Showing ID & signing in to buy OTC cold medicines?

[gekko]

Crack is a more pure version of cocaine. And that, actually, is the same concept behind my entire argument.

That one can become addicted to anything does not mean we should legalize everything. Some substances are much more likely to be the source of addiction and abuse. Can I tell you exactly where we should draw that line? Absolutely not. Does that mean we shouldn't bother trying? Absolutely not.

Ask someone who works in a drug rehab facility why cocaine is a hard drug, and why its effects are essentially guaranteed to be harmful to everyone involved.

I can drive faster than 90 km/h on the highway without causing an accident. Does that mean we shouldn't have a speed limit?

Our inablility to precisely define when something becomes inherently dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

gekko

[gekko]

According to statisctics, the highest percentage of drug related deaths comes straight from alcohol. The highest percentage of drug related crime comes straight from alcohol. What's more, the highest amount of drug related medical issues comes from alcohol (followed closely by tobacco).

I'd say alcohol is the worst there is, apparently. Forget the other crap.
[right][snapback]74082[/snapback][/right]

Meaningless statistics. You can't directly compare a currently legal drug with a currently illegal drug, and then point out that the legal drug causes more problems. Currently, alcohol is consumed a lot more than illegal drugs. As well, many, many cases of crime and abuse related to illegal substances is neither reported nor discovered.

gekko

[ShadowHM]

Crack is a more pure version of cocaine.  And that, actually, is the same concept behind my entire argument.

That one can become addicted to anything does not mean we should legalize everything.  Some substances are much more likely to be the source of addiction and abuse.  Can I tell you exactly where we should draw that line?  Absolutely not.  Does that mean we shouldn't bother trying?  Absolutely not.

Ask someone who works in a drug rehab facility why cocaine is a hard drug, and why its effects are essentially guaranteed to be harmful to everyone involved.

I can drive faster than 90 km/h on the highway without causing an accident.  Does that mean we shouldn't have a speed limit?

Our inablility to precisely define when something becomes inherently dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

gekko
[right][snapback]74084[/snapback][/right]

I think you are confusing public safety with personal responsibility.

You would decide for others what is a sufficient source of addiction and abuse for them?

Your car analogy does not hold up. You 'could' stay accident free at high speeds - until you find yourself about to hit someone who just turned onto the highway and doesn't have that 1-90 in three seconds kind of car. ;) (That was pointed out to my husband one fine day when his driving record brought him in for an interview, many years ago.)

If you take a drug, you are still responsible for your behaviour while on that drug. Our Supreme Court threw that one out the window some time ago when a rapist tried to use the 'but I was too drunk to realize' argument.

[ShadowHM]

I will grant that this is a tenuous and circumstantial evidence but it certainly bears more investigation.
:)
[right][snapback]74077[/snapback][/right]

Amen :)

[Tal]

According to statisctics, the highest percentage of drug related deaths comes straight from alcohol. The highest percentage of drug related crime comes straight from alcohol. What's more, the highest amount of drug related medical issues comes from alcohol (followed closely by tobacco).

I'd say alcohol is the worst there is, apparently. Forget the other crap.
[right][snapback]74082[/snapback][/right]

This is a red herring in the issue but I'll bite.

I question your statistics. According to the statistics I looked at (Pg 29 of Acohol - What It Is and What It Does) there is a statistically narrow difference between Alcohol and Drugs. For the over-all numbers we are looking at a 37.2% state prisoners reported they were under the influence of alcohol versus 32.6% that reported they were under the influence of drugs at the time of offense. Looking at the Federal offenders we are looking at 20.4% that were on alcohol versus 22.4%.

But most telling is to look at the actual offenses.

Violent Offenses (Murder, Negligent Manslaughter, Sexual Assault, Robbery, Assault and other Violent) among State prisoners is 41.7% alcohol versus 29.0%. Federal is 29% alcohol versus 24.5% drugs. This in itself is not surprising as Alcohol has a "reputation" for making people more violent - after all its the wellspring from which the phrase "Nice guy but mean drunk" spran from.

Property Offenses (Burglary, Larceny/Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, Fraud, Other Property) is 34.5% alcohol versus 36.6% drugs for state offenders. I am ommiting the federal numbers as the numbers of Federal agencies who prosecute burglaries are statistically insignificant. ;)

Drug Offenses (Possession, Trafficking, Other drug) is where the numbers are skewed for obvious reasons. 27.4% of the state prisoners were under the influence of alcohol versus 41.9% under the influence of drugs. (holy cow this is surprising! ;)) The Federal prisoners report a 27.4% alcohol versus a 25% drug.

