2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

How do you explain the relative lack of an alcohol black market after the end of alcohol prohibition in America? An unfathomable mystery to be sure.

No, not at all.
First of all, there is plenty of alcohol made accessible to minors. Plenty of pubs loose their liquor license every year because of that.
It just is not such a big deal with alcohol, since it does not get you hooked emmediately. It can not get you addicted the first time you drink it (unless there is something wrong with you).

Nor does using other drugs. In fact, on the scale of addictability, alcohol and nicotine rank higher than pot, LSD, and ecstasy. I've used lots of drugs and the only issue on quitting any of them was that alcohol is so commonly used that there is immense social pressure to keep using it, and there is the popular myth of it not being a "dangerous" drug, even though alcohol is one of the easiest drugs to overdose and die from.

In Health Magazine of November/December 1990 a panel of experts were asked to rate the addictiveness of commonly used drugs and substances, taking into consideration two key questions:

* How easy is it become addicted these substances?
* How hard is it to overcome the addiction?

The panel cited various individual traits that might affect the person's vulnerability to substance addiction, including their physiology, psychology and social and economic pressures, but excluded those from the rankings, rating the substances only on the potential inherent in the drug.

I have added some data from more recent research into other drugs such Ritalin (used to combat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in children) and SSRI (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) anti-depressants, by the World Health Organisation and the Uppsala monitoring centre in Sweden – these items were not commonly prescribed in 1990, and therefore were not included original survey.

The list below is ranked from highest addictiveness level to lowest.
Very highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction above 85%):

* Nicotine
* Methamphetamine smoked – (Ice, Glass)
* Crack
* Methamphetamine injected – (Crystal Meth)
* Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat)
* Venlafaxine (Effexor)
* Sertraline (Zoloft/Lustral)
* Fluoxetine (Prozac)
* Diazepam (Valium)

Highly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 75 and 84%):

* Methaqualone – (Quaalude)
* Secobarbital – (Seconal)
* Alcohol
* Heroin
* Amphetamine inhaled through the nose - Crank

Reasonably addictive (experts rated chance of addiction between 50 and 74%):

* Ritalin
* Cocaine
* Caffeine
* Phencyclidine (PCP)

Not particularly addictive (experts rated chance of addiction below 25%):

* Marijuana
* MDMA (Ecstasy)
* Psilocybin Mushrooms
* LSD
* Mescaline

These statements seem plausible, and not really in conflict with my own experience. However, addiction is not the only issue. Doing things under the influence is also an issue, and setting bad examples and thereby inducing others who may have more susceptibility to addiction is likewise an issue.

I personally think the greatest threat that legalized drugs pose is the same problem we have with television. It gives a false portrayal of the dangers involved with certain types of behavior.

The soap operas for example, show people going through all sorts of behavior that in real life would result in various forms of tragedy, yet to the actors on the screen, nothing really bad happens to them.

Back when people lived their own lives, this did not influence them negatively, but now that we have generations who have grown up with the kind of crap that Hollywood produces, they are incredibly stupid and ignorant of the consequences of the people who's behavior they copy.


I would suggest that people who've lived vicariously through fake lives from television and the movies are ill equipped to make sensible decisions regarding a life they haven't really lived. I think the standard for deciding who's opinion should be heeded should be that of productivity. I have long been an advocate of the idea that ONLY taxpayers should be permitted to vote. The opinions of Non-contributors are worse than useless on matters of good government. I'm pretty sure if this were a productive taxpayer deciding issue, Legalized drugs would never be viable.

Since alcohol is so great, why don't we just legalize everything up to that point on this list? Oops, nicotine is at the top, what shall we do?

Alcohol and Tobacco have wormed their way into the social culture due to their having been around for so long. For the last several thousand years, it was rare to have very many people who could afford to stay sufficiently drunk to become a noticeable problem during the ages when the struggle to stay alive was hard enough by itself. By the same token, the dangers of tobacco smoking, were most likely covered up by the fact that so many people didn't live much past 40 anyway. It is only recently that we have discovered how deadly Tobacco smoking is.

Asserting that the position on the list should be the deciding factor as to what gets eliminated and what gets accepted overlooks the fact of Societal inertia regarding Alcohol and Tobacco. In other words, those two are outliers with special status, and a reasonable decision should not be based on how society gives a pass to two of the worst.

