Side effects of drug xanax. Xanax. Generic xanax 2 mg no prescription. Xanax without a prescription. Xanax cocktail. Xanax side effects….

Why do you believe this is true?

"but if lots more people start getting hooked on heroine and meth in my community, it becomes my responsibility to pay for their incarceration, health treatment, and make up for the tax dollars they have stopped contributing when they stopped being a functioning member of society.
Posted by: Will | Apr 15, 2009 1:39:04 PM"

It is beyond my imagination that a sane person would believe that.

Nature has a way of culling the gene pool and it isn't to our credit that we have short circuited that process.

Witness, here in Houston in the early 90s, an 18 year old young man, along with several others, visiting a friend saw a 9mm automatic on the bed stand. He picked it up, jacked the slide, put it to his head and said, "Let's play Russian Roulette", whereupon he pulled the trigger.

Even in our heavily smothered nanny state culture, nature finds a way to cull the gene pool. We would do better to stand aside and let the process work.

I do think you are imagining only one of many possible futures if drugs were legalized. You imagine responsible companies coming up with feel good low side effect drugs. I can just as easily imagine current drugs being supplied at their current potencies and imperfections in greater amounts by the same people who supply them now. There is a reason why alcohol and cigarettes are the most used and abused drugs, it is because they are cheapest and most available. I know personal responsibility is a big deal in these comments, but if lots more people start getting hooked on heroine and meth in my community, it becomes my responsibility to pay for their incarceration, health treatment, and make up for the tax dollars they have stopped contributing when they stopped being a functioning member of society.

Posted by: stickrouse | Apr 14, 2009 1:16:40 PM"

Damn stickrouse, I was reading your post and I thought you were describing a socialist, then you brought drugs into it.

Oh well, wasn't it Marx that said, "Socialism is the opiate of the stupid."

Here is where I diagree with Don et. al., I think that any adult that consumes a full dosage of socialism, and/or offers same to a minor, should be dragged down to the ditch at the back of the lower 40 acres, shot between the eyes and rolled into the ditch. There is no natural or rational justification for mind altering substances such as socialist scripture, the weak minded just can't handle it.

Daniel,

I was going to let that pass, but then I remembered a post of yours on another thread that accused most of us of being rude to you. Now, if we challenge you, we're patronizing. I think maybe your skin is a little thin?

BTW: In case you missed it, David replied to your comment I quoted above with this:

"I honestly wasn't being patronizing, I was concerned there was an issue underlying your argument that I wasn't detecting."

Some people here are more blunt than others, but you've chosen to be the defender of the State in a Cafe full of people who aren't all that affectionate toward the State, so expect to be ganged-up on. But, as long as you refrain from Gil's intentional obtuseness, I'll try and remember to be polite :p

Why did I need English, my mother tongue, and I resented having to prove I was literate (which I wasn't); that's how I felt about it then. English classes should be optional even for English majors. Take French, Spanish, or Italian and study their language and literature in the original tongue. English is an unnecessary encumbrance to overcome by all means necessary, even by lethal armed force. Shakespeare is the work of the devil, and like Huck Finn, should be banned in public school. Let the kids smoke the evil weed during American Lit. class instead. Sam Coleridge wrote the fab poem Kubla Khan while high on opium. Why shouldn't we encourage writers and lyricists to use drugs to help them become more creative? That goes double for econ students. Economists on Drugs sounds like the title of Russ's next book, or was that the secondary title of his last? We really don't speak English anyway; we speak "American," and we do it without a proper English accent. I, for one, prefer it that way. Those Brits sound so damn affected to me; shoot them, too!

Worse than all that however is what it does to a society based on the rule of law. It breeds resentment of unjust law, and contempt for all law. It creates more opportunities for official coruption. It makes criminals of otherwise productive citizens. It puts innocent bystanders in the crosshairs of not just criminals, but overzealous law enforcement. It has broken down our civil liberties in irreperable ways. It has created an entrenched law enforcement/incarceration lobby that benefits from the continued hysteria concerning drug use.

Prohibition also destroys great ammounts of wealth through taxation to fund enforcement, loss of productive citizens to the prison system, through misguided propaganda campaigns, etc. Marijuana is California's number one cash crop! How absurd that anyone thinks we can win this war on drugs.

However, I don't believe our society will ever legalize any drugs, because the status quo is useful to too much of the political establishment. But people will continue to use drugs, just as they have since the dawn of man.

Daniel you show your true colors. So it's ok for the government to meddle in people's lives as long as they don't come knocking at your door?

What a stymie! I just can't come up with the perfect solution, a way to outlaw drugs but simultaneously legalize the selling of lethal overdose which is carefully mislabeled as being watered down.

Methinks, I know what you are saying. My only point was about the limits of our knowledge. We have evidence only of what some intoxicants can do to individuals, and we do not know if as a group modern humans would be happier on balance if they could freely use illegal drugs. And that really wasn't even my axe to grind – I wrote the whole thing as a response to Baughman's assertion that less drug use is by definition beneficial, which I found unreasonable.

Of course.

Be it known that alcohol is possibly the worst recreational drug in this regard. It's like chemical Alzheimer's.

Whether they rob houses to feed their addiction is debatable. Do you have any data on this? I suspect people are rather inclined to do anything to feed addictions to controlled substances.

The quote from me that Sam was responding too clearly said that the people whose lives were destroyed were not destroyed because the drugs were illegal. That clearly implies that they didn't get into a shooting match in the street (although, my next door neighbour in college was killed while buying drugs). Rather, these people had a shooting match with their veins.

I also know the son of an anesthesiologist who was so addicted to the meds he administered to his patients that he finally overdosed on them and died. The stuff he was taking was not cut by some idiot in a back alley. So, I'm not referring to the effects directly associated with prohibition.

Kevin, I guess the definition I'm using is falling down, passed out drunk because you just can't cope with life. I'm not talking about the habitual nightly 4 oz. of wine with dinner that doesn't leave one in an altered state and one wouldn't miss if one forgot to pour the wine from time to time. Drug addicts and alcaholics often get to a point where they can't live anything resembling a normal life or at least they get to a point where they are seriously impacting their health and their relationships.

That said, please don't mistake my personal distaste for the stuff as a call to ban it. My prejudices are my own and if someone wishes to get drunk, socially smoke pot or slowly kill themselves with heroin, my desire to interfere with that activity starts only once that person gets behind the wheel of a car.

A bit of a tautology, but there is no evidence that the well-being of modern humans is anticorrelated with the use of illegal drugs. Accordingly, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a lower frequency of use of illegal drugs is a benefit.

Whether the costs associated with use/law enforcement of illegal drugs is worth the cost (i.e. deterrent to potential users) is another question entirely. You'd be foolish to believe that there are no benefits to making drugs illegal.

I suupose that depends on your definition of "alcoholic." Alcoholics, by definition, are unable to function normally using the common usage of alcoholic. If you are using MADD's defnition, it would include another larger group of poeple who drink several drinks on a daily basis but otherwise function normally and may be addicted.

Addiction does not always equal abnormal functioning. Prohibition has led to high prices, as Sam says, but has also led to poor quality and potent formulas, which have excerbated the addiction and abnormal functioning problems that you would normally see in an open market.

I don't follow. Alcohol is legal and people who become alcoholics still have trouble functioning.