Public Order Offenses (Weapons and other) is 43.2% versus 23.1%. This in itself is hardly suprising as these offenses are usually lumped in with the Violent offenses and closely mimics the numbers previously reported.

Now why do I question your statistics? Well for one thing no source was given. Secondly the statistics in most cases are skewed. For example the statistics I have given rely upon the prisoners to admit they were under the influence for the purpose of gathering the statistics. The statistics are skewed as well because they don't list how many were under the influence of both. Another problem is that most jurisdictions do not bother to gather statistics on how many prisoners were actually tested and confirmed to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The reason I call your comments a red herring is as Gekko has already stated: We're comparing an apple to an orange. A more fitting comparison would be to remove the age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol while removing the restriction on drugs and comparing it to the overall statistics of crime. There is also the problem of answering the question of how much of an impact does the alcohol or drug have upon the crime involved. Someone might have had a few drinks to "loosen up" so that they could break into someones house in order to fence their property and buy drugs. ;)

[gekko]

I think you are confusing public safety with personal responsibility.

You would decide for others what is a sufficient source of addiction and abuse for them?   

[right][snapback]74086[/snapback][/right]

I shouldn't, no. But neither should it always be left up to the individual. People are stupid. Not all people; but a lot. We shouldn't have to make laws prohibiting sex with minors, but we do. We shouldn't have to make laws against racism, but we do. We shouldn't have to tell people that some substance is too dangerous, too addictive for them to use it responsibly, but we do.

Your car analogy does not hold up.  You 'could' stay accident free at high speeds - until you find yourself about to hit someone who just turned onto the highway and doesn't have that 1-90 in three seconds kind of car.  ;)  (That was pointed out to my husband one fine day when his driving record brought him in for an interview, many years ago.)

I'm not talking about 300+ km/h. I'm talking about 100 or 120. Many people DO drive at those speeds, every day, and are not in accidents. Or are you going to claim that 90 km/h is perfectly safe, but 91 km/h is not? My point was simply that there are many times, in law and in common sense, where it's impossible to accurately make a specific dinstinction between safe and harmful; between good and bad.

If you take a drug, you are still responsible for your behaviour while on that drug.  Our Supreme Court threw that one out the window some time ago when a rapist tried to use the 'but I was too drunk to realize' argument.

The problem with only enforcing behavior after the fact is that it fails to prevent problems in the first place. My argument is that there ARE drugs (whether we can agree on exactly which ones or not) that are inherently too dangerous; it is not possible to use them responsibly. Therefore, it IS society's responsibility to ban those drugs, to the benefit of all.

gekko

[Rhydderch Hael]

..."Retailers will take the abuse when their poor customers are so angry they have to jump through all these hoops to buy cough syrup," said Linda Gobler, president of the Michigan Grocers Association.

Flagrant use of hyperbole. Five yard penalty. First down.

From earlier in the article.

... Gelcaps and liquid forms of the same medicines would be exempt because only the tablet form of the drugs can be converted to meth.

[ShadowHM]

The problem with only enforcing behavior after the fact is that it fails to prevent problems in the first place.

Kind of like the drug laws? ;)

And socialization that doesn't emphasize that people are in fact responsible for their own choices has allowed many problems to exist. Misbehaviour while drunk used to be one of those 'Boys will be boys' kind of things that was socially permissible.

I would argue that some form of 'the devil made me do it' has been all too common in our society as a permissible excuse. Sadly, I fear it is getting worse, not better, too. Having a paternal government tell you what is safe and what is not, by caveat, is part and parcel of the problem.

My argument is that there ARE drugs (whether we can agree on exactly which ones or not) that are inherently too dangerous; it is not possible to use them responsibly.  Therefore, it IS society's responsibility to ban those drugs, to the benefit of all.

I disagree. If the effects of recreational drugs are made known to the individual before they make their choice, then they, as individuals, should get to make that choice. Sure, there will be people who exercise poor judgement. (Like the guy who gave himself a heart attack with an overdose of Viagra.) What else is new?

My point was simply that there are many times, in law and in common sense, where it's impossible to accurately make a specific distinction between safe and harmful; between good and bad.

There are always going to have to be lines drawn in the sand for 'reasonable' when it comes to public safety. In the driving analogy, 90 km/hour has been chosen as that line. Rules for the public have to be specific, just to make the playing field even. There are cases where 90 km/hour is far too fast - like fog, for example. The rule about legal drunkeness for purposes of driving is also arbitrary. If I have .08 % alcohol in my system, I am far past my ability to drive safely. For someone else, that might be the equivalent of a light buzz.

[Occhidiangela]

Having your kids hassled by pushers outside schools would also be an added bonus /shrug

Having some intruder high on P come in and carve up your family with a Samurai sword* would be even better /shrug

*based on recent event.
[right][snapback]74029[/snapback][/right]

If a dude shows up on my doorstep with a Samurai sword, uninvited, Ruger and I know how to deal with him. If he is hopped up, it will take all 6 rounds to drop him. So be it. A different issue at the mall, though, since I am not yet licensed to carry in public.

Occhi

[Doc]

If a dude shows up on my doorstep with a Samurai sword, uninvited, Ruger and I know how to deal with him.  If he is hopped up, it will take all 6 rounds to drop him.  So be it.  A different issue at the mall, though, since I am not yet licensed to carry in public.

Occhi
[right][snapback]74103[/snapback][/right]

Six?! Occhi my friend, you need a nice Mossburg. Or a 10 guage. Or a Smith & Wesson 500. One round and on the ground.

Never bring a pea shooter to a Samurai sword fight!! :lol:

[Occhidiangela]

According to statisctics, the highest percentage of drug related deaths comes straight from alcohol. The highest percentage of drug related crime comes straight from alcohol. What's more, the highest amount of drug related medical issues comes from alcohol (followed closely by tobacco).

I'd say alcohol is the worst there is, apparently. Forget the other crap.
[right][snapback]74082[/snapback][/right]

Hi. Nice try. Have you done your research on what percentage of the population uses the legal substance, alcohol, versus the illegal substances that are narcotics? We as a society condone the pollution of our bloodstream and death of our braincellswith beer, wine and spirits. It one of the things we do. Wallow in it. We even have an agency for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. All you need to add is cars (DoT) and we could rename it the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Agency. :P

Until you present your alleged statistics in light of user populations, all I can say to your post is "what a load of bollocks."

More people die from car wrecks than firearms incidents. So what?

Does that mean that I need to start treating gasoline like ammunition, and requiring an ID to buy it? Hmmm, there is an idea . . . but maybe what we really need is a background check on every rube who wants to drive a car. Even the illegals who cut the mayor's lawn. "Cars don't kill people, idiots behind the wheel kill people!"

People have been drinking since, last I checked, some 4-5000 BC (evidence of wine jars in Central asia dated to back then) and have been using interesting plants, and their by products, since I suppose at least that long.

"Hey, Ghengis, if you eat those mushrooms the ponies look like elephants!"
Ghengis munches down a few 'shrooms. Funny things begin to happen to his visual acuity.
"Wow, I see it too. Now, go kill everyone who looks like a yak." :blink:

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

Odds are that the 'samooreye' sword he's wielding is a stainless knockoff from a strip mall cutlery store display rack, in which case he's not going to have a chance against the ATrim reitschwert I have now, or the Albion Armorers' Regent that I will be getting.

Never bring a three-foot butter knife to a swordfight.

[gekko]

Kind of like the drug laws?  ;)
[right][snapback]74099[/snapback][/right]

Actually, yes. Or rather, kind of like the drug laws we have right now.

My main problem with the drug laws target the user far too heavily. They should be targetting the dealers. But that's another whole argument.

I see that we agree that laws have to have some arbitrary "line in the sand," as reasonable as can be decided upon. Why should that line only apply to numbers like speed limits and blood/alcohol percentages?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a young man who has never used an illegal substance. Hell, I've never even taken a puff of a cigarette. I've never understood the desire to get so high (or so drunk, for that matter) that you lose self control. But I'm not the norm. 9 out of 10 people my age and younger are too stupid to know how messed up their lives are going to be if they keep shooting themselves full of cocaine. I now hear the high school I graduated from has become just steeped in cocaine. I shudder at the thought. The kids I went to school with were too stupid to tie their shoelaces together! Teenagers and young adults are simply too stupid to make the kinds of smart decisions you seem to think it's their responsability to make.

Kids are going to do stupid things, and no drug law or threat of punishment will stop them from experimenting with drugs and alcohol (among other things). However, I sincerely hope my kids never have to live in a world where they can go the corner store and buy cocaine. I've seen what that stuff can do to a person, and I KNOW how hard it can be for kids to resist peer pressure -- no matter how we'll they're raised.

gekko

[SetBuilder]

Until you present your alleged statistics in light of user populations, all I can say to your post is "what a load of bollocks."

Occhi
[right][snapback]74110[/snapback][/right]

Typical. 'Tis ok though, someone else went to the effort. In this case, I'd say find the facts for yourself, as I've found that even if the website I pull the info from is a .gov website, the information is nearly always accused of being false, so for you to believe the information, you need to find it yourself.

I shouldn't, no. But neither should it always be left up to the individual. People are stupid. Not all people; but a lot. We shouldn't have to make laws prohibiting sex with minors, but we do. We shouldn't have to make laws against racism, but we do. We shouldn't have to tell people that some substance is too dangerous, too addictive for them to use it responsibly, but we do.

Good grief! You cannot compare sex with minors to using a drug. A smart person doesn't use meth and then go hang out with a bunch of strangers. They usually keep themselves in a locked house, either with people they know or alone, and as long as left alone, they leave everyone else alone. Furthermore, were you to legalize it, so so many people aren't getting ripped off, so that it's not so dangerous to produce (do to lack of proper equipment), so that it doesn't require every penny a person has to afford even a small quantity of it, much of the property theft and violence revolving around aquiring it would more than likely vanish.

What's more, racism is not illegal. Racism defined is simply hating another person because of their race. It is racist acts that are illegal, and again, racist acts usually involve violence or property damage or theft, etc. None of which is involved in drug use. If I were to go use any given drug, all I'm doing is harming my own body. Which is my choice. You don't know me, and if you did, just like everyone else you'd think I was an asshole. Why should you care if I harm myself? Hell, I already smoke tobacco, why not add to the pot? (tobacco is all though)

Second, if you were to come into my home and tell me what to do, and that I can not do things, you'd find yourself at the bottom of a flight of stairs, quite possibly in very, very bad shape, wondering how you got there.


Bottom line is, they can require me to show ID for whatever they want. I don't care. I will register absolutely nothing at a grocery store. They will not log my purchases. There's something called right to privacy. Mine will not be violated in that manner.

[gekko]

Typical. 'Tis ok though, someone else went to the effort. In this case, I'd say find the facts for yourself, as I've found that even if the website I pull the info from is a .gov website, the information is nearly always accused of being false, so for you to believe the information, you need to find it yourself.

Sorry, but you need to be either prepared to defend statistics you use, or don't use them. The problem with statistics is that one can always find a study that, when you fiddle with the numbers just so, "proves" anything you want. So of course people are skeptical when you simply say you have statistics, but don't show them.

Good grief! You cannot compare sex with minors to using a drug. A smart person doesn't use meth and then go hang out with a bunch of strangers. They usually keep themselves in a locked house, either with people they know or alone, and as long as left alone, they leave everyone else alone. Furthermore, were you to legalize it, so so many people aren't getting ripped off, so that it's not so dangerous to produce (do to lack of proper equipment),  so that it doesn't require every penny a person has to afford even a small quantity of it, much of the property theft and violence revolving around aquiring it would more than likely vanish.

I would say a smart person doesn't do meth at all. Secondly, my comparison was not between sex with minors and using drugs. It was simply to point out that there are many, many things in society that we have laws against that should be plain common sense.

What's more, racism is not illegal. Racism defined is simply hating another person because of their race. It is racist acts that are illegal, and again, racist acts usually involve violence or property damage or theft, etc. None of which is involved in drug use. If I were to go use any given drug, all I'm doing is harming my own body. Which is my choice. You don't know me, and if you did, just like everyone else you'd think I was an asshole. Why should you care if I harm myself? Hell, I already smoke tobacco, why not add to the pot? (tobacco is all though)

I apologize for not being more specific about what is illegal regarding racism. You, however, missed the point. I was not in any way tying racism to drug use. Again, I was simply pointing out that we have many laws which you'd think people would be smart enough to follow anyways. They're not.

As for only harming yourself -- see, that's the problem. Drug abusers hurt many people, not only themselves. Because people are not responsible when they use these substances. Because they can't control themselves while high, or even while between highs. In countries with public health care, drug abusers put a strain on the system by forcing other people to pay for their stupidity (this also, btw, applies to smoking, but again, that's another whole argument). The point is that your actions affect more than just yourself. Go figure. That's part of living in a society.

Second, if you were to come into my home and tell me what to do, and that I can not do things, you'd find yourself at the bottom of a flight of stairs, quite possibly in very, very bad shape, wondering how you got there.
Bottom line is, they can require me to show ID for whatever they want. I don't care. I will register absolutely nothing at a grocery store. They will not log my purchases. There's something called right to privacy. Mine will not be violated in that manner.
[right][snapback]74128[/snapback][/right]

Well, the government already tells you quite a number of things you can and cannot do. That's also part of living in a society.

gekko

[Doc]

I would sign my name as Raoul Duke and be done with it.

We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.

Imagine the drug store bill.

[SetBuilder]

Drug abusers hurt many people, not only themselves. Because people are not responsible when they use these substances. Because they can't control themselves while high, or even while between highs.

You keep referring to "people".

Come hang out with me for a few hours. I'll talk #$%& to you for the entire time, insult you, and pretty much egg you on. By the end of that time, there's a good chance that even if you are the most passive person in the world (which I actually am, except verbally), that you're probably going to swing at me. Assualt 4 (in oregon). You're now a criminal. Good job! You must not be a smart person then, right?

I am not "people". I am a person. I have a squeeky clean record. I've probably don't more drugs than you've ever imagined doing in your worst nightmares. I never once did anything illegal (aside from the drugs themselves) in that time. After a while, I quit. Been a few years since then.

Up until two days ago, I was still drinking quite heavily (I'm done for a while though). I didn't drive, didn't fight, and pretty much conducted my self pretty respectably while under the influence. Am I the exception? Or are you focusing on a few bad seeds and creating a stereotype?

I built three servers and 14 workstations for a business owned by a friend's father at one point. A job that earned me about $3K. Part of the reason I made as much as I did was the fact that I got the job done in 1 week, had the network setup, and all the archived information entered onto the servers in that time. I probably slept a total of 12 hours during that time, 8 hours of that being on day 6, as day 7 I had to actually transport the equipment to the business, and needed to be straight. I was more focused and working a lot better with the meth than I would have without. And without, I would not have completed the job.

Now, can you tell me... As I said, I've been drinking fairly heavily recently. Yet been to work, done my job well, and stayed 100% responsible. Doing the meth aided in what I had to get done there. Was I abusing either substance?

If your answer is yes, please tell me why. If it is no, then if meth is not one of the substances that "people can't not abuse", what exactly is?

[jahcs]

You keep referring to "people".

Come hang out with me for a few hours. I'll talk #$%& to you for the entire time, insult you, and pretty much egg you on. By the end of that time, there's a good chance that even if you are the most passive person in the world (which I actually am, except verbally), that you're probably going to swing at me. Assualt 4 (in oregon). You're now a criminal. Good job! You must not be a smart person then, right?

A smart person will either change his surroundings or move to different surroundings. A smart person would not sit there to be the target of abuse for hours on end. They would leave. And if you do not allow them to leave then you are the one guilty of the crime.



I have always laughed at the mentality of meth users:

"I buy meth so I can work more to buy more meth."

[ShadowHM]

Drug abusers hurt many people, not only themselves.  Because people are not responsible when they use these substances.  Because they can't control themselves while high, or even while between highs. 

gekko
[right][snapback]74130[/snapback][/right]

Did you really mean that?

You just equated drug use with drug abuse. Or is any use of recreational drugs abuse in your book?

Some people are undoubtedly irresponsible, whether they are using drugs or not. But it is a big leap to suggest that all drug users are irresponsible 'out-of-control' people.

And, do let us keep children out of the discussion? The 'age of adulthood' has many ways to be defined, but protection of children is an issue that we can, I think, achieve agreement in principle, even if we might disagree on specifics.

[Doc]

Did you really mean that?

You just equated drug use with drug abuse.  Or is any use of recreational drugs abuse in your book?

Some people are undoubtedly irresponsible, whether they are using drugs or not.  But it is a big leap to suggest that all drug users are irresponsible 'out-of-control' people.

And, do let us keep children out of the discussion?  The 'age of adulthood' has many ways to be defined, but protection of children is an issue that we can, I think, achieve agreement in principle, even if we might disagree on specifics.
[right][snapback]74141[/snapback][/right]

You know... This thread is this | | close to become a really thought provoking and sensitive issue for me because of my recent dedication to being sober.

Aside from alcohol, way back when, I tried all sorts of stuff out. I wont lie. Pot, probably to much LSD, shrooms, peyote, luudes, (Don't laugh ok, it was the 70s so shut up) coke, and all sorts of other mind altering substances, mostly hallucinagenics. Trying to open the doors to perception and all that. I once took way much acid... Entirely to much. I was trying to "force a door open" and I took the acid in Tacoma Washington. I came to a couple of days later down in San Jose in California with no recollection of how I got there.

Looking back, now that I am older but I don't know about wiser, I would say what I did constitutes abuse.