We should just accept the fact that it was an unfortunate set of circumstances that caused these drugs to enter into Human History in the first place, and make decisions concerning the rest based on some sort of prudent standard.

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

The manner in which the Indians use it, might be reasonable. The manner in which addicts use it is certainly not.

Marijuana is now becoming so concentrated, that there is actually concern that the levels might be reaching a fatal threshold.

Perhaps Controlling the TYPE of drug is not so important as the DOSAGE?
Certainly if people used coca leaves the way the Indians do, we would not be having problems with it.

[Diogenes]

Boy did I nail THAT one. I just ran across this today. I had heretofore not been aware of it.

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/060605

I would say that these punishments fell out of favor only because it underestimated the tendency of those they punished to enjoy such blandishments...

"TAKE THEM TO THE IRON MAIDEN!!!"

Bill and Ted exclaim, "Awesome!!!" [guitar riff]

Some people point out that Jefferson was actually trying to do Homosexuals a Kindness. Prior to that time, Homosexual behavior was a death sentence in all 13 colonies. Jefferson wrote in a letter that he felt the punishment should bear some relationship to the crime, and that the death penalty was too excessive for all but the most heinous crimes such as murder or treason.

I find it peculiar that so many people criticize the Arabs for their lack of tolerance for Homosexuality and Women's rights, when it was not so very long ago that we had exactly the same attitudes and policies.

[Diogenes]

On a more lighthearted note:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/08/14/1 ... ng-skills/

On a lighter side, i've posted this before. Those of you who haven't seen it might find it amusing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

[IntLibber]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

The manner in which the Indians use it, might be reasonable. The manner in which addicts use it is certainly not.

Marijuana is now becoming so concentrated, that there is actually concern that the levels might be reaching a fatal threshold.

Perhaps Controlling the TYPE of drug is not so important as the DOSAGE?
Certainly if people used coca leaves the way the Indians do, we would not be having problems with it.

This is the most reasonable thing I've seen from you on this topic.

The speculation about marijuana dosage is just that, speculation. To date, not one single person has ever died overdosing on marijuana. Conversely, people die all the time overdosing on alcohol. A significant amount, about 2% of my high school class died of alcohol overdose between the ages of 18 and 21 (not counting DWI's etc, which can claim another 2%). This means that more of my childhood friends have died from alcohol than from any war, any crime wave, or any drug use.

Usage of marijuana has a very long history, at least as long as tobacco. It's prohibition in the 20th century was due to political pressure by rope, cotton, woolen, and paper industries to eliminate competition from hemp, any intelligent person can tell that the whole "reefer madness" media crap was just PR crap when you compared alcohol related social problems.

Similarly, peyote, mescaline, and psilocybin usage has gone on for thousands of years. Even LSD is a naturally occurring substance that is the active ingredient in argot mold growths in grain stocks (i.e. what is commonly credited for the hallucinations that led to the Salem Witch Trials).

There are likewise no proven cases of LSD overdoses, despite reports of individuals taking hundreds of times the recommended dosage. All media reports of LSD overdoses have later been proven to be caused by other drugs or poisons.

Now, lets look at the alternatives. Lets say you successfully eradicate all illicit drugs. Kids are still going to get high, as they are doing in increasing numbers today, 'huffing' common household substances, and suffering documented serious injury and death from this substance abuse.

Wouldn't you rather people have the choice of legal high quality drugs produced in a government regulated, certified, and taxed laboratory, in measurable, trackable dosages, versus going out and frying their brains in an alley huffing turpentine, or taking drugs produced in some trailer somewhere where the guy making it doesn't give a shit if he mixes rat poison in? I for one prefer seeing the first situation, where a person can trust that the product they buy legitimately, pay a tax on, has been produced in a regulated and certified lab that employs educated chemists and is legally liable for poor quality product.

[Diogenes]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

The manner in which the Indians use it, might be reasonable. The manner in which addicts use it is certainly not.

Marijuana is now becoming so concentrated, that there is actually concern that the levels might be reaching a fatal threshold.

Perhaps Controlling the TYPE of drug is not so important as the DOSAGE?
Certainly if people used coca leaves the way the Indians do, we would not be having problems with it.

This is the most reasonable thing I've seen from you on this topic.

