cause death or some significant medical consequence is unknown. The average lethal dose by the IV route or by inhalation is about 750-800 mg. This is subject to significant individual variation because deaths have occurred in doctors' offices with as little as 25 mg applied to the mucous membrane or the snorting of a single line in recreational use where the average dose of 1 line is 20 mg.


I couldn't find anything on the first page of google talking about crack lethal doses that didn't just lump it under the category of "cocaine".

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/cocaine_abuse/article_em.htm

Edited, Mar 23rd 2010 2:42pm by Guenny
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#57 Mar 23 2010 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591777427374
View User Forum
Scholar
***
2,699 posts
So I have heard about this crack vs. cocaine thing for years and actually looked into the reports generated by ostensibly intelligent people which re-affirmed that the vast disparity in sentencing was justified based on very narrow differences in the science.

It is reflective of thinking which I see in this forum all the time: form opinion, skew facts to fit. Or, as Adam from Mythbusters would say, I reject your reality and substitute my own. I wish this were restricted to online forums and not the highest reaches of government, but so it goes.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#58 Mar 23 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:

I am not commenting in any way on the veracity of the arguments on either side here. Criminalization of drug use of any sort is asinine and counterproductive on so many levels that the arguments of the finer points on the periphery make anyone engaging in those arguments look like retards, regardless of their position.


Meh, you can argue the validity or lack thereof of already existing law without compromising your integrity. I mean what's the alternative? Just a vacuum of opinion? I think people who stand on the sidelines waiting for every argument to reduce to its base before sharing their simplistic views are not just retards, but ****-heads, regardless of their position.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#59 Mar 23 2010 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Cocaine is addicting. Honestly, I don't know if the method makes any difference in the addictiveness, if it does it's likely just related to the dose. However, the form of the cocaine doesn't determine the method of use... so it's a moot point.


Yes. It does. You know nothing about crack cocaine, do you?

Crack cocaine is left with impurities in order to allow it to be able to be smoked, which vastly increases the rate at which it enters the blood stream, resulting in a very fast and very euphoric high. Powder cocaine requires more refinement and removes those impurities, making it safer to use (it used to be used medicinally, remember?). It creates a much less intense high, and a more leveled out effect over time.

To make crack out of powdered cocaine, they actually add stuff to it (usually baking soda), then heat it to change the chemical composition back to a form which can be smoked. That is the entire purpose of using that form of the drug.

The base ingredient is the same, but the similarity of the two drugs ends right there. They are completely different in terms of effect. No one would do a line of coke one night, and then smoke a rock of crack the next and claim that the effects were the same despite perhaps the exact same amount of cocaine being used.
You keep saying things that you just assume we are going to believe. I do know that injecting a drug into your blood stream is the quickest way to cause the drug to affect you. I don't see how, physiologically speaking, smoking it gets it there quicker than snorting. Regardless, all I want is some proof that this stuff you've written is reality. Because I don't think it is.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#60 Mar 23 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Meh, you can argue the validity or lack thereof of already existing law without compromising your integrity. I mean what's the alternative? Just a vacuum of opinion? I think people who stand on the sidelines waiting for every argument to reduce to its base before sharing their simplistic views are not just retards, but ****-heads, regardless of their position.

I already knew you were a retarded ****-head. Me? I shared my opinion less than 90 minutes in to the discussion. You chose the man's route and waited 8 hours to argue with Wall of Text. Way to pick your spots.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#61 Mar 23 2010 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
Gbaji apparently lives in a world where one can't smoke powder.

For someone with such a serious drug problem, you sure don't know the basics, dude.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#62 Mar 23 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1596990078323
View User Forum
Sage
*****
19,727 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Meh, you can argue the validity or lack thereof of already existing law without compromising your integrity. I mean what's the alternative? Just a vacuum of opinion? I think people who stand on the sidelines waiting for every argument to reduce to its base before sharing their simplistic views are not just retards, but ****-heads, regardless of their position.

I already knew you were a retarded ****-head. Me? I shared my opinion less than 90 minutes in to the discussion. You chose the man's route and waited 8 hours to argue with Wall of Text. Way to pick your spots.


I'm sorry I didn't read your posts. I'd go back and read the beginning of this thread but I wasn't posting then so I think I'd probably rather just sit here and play with my taint.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#63 Mar 23 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
I'm sorry I didn't read your posts. I'd go back and read the beginning of this thread but I wasn't posting then so I think I'd probably rather just sit here and play with my taint.

You'll get more out of it.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#64 Mar 23 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Gbaji apparently lives in a world where one can't smoke powder.

For someone with such a serious drug problem, you sure don't know the basics, dude.


Lol! That's funny coming from someone who is just plain wrong.

