Well, this is just how much they care about democracy. They are anti-freedom and anti-democratic, that's the only conclusion I can think of when seeing their secret agenda.
Only Nobel price winning economists think that inflation works. Krugman and now this dude. Not to mention stuff like giving away nobel prices for "encouragement".
I feel really sorry for physics, chemistry and other researchers who must be really worth something to get this prize just to have a moron believing that printing money solves economic issues sitting next to him.
there is no logical arguments behind keeping it illegal. Just emotional stuff. That's the problem i dislike hard liners on drugs legality so much. They are like cult members and can't talk to their reason.
How is it your business if someone's injecting heroin? Is this your business? By the Constituion? By comparison to alcohol or weed? None of your business. The same way like guns. I can buy gun to hurt you, and that's fine, but can't get some chemicals to hurt myself? Where is logic here brother?
There is none. Just emotional BS. Get over it. As crash in 1929 legalized alcohol and we don't have beer dealers shooting each other (we used to have them!!!). As crash in 2008 legalized weed in large parts of the country, the same way next crash will legalize rest of it.
In this economy I don't have so much money to spend on somebody's else life. Sorry. And now start your emotional cry.
why not to legalize something that hurts just the one who takes it? The same logic would require us to delegalize alcohol. Remember, we had booze dealers with machine guns terrorizing whole cities, like Chicago, before we came back to our senses and legalized it.
Can you see Corona dealers fighting with Coors dealers for a territory to sell beer? Why not? This is the EXACT reality of 1920s in this country.
I don't care if some idiots are going to kill themselves. As if we didn't have enough economic issues and ways to spend money, to spend so much on prisons, police force and all this other BS to deal with somebody's addiction.
I will tell you what will happen. As 1929 crash forced us to legalize alcohol, the same way 2008 forced us to legalize weed. Hopefully next crash will force us to legalize rest of it and start making money on it to find education vs. taking money from education to keep juvenile institutions staffed with guards.
You don't have to be in favour of the current war on drugs to be in favour of heroin being illegal - and this is key selling heroin being illegal. Even Portugal, held up as the example of decriminalization only decriminalized possession not distribution.
Being a heroin addict should be treated as a social/medical problem and people given all the help they can to get clean, but we absolutely shouldn't be encouraging people to take it up. Especially heroin which is responsible for a very high percentage of all drug related deaths.
I think you've struck upon the fundamental issue when it comes to substance legalization: we've made the U.S. government the arbiter of safety. People think, "If it's legal, it must be safe."
That isn't a true statement even now, but it's the mindset people bring to discussions about decriminalization.
Legalization does not need to mean "encouraging people to take it up." If we want to end the war on drugs, we need to all accept responsibility for determining what is safe for ourselves. The government's role should be in providing information and support.
Don't forget marketing. Alcohol is marketed extensively by the industry despite the associated problems. A legal heroin industry would have a huge incentive to market heroin.
Heroin + other drugs combined are responsible for a high percentage of all drug related deaths. You can make the argument that there's not much difference, because people are dumb, and I'd probably agree with you though.
From what I understand, heroin when injected is so addictive that using it even once can put you on a path you never would have gone anywhere near. It takes rational thought out of the occasion, changes your personality and your goals - your life becomes about getting your next fix and you'll do anything to get it.
Beer, weed, ecstacy, etc don't have that same steep addictive power, so aren't dangerous in that way. So it can't be so easily compared to alcohol since alcohol has a much more gradual addiction curve whereas heroin is much much steeper.
That's utter nonsense. Do you realize heroin is a fancy name for diacetylmorphine, an analgesic commonly used to treat chronic and post-surgical pain?
In other words, thousands of people around the world received that 'one shot' today and if you didn't tell them, probably wouldn't even know they just had a hit of h (and none of them suddenly loses their ability for rational thought or their life's goals).
Thousands of people are given heroin-like (or actually heroin in your case) pain killers for chronic and post-surgical pain and move onto illegal forms like heroin after because they're addicted. Like the dude in the article.
"One shot" is an exaggeration, apologies. My point was that heroin and it's analogues are highly addictive substances, in an aggressive way that beer weed and ecstacy aren't. You can't directly compare and equate beer with heroin for the sake of argument for legalization. Drugs aren't equal and the addictive properties of one are different from another. They have to be considered on a case by case basis.
It's also worth watching episode 7 of Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown where he goes back home to Massachusetts. A large portion of the episode is focused on this.
You have kids in high school who are injured in sports, are prescribed painkillers by their doctors which eventually gets them on heroin. The addicts didn't wake up one day thinking, "You know what? I think I'm going to try heroin today." It was legal pharmaceuticals with falsely advertised addiction rates that got them onto it.
A single dose is unlikely to lead to physical dependence. Powerful opiates are often administered through an IV for things like oral surgery (my recollection of the sedation I had when I had my wisdom teeth out definitely includes euphoria in the moments before I fell asleep).
The issue is probably mostly that many of the people at a point where the first dose seems like a good idea are going to also think the second dose is a good idea.
> From what I understand, heroin when injected is so addictive that using it even once can put you on a path you never would have gone anywhere near. It takes rational thought out of the occasion, changes your personality and your goals - your life becomes about getting your next fix and you'll do anything to get it.
All bullshit. The vast majority of people who try heroin (even multiple times) do not get addicted.
Me too, but unfortunately it seems to be almost impossible to find unbiased information (almost everything I found was blatant drug-war propaganda with absolutely no science backing it up)
The likelihood that someone will become addicted to a substance is actually much more affected by the route of administration than the substance itself. Addiction primarily happens as a result of people linking an action (e.g. taking a drug) with a reward, and the less time there is in between taking the drug and it taking effect, the more powerful that connection.
In terms of addictive potential for any given drug:
smoking > injecting > snorting > eating > topical
If you were to actually compare drinking crack with drinking coffee, the addictiveness of both would be identical.
Route of administration changes how quickly, how hard and in what way drugs hit you. For example, someone could rub some coke on their gums and have a numb mouth and be slightly more alert, or snort the same amount and get a rush.
I think you're mistaken. While the first part is certainly true - I remain doubtful about the implication for addictive potential of a drug - the second part is a rather bad example:
Both in your nose and in your mouth the drug is absorbed into the bloodstream via a mucous membrane. The reason you don't see a lot of people putting large doses of cocaine on their gums is largely practical... same thing for mdma for example, just the other way around.
/edit The coke-numbs-your-gums part is supposed to be a test for the quality of the product, easily faked though.
You're focussing on physical addiction. A drug hitting you nearly instantly (IV use) vs over a period of time is definitely more psychologically addictive. There's really no argument there..
>Both in your nose and in your mouth the drug is absorbed into the bloodstream via a mucous membrane. The reason you don't see a lot of people putting large doses of cocaine on their gums is largely practical... same thing for mdma for example, just the other way around.
It's more practical to put it in your gums though - you don't need to lay it out, crush it up, line it up into lines, find/roll a tube etc. You just stick your finger into the packet and rub it on your gums. Do a little research - snorting affects you in a more intense way.
> /edit The coke-numbs-your-gums part is supposed to be a test for the quality of the product, easily faked though.
Cocaine was used by dentists to numb gums. It acts as an anaesthetic. Drug dealers play on this and add numbing agents to other drugs and pass it off as coke.
I find myself wondering how someone would go directly form clean to "lets stick this needled in my arm". Likely by that time the person is already craving it after having had it several times via other means.
Give me some real science here instead of BS propaganda of people interested in keeping it illegal, like law enforcement and their budget, like mafia and their income.
I heard exactly the same form school teacher about marijuana. I heard the same about alcohol and native American Indians. This is all BS. Give me science, solid proofs, not scary stories for 6 year olds.
And then again. Even if it is true. How is that your business? Somebody hurting themselves and you decide it is illegal for them at the same time buying a gun that can hurt others and you. This all complete nonsense, not based on our freedoms , Constitution, tradition, but some middle ages hysteria witch a bunch of ladies screaming delegalize alcohol because it is destroying my family.
We had it, this is BS, this doesnt work and first of all is none of your business what chemicals other people take in their time using their money. Unless you have a vested interest in keeping it illegal, like you are in a gang, you are a dealer or law enforcement. There is no logical reason to support drugs delegalization except for these two: dealing it or catching dealers. Because dealing and catching would be extinct without proginition the same way you don't buy Corona on a corner of a street from armed gangster.
Same here. The larger iPhone got me to switch back. After using Android for the past 2 years, I had forgotten just how polished the iPhone is along with all the apps on the phone.
Admittedly if Google had released a Nexus 5+ at the same $350 price I probably would have stuck with Android. No way I was going to pay a premium price for any of the Android phones I looked at though.
There's no legal requirement I know to show the warrant prior to seizure of material evidence based on a warrant. Do you know of any relevant case law that says otherwise?
No, the point is not to trust anybody (more realistically: vigorously evaluate your Web of Trust), but you should especially not trust someone who is known to be untrustworthy.
Don't say that! The Government will protect us from the scum Kim or whatever his name. Be a bit more appreciative!
And in all seriousness I hate this world where the Government can do whatever it wants to you including spying you on all you do online, but you's rather get pissed off because of a guy pirating software. Get some perspective!
Who said that I care about him pirating software?
I'm just as mad about government spying but that doesn't mean that I put my privacy in the trust of a known conman.
Just because he is opposed to the US government doesn't make him a hero.
The service he is advertising is valuable, but he's duplicitous. Why should I trust him?
No. I get it. I do understand. Maybe I should have said needlessly complex. Ie you can have keyless entry to a car and start the engine with a press of a button. Or -- instead -- you can search for a key in your pockets (put the bag in your hand on the ground first) insert it into the lock, turn the key and then pick up the bag, take the key and put it into the ignition, turn it and start the car.
So you tell me the first solution is dumb and the other one is smart? I would say that exactly opposite is true.
You are combining two features of the language that don't really have anything to do with each other (references, and core type sigils), and conflating them in a way that's irrelevant, which is why you are getting some pushback on your critique.
Perl uses sigils. You can think of them like inflection in spoken language. They provide hints as to what is being referred to, to help make intent clear.
Perl uses references. In some respect, almost all languages use references, and it's just a matter of whether it's explicit or implicit. Perl makes it explicit, which means the programmer has to understand it early to make some things work (nested data structures). Other languages may have it as implicit, but that doesn't mean the programmer can ignore it, it just means they may be able to ignore it for a short while when first learning the language. Sooner or later they will encounter and have to deal with whether they are working with a copy of data or the original data. If they are lucky, this happens before it's a nasty bug.