The speculation about marijuana dosage is just that, speculation. To date, not one single person has ever died overdosing on marijuana. Conversely, people die all the time overdosing on alcohol. A significant amount, about 2% of my high school class died of alcohol overdose between the ages of 18 and 21 (not counting DWI's etc, which can claim another 2%). This means that more of my childhood friends have died from alcohol than from any war, any crime wave, or any drug use.

Usage of marijuana has a very long history, at least as long as tobacco. It's prohibition in the 20th century was due to political pressure by rope, cotton, woolen, and paper industries to eliminate competition from hemp, any intelligent person can tell that the whole "reefer madness" media crap was just PR crap when you compared alcohol related social problems.

Similarly, peyote, mescaline, and psilocybin usage has gone on for thousands of years. Even LSD is a naturally occurring substance that is the active ingredient in argot mold growths in grain stocks (i.e. what is commonly credited for the hallucinations that led to the Salem Witch Trials).

There are likewise no proven cases of LSD overdoses, despite reports of individuals taking hundreds of times the recommended dosage. All media reports of LSD overdoses have later been proven to be caused by other drugs or poisons.

Now, lets look at the alternatives. Lets say you successfully eradicate all illicit drugs. Kids are still going to get high, as they are doing in increasing numbers today, 'huffing' common household substances, and suffering documented serious injury and death from this substance abuse.

Wouldn't you rather people have the choice of legal high quality drugs produced in a government regulated, certified, and taxed laboratory, in measurable, trackable dosages, versus going out and frying their brains in an alley huffing turpentine, or taking drugs produced in some trailer somewhere where the guy making it doesn't give a shit if he mixes rat poison in? I for one prefer seeing the first situation, where a person can trust that the product they buy legitimately, pay a tax on, has been produced in a regulated and certified lab that employs educated chemists and is legally liable for poor quality product.

I think they will do it anyway.

However, If there could be found, some means by which responsible people could use the stuff, but people who simply cannot handle it are kept away from it, then I see no reason not to allow responsible people to have it. Unfortunately, I think the devil is in the details. I have suggested the possibility of licensing it (Marijuana) like we do drivers, and the way we restrict Alcohol sales by age. Perhaps selling it in Cigar shops, in the manner that liquor is sold in liquor stores. (except with a license check) This I could see as within the realm of reasonablity, but tottally unfettered? Naw.


I think Marijuana is certainly no worse than Alcohol, and in many ways better. It shares the fault with cigarettes of probably causing fires, but other than that, it appears to be a lot more benign than Alcohol.


As I've told MSimon previously, Marijuana is not Crack. While Marijuana is relatively harmless, Crack and Meth are DEADLY. Unfortunately, his philosophy requires total unfettered access to all drugs for whomever wants them. I think much of what is driving people's opposition to legalizing Marijuana is the concern that it will be used to justify opening the door further. That is certainly one of MY concerns. If it comes to that, best not let it's foot get in the door.

[MSimon]

Fatal dose of marijuana:

DEA Judge Young's Ruling on Medical Marijuana

4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.

5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

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.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.

10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.

11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.

12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.

13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The therapeutic ratio of some of the drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.

14. By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.

15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death.

16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure or rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.

OK. Let us suppose that the government is SUPPLYING their qualified users with cheap pot which has only 1% psychoactive ingredients. And further let us stipulate that the highest % of active ingredients runs to 25% (it is more like 10% but bear with me) and that some guy has figured out how to get that up to 100%. So instead of having to consume 1,500 pounds in 15 minutes for a lethal dose, you only have to consume 15 pounds in 15 minutes to get yourself killed.

Which is why no one has every killed themselves by ingesting pot. Now if it was administered as smoke through a mask you might be able to kill yourself. But only through asphyxiation. The lack of oxygen will kill you long before the pot ever could.

What would we ever do D without your font of wisdom and superior expertise in matters relating to drugs? Do you go out of your way to be stupid on the subject or are you a natural?

But your point about dangers is well taken BAN ASPIRIN AND RAW POTATOES.

But I can help with your education. There is a movie that was made that can EDUCATE you.

Reefer Madness

If you want to appear educated on the subject watch the movie and report the facts presented to those who need them. You will appear smart and sophisticated to those in the know.

BTW dude I was quoting this ruling back in late '88, early '89 so I have roughly 20 years on you. But the information is not hard to find. There are some folks who have invented this thing called search engines. And they let you use them for free if you have an internet connection. You ought to try them some time if you can figure out how to make them work.

A little more for you:

In summary, enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marihuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals but did produce fatalities in smaller rodents due to profound central nervous system depression.

The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.

Thus, evidence from animal studies and human case reports appears to indicate that the ratio of lethal dose to effective dose is quite large. This ratio is much more favorable than that of many other common psychoactive agents including alcohol and barbiturates (Phillips et al. 1971, Brill et al. 1970).

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/lib ... erdose.htm

So if you are afraid of psychoactive substances killing you lay off the alcohol and get with the pot.

[MSimon]

Unless a person has developed a high tolerance for alcohol, a BAC rating of 0.20% represents very serious intoxication, and 0.35%–0.40% represents potentially fatal alcohol poisoning.[1] 0.40% is the accepted LD50, the dose that is lethal for 50% of adult humans

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

That is about 8 shots in a short amount of time. Depending on body weight and other factors. In America we lose about 1 person a week to alcohol overdoses.

Stay far away from alcohol dude. That sh*t can kill you.

[MSimon]

As to cocaine and opiates being a big danger. From info I have presented on this board about .2% of Americans use the stuff regularly. Roughly the same number as when it was legal.

It is not a BIG problem. Alcohol is a BIG problem. Tobacco is a BIG problem.

So why is the threat exaggerated? The government needs your money ($25 bn a year at the Federal level) to support the DEA. The prisons. The judges. The lawyers. The police unions. The prison guards unions. And all the other functionaries and equipment required to make illegal drugs more available to kids than beer.

[MSimon]

And after the Drug War is over you are going to be paying pensions for all the functionaries, agents, unionized police, unionized prison guards, judges, lawyers, office help, etc. employed in the Drug war for 20 or 30 or 40 years. And they will probably have far better pensions and medical care than you will have in your retirement.

SUCKER

Fortunately you are in good company. There are enough suckers in this country to keep Prohibition going in some form for another 10 or 15 years.

My job? Wise up the marks. Enlighten the rubes.

"Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape. "
— William S. Burroughs

"The first and most important thing an individual can do is to become an individual again, decontrol himself, train himself as to what is going on and win back as much independent ground for himself as possible"
— William S. Burroughs

"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits."
— William S. Burroughs

[KitemanSA]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

Anyone with an ounce or more of functional brains.
When they made the coca leaf illegal, a more compact, powerful form was bound to follow. It happens every time a mild version of a drug is made illegal. Happened with opium and coca leaf and is happening with MJ too. If coffee is made illegal, folks will be ODing on caffiene pills. Same with tobacco and nicotine patches.

[MSimon]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

Anyone with an ounce or more of functional brains.
When they made the coca leaf illegal, a more compact, powerful form was bound to follow. It happens every time a mild version of a drug is made illegal. Happened with opium and coca leaf and is happening with MJ too. If coffee is made illegal, folks will be ODing on caffiene pills. Same with tobacco and nicotine patches.

The problem with all these laws and the people that support them is that the people are not following a rational course. They have no understanding. All they have is government fueled hate and fear. The government fuels the hate and reason goes out the door.

A prime example is how whoever got D to believe in a "killer" strain of pot.

The facts have been out there for more than 20 years. Freely available since FIDO net days. And certainly in the internet era. And yet faith in the "truth" of government propaganda keeps the believers incurious. Damndest thing I ever saw. And once people join the hater faith you absolutely cannot reason with them. No amount of evidence will change their minds.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Very few minds remain supple after age 20 or 25.

This pretty much explains the change in sentiment re: legalization.



People with experience of the drug "culture" do not fear it. But we still have the long tail of people who were influenced in the reefer madness era. When enough of them die off the laws will change.

Twas ever thus. It takes about 50 years from the introduction of a "new" drug to society until the laws against it change. Probably 10 or 20 years longer these days since we live longer.

And no amount of pointing at the historical record (how alcohol prohibition increased the problems of child alcohol use for instance) changes any minds. Damndest thing I ever saw.

[Diogenes]

As to cocaine and opiates being a big danger. From info I have presented on this board about .2% of Americans use the stuff regularly. Roughly the same number as when it was legal.

It is not a BIG problem. Alcohol is a BIG problem. Tobacco is a BIG problem.

That's because they're legal. Make crack legal, and it will make Tobacco and Alcohol look like aspirin. ("Hundreds of deaths" out of 300 million? Not such a big deal.)

So why is the threat exaggerated? The government needs your money ($25 bn a year at the Federal level) to support the DEA. The prisons. The judges. The lawyers. The police unions. The prison guards unions. And all the other functionaries and equipment required to make illegal drugs more available to kids than beer.

So now it's apparent. You know the truth, and you are still spreading that propaganda.

Fine. I'll just post the truth again so everyone can understand the falsehood you are spreading.


Rock of Crack: $20.00. Beer: $1.00 .

[Diogenes]

Unless a person has developed a high tolerance for alcohol, a BAC rating of 0.20% represents very serious intoxication, and 0.35%–0.40% represents potentially fatal alcohol poisoning.[1] 0.40% is the accepted LD50, the dose that is lethal for 50% of adult humans

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

That is about 8 shots in a short amount of time. Depending on body weight and other factors. In America we lose about 1 person a week to alcohol overdoses.

Stay far away from alcohol dude. That sh*t can kill you.

And you want people to partake of something a hundred times worse?

[Diogenes]

And after the Drug War is over you are going to be paying pensions for all the functionaries, agents, unionized police, unionized prison guards, judges, lawyers, office help, etc. employed in the Drug war for 20 or 30 or 40 years. And they will probably have far better pensions and medical care than you will have in your retirement.

SUCKER

You lay all the costs at the foot of the Drug war, and NONE of the cost at the foot of Liberal Democrats and their war on poverty, which resulted in an explosion of Criminals from Welfare mom households.

You further leave off all the blame which ought to be directed at Liberal Democrats like Roosevelt who screwed up the Federal Judiciary so bad that they made it far more difficult to deal with the criminal problem than it would be if the legal system hadn't been tampered with.

In other words, you give the ACTUAL causes of disaster a pass, while you try to pin everything wrong on the scapegoat of the "Drug War."


It is your bizarre assertions that everything wrong with the country is caused by preventing idiots from misusing narcotics that seriously damage your credibility.


I am surprised you aren't blaming the Challenger explosion on the drug war. Perhaps the sinking of the Titanic was caused by the Drug war creating probability waves which reflected back to the past, and caused the ship to hit an iceberg?

I think i'm beginning to understand. The Drug war is "SATAN!"

Fortunately you are in good company. There are enough suckers in this country to keep Prohibition going in some form for another 10 or 15 years.

My job? Wise up the marks. Enlighten the rubes.

Good! So when are you going to start? So far you've been working for the other side.

"Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape. "
— William S. Burroughs

"The first and most important thing an individual can do is to become an individual again, decontrol himself, train himself as to what is going on and win back as much independent ground for himself as possible"
— William S. Burroughs

"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits."
— William S. Burroughs

"Much of Burroughs's work is semi-autobiographical, primarily drawn from his experiences as a heroin addict, a condition that marked the last fifty years of his life, his first novel being Junkie (1953)."


"Burroughs had one child, William Seward Burroughs III, with his second wife Joan Vollmer, who died after Burroughs accidentally shot her in the head while drunk. While Burroughs was in early life secretive of his bisexuality, he later became openly homosexual, and a characteristic critique of homophobia features prominently in his work; he is cited as being one of the first people to use "queer", the title of his second novel, as a self-referential and positive term."


By all means! This is a man we should be Listening to! Why shouldn't we be guided by the advice of a spoiled rich kid who grew up to be a Reckless Drunk heroin addicted homosexual? Obviously the man is well adjusted as everything worked out so perfectly in his life!

[Diogenes]

As a friend of mine pointed out, the South American Indians Chew the coca leaf. The quantities they get from this practice are minuscule and not excessively dangerous. Who would have thought that some blame fool would decide to concentrate this crap and turn it into a deadly addictive poison?

Anyone with an ounce or more of functional brains.
When they made the coca leaf illegal, a more compact, powerful form was bound to follow. It happens every time a mild version of a drug is made illegal. Happened with opium and coca leaf and is happening with MJ too. If coffee is made illegal, folks will be ODing on caffiene pills. Same with tobacco and nicotine patches.

They made it illegal because people were becoming addicted to the concentrated forms which came out shortly before. It was a popular medicine because it made people feel better.

Coca Cola originally contained cocaine, and was originally invented as a medicine.