The powder (or salt) form of cocaine cannot be smoked. Ok. It can, but you wont get high, you'll just burn your coke into a mess. Only the base (freebase) form or the crack form of cocaine can be smoked. The base form is more expensive to obtain than the powdered form. The reason crack is such a big deal is that it's an inexpensive way to produce a smokable product.

As to effects? At the risk of linking a Wiki page, for the most part the facts are correct:

Time for peak effect when snorting powder form: 14.6 minutes
Time for peak effect when injecting liquid form: 3.1 minutes
Time for peak effect when smoking either base or crack form: 1.4 minutes


The point being that most people wont shoot up a drug. Most people can't afford to smoke the base form. The powder form isn't that addictive unless you take large amounts for a long time. The introduction of the crack form allows for a cheap and very fast and intense high without requiring injection. All the ingredients one needs for a heavily addictive product.


Could you please stop stating facts that are trivially refuted?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#65 Mar 23 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Could you please stop stating facts that are trivially refuted?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#66 Mar 23 2010 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Could you please stop stating facts that are trivially refuted?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....


Everything I've stated about the differences between crack and powdered cocaine is correct. What's strange is your pathological need to imply otherwise...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#67 Mar 23 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Could you please stop stating facts that are trivially refuted?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....


Everything I've stated about the differences between crack and powdered cocaine is correct. What's strange is your pathological need to imply otherwise...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he's comparing your statement to your larger body of work.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#68 Mar 23 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
Gbaji, what do you think the punishment should be for freebase coke?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#69 Mar 23 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Moe is smarter than Gbaji.

Damned with faint praise, I know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#70 Mar 23 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Gbaji, what do you think the punishment should be for freebase coke?


The same as it is now? I think you are still misunderstanding the issue here. It's about the combination of being "cheap" and "highly addictive" and "in a convenient form" which sets crack cocaine apart. You can't just look at one or two things it has in common with other drugs. It's all three that make it so harmful.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#71 Mar 23 2010 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume he's comparing your statement to your larger body of work.


I got that to. It's funny though how he most pushes this argument when he has nothing to say about the topic at hand. I'll also point out that most of our disagreements are not over factual matters, but interpretation and opinion. In this case though, BT simply had his core facts wrong. Dead wrong. Made all the more absurd by his insistence that I was an idiot for apparently being correct. The "gbaji thinks you can't smoke a powder" was particularly amusing...

And as Elinda stated, it's not about me. Strange though how it becomes all about me the moment people start realizing that what I'm saying is correct.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2010 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#72 Mar 23 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1649636385462
Sage
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Gbaji, what do you think the punishment should be for freebase coke?


The same as it is now? I think you are still misunderstanding the issue here. It's about the combination of being "cheap" and "highly addictive" and "in a convenient form" which sets crack cocaine apart. You can't just look at one or two things it has in common with other drugs. It's all three that make it so harmful.
Crack cocaine is just impure freebase cocaine.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#73 Mar 23 2010 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's funny though how he most pushes this argument when he has nothing to say about the topic at hand.

Quick! Call the mods and have me banned for violating the cross-thread policy of this board!

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#74 Mar 23 2010 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Legalizing drugs would accomplish 4 things

- Ease prison overcrowding
- Give Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson something to agree with the religious right about
- Virtually eliminate the welfare class
- Put a, how did Samira put it, "metric illegal drugs" of money in the state's coffers.


- Take the world's second largest industry out the hands of organised crime
- Solve the Taliban problem
- Solve the civil war in Columbia
- Prevent the US government from spending tens of billions on the war on drugs

So, yeah, 8.

Also, Harvard translate a "metric fuck ton", in this context, as $76.8 billion a year.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#75 Mar 23 2010 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
paulsol
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,158 posts
Fastest way for a drug to get to your brain is -

Lung > Left Atrium > Left Ventricle > Brain.

Injection (assuming into arm) is Arm > Right Atrium > Right Vent > Lung > Left Atrium > Left Vent > Brain

So inhaling is technically faster.

Liquid LSD straight on your eyeball is pretty damn fast too iirc.

Other than that, Gbaji is the one in this thread who seems to know the most about the differences (or otherwise) of coacaine v Crack, and Elinda seems to know the least.

Also 'stills' for the production of spirits are freely availiable to purchase in New Zealand and I don't think I've ever heard about anyone blowing themselves up with one. Then again we have lots of guns here too, and mostly they are used for pig shooting and wotnot, rather than shooting each other. So perhaps we are better at operating machines..

And finally. Of course decriminalize/legalize all drugs. The alternative is obviously far more harmful to society as a whole (violence, robbery, gangs including the Taleban and the CIA etc etc effecting everyone) whereas legal drug use would only harm those actually using them and that would be hugely mitigated by education funded by the same money currently used wasted in anti-drug enforcement and imprisonment of offenders.

No brainer imo.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#76 Mar 23 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Can we get Nancy Reagan back on TV to say "Just Say Maybe"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 205 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (205)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC