Carlos Santana to Obama...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.

Agreed! 150% Aramike. Crack is a killer and the most addictive.

[Tchocky]

Well, nicotine is more addictive than crack. Variable evidence on the subject but most studies tend to put nicotine at the top.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, nicotine is more addictive than crack. Variable evidence on the subject but most studies tend to put nicotine at the top.

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

There's no such thing as "responsible use" of crack cocaine. The very nature of the drug is its highly addictive and rationale-changing influence.

There are no "part time" crackheads.

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

But perhaps legalizing everything but crack cocaine could be an alternative. Maybe potential crack users would settle for the more readily available and cheaper legal drugs?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

It is not a narcotic but Tchocky is correct. Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine from what I have read and heard.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

But perhaps legalizing everything but crack cocaine could be an alternative. Maybe potential crack users would settle for the more readily available and cheaper legal drugs?

Crack is like $2.00 for a few rocks and as I understand it the high lasts a long time. Can't get much cheaper than that for the high they receive from it.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

I am a smoker and even I think your statement is wrong. Nicotine is an alkaloid which is highly addictive and acts as a stimulant in mammals.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is not a narcotic but Tchocky is correct. Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine from what I have read and heard.

I don't dispute that.

However, it is not a drug that induces a near complete loss of mental faculty such as crack. Furthermore, the physical withdrawal symptoms of nicotine are extremely short-lived, unlike most drugs medically/legally considered narcotics.

Crack is like $2.00 for a few rocks and as I understand it the high lasts a long time. Can't get much cheaper than that for the high they receive from it.

Exactly.

I am a smoker and even I think your statement is wrong. Nicotine is an alkaloid which is highly addictive and acts as a stimulant in mammals.

Erm, narcotics, medically speaking, are drugs that numb the senses. Nicotine is NOT a narcotic.

Besides, whats your point? That nicotine is as bad as crack?

[Aramike]

That's fine, too. It's still their own fault for using it. My definition of responsible use does not exclude crack users dying of a heart attack, as long as they don't bother people when they do it.

I have no problem with people sustaining medical problems due to drug use. What I *DO* have a problem with is people getting health care on the public dime for these inevitable medical problems because their crack habit leaves them broke. I *DO* have a problem with endangering all of our safety by making crack available to people who'd literally do ANYTHING for it.

Furthermore, it is a FACT that legalizing an activity causes more of that activity to occur.

Certain types of drugs are so inherently dangerous that legalizing them in the name of "liberty" puts all of us at risk.

Also, I don't have a problem with the so-called War on Drugs ... just with how its being fought.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Besides, whats your point? That nicotine is as bad as crack?

No, was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were trying to say that nicotine is not a drug at all. My bad.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

No, was a misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were trying to say that nicotine is not a drug at all. My bad.

Gotcha!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Nicotine isn't a narcotic.

Neither is crack cocaine.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Neither is crack cocaine.

Sure it is. It's a local anesthethic, although you are right - it isn't medically considered a narcotic.

But, it IS legally considered one.

Nicotine isn't considered a narcotic at all.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

Seeing as you do not want to play, I will still answer yours. This becomes the lesser of two evils. You baited it by giving the pot head an occaisional toke and the other is a drunkard. Obviously I would go with the occaisional pothead.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

I'd pick the surgeon who has the better record of success for that type of procedure of course. It's not the answer you're looking for but I think it's wrong to pick ones surgeons, pilots, artists, craftsmen, employees or whatever, by any criteria besides their job performance.

Let me ask you a question in return:

You need that heart valve surgery. One surgeon occasionally smokes pot when he's off duty and not on call, the other drinks a quart of Jack Daniels a day that he keeps in his desk drawer. Which one do you allow to operate on you?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Catherine Craven, late wife of a good friend of mine. Pathologist, specialized in Pediatrics. Leading expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Wrote several papers on the subject. Testified in front of Congress. Alcohol problems nearly wrecked her career. Pot use didn't. She stopped smoking while in med school, but she still did have a history of prior use, so by your lights her brain should be fried.
http://en.scientificcommons.org/20208328
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/4/683

And then there's me. I tried a whole lot of different drugs right after I got out back in 1970. I do consider myself lazy, but I was accused of that long before I knew what a joint was, and I don't like to blame my failures or lack of responsibility on anything other than my own innate abhorrence of work. And I don't think anybody who knows me is going to argue that I'm stupid, or that I don't still possess the best memory for facts and details of anyone they know. In fact I'm cursed with explicit memories of a great many stupid things I did long before I was a teenager.

Yes, it can be argued that teens who smoke weed can do damage to their still-forming brain tissue. But that's also true of smoking tobacco and especially alcohol use. And it is illegal to give those things to teens. No reason other drugs can't fall into the same category.

Well, this does explain things Steve..... Do you get the munchies still?