|
You can already fly out of SFO and OAK with weed if you have a valid medicinal card.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you know what's on the CSA? It's not just weed and cocaine. Why the gently caress should the government get to tell me what I can put in my body and what I can't, in my own living room? Why should that be the case for any drug?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Why the gently caress should the government get to tell me what I can put in my body and what I can't, in my own living room? Why should that be the case for any drug? I'm going to cut to the chase and say that date rape drugs are something that the government might have an interest in controlling. (and yes, those are under the CSA)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm going to cut to the chase and say that date rape drugs are something that the government might have an interest in controlling. Errr... alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Errr... alcohol? It's just obtuse to compare alcohol to something like GHB in the context of date rape. Get real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Ah, yes, date rape drugs. Surely we should also rid the world of date rape knives and guns? Kidnapping rope? Bank robbery ski masks? GHB is a substance that has personal recreational use as well as having properties that make it beloved of body builders. We don't make things illegal based on their worst possible use or the fact that they might conceivably be used in a crime sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Chitin posted:We don't make things illegal based on their worst possible use or the fact that they might conceivably be used in a crime sometimes. Ummm.... yes we do. With some frequency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
You're right. That was dumb. I am tired. We shouldn't, though, for all of the reasons outlined like five pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Ummm.... yes we do. With some frequency. If this were true in any real way, then guns would be far, far more regulated than they are, and virtually all drugs would be as nearly unregulated as firearms are. What an absolute joke, the notion that GHB is part of the CSA because of government concern of date rape. Evidence to this effect, please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm going to cut to the chase and say that date rape drugs are something that the government might have an interest in controlling. You don't know what you're talking about. GHB is actually a recreational drug that people enjoy using. Ok, sure, substances like that should be controlled. But if I want to put it in my body, why is that anybody's business but mine? Why would you defend something as utterly evil as the CSA? It isn't there to protect you. It's there to put people in jail because they wanted to get high. That's why it's there. That's not helping anyone. It's destroying lives, it's imprisoning people, it's creating the drug war, drug cartels, the DEA, gangs, and good god the list goes. The evil produced by the CSA is absolutely staggering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Also if we had legal GHB(to use as an example) we would have things like standardized doses and people would know how much they were taking. Throw a dye in it or make it taste like liquorice or some poo poo and bam, no more tasteless clear liquid that you can sneak in someones drink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What an absolute joke, the notion that GHB is part of the CSA because of government concern of date rape. Evidence to this effect, please. Wasn't there a study done recently in alleged GHB date rape cases that found nearly all of them to be purely drinking too much too fast?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:It's just obtuse to compare alcohol to something like GHB in the context of date rape. Get real. It is obtuse but for the opposite of the reason you think it is, because alcohol is used as a date rape drug a hundred loving million times more often than GHB or any other more controlled substance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
McZargalds posted:Wasn't there a study done recently in alleged GHB date rape cases that found nearly all of them to be purely drinking too much too fast? quote:Over the past few years gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) has generated widespread media interest as a possible ‘date rape drug'. Our goal was to examine the extent to which GHB is associated with drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Literature was searched systematically and 11 studies, published between 1961 and June 30, 2009, were identified dealing specifically with the role of GHB in sexual assaults. GHB was detected in 0.2—4.4% of reported sexual assaults. The results demonstrate that a wide range of drugs may be present in cases of sexual assault, and many of them are much more frequent than GHB. Our results do not support the widespread labelling of GHB as a date rape drug as the prevalence of GHB is much lower than of other substances used in sexual assaults. On the other hand, however, the possible risk of GHB in this regard should not be neglected. Nevertheless, over-sensitive and sensation seeking media reports focusing on the association of sex crime and GHB might be counterproductive and misleading as they turn the attention away from other substances that are often used in sexual assaults. http://jop.sagepub.com/content/24/9/1281.short quote:The dangerousness level of ethanol was found to be at least similar to that of GHB in this analysis. This highlights a major discrepancy in public policy. http://jop.sagepub.com/content/23/1/94.short Longanimitas posted:It's just obtuse to compare alcohol to something like GHB in the context of date rape. Get real. Why? KingEup fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Why? Because there's been a fervent media campaign over the past 30 years intent on misinforming the populace regarding "illegal" drugs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
GHB is not the only date rape drug. There is a much more popular one which isn't approved for medical use in the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:GHB is not the only date rape drug. There is a much more popular one which isn't approved for medical use in the US. And even the source you just linked mentions that flunitrazepam has legitimate medical uses and is INCREDIBLY rare as a date rape drug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Chitin posted:And even the source you just linked mentions that flunitrazepam has legitimate medical uses and is INCREDIBLY rare as a date rape drug. Because there are many date rape drugs. And I said it doesn't have legitimate medical uses in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because there are many date rape drugs. Its kinda weird to say that there are no legitimate medical uses because its not available to be prescribed in a certain region. Theres plenty of other benzos out there. Versed is probably the nearest for the amnesia part but I imagine enough ativan or xanax would be far easier to get ahold of. These drugs are all schedule IV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its kinda weird to say that there are no legitimate medical uses because its not available to be prescribed in a certain region. Yes, and the argument is whether or not schedule IV drugs (and all scheduled drugs) should be freely available to everyone. I'm saying no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, and the argument is whether or not schedule IV drugs (and all scheduled drugs) should be freely available to everyone. I'm saying no. What is a "date rape drug" and how do you think they should be controlled?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, and the argument is whether or not schedule IV drugs (and all scheduled drugs) should be freely available to everyone. I'm saying no. That's not the argument we're having, actually - though it's understandable that some people would think that's the argument we're having. Legalization is not the same as decrim, and it doesn't necessarily follow that legalizing something means it's available at all times anywhere to anyone. There are plenty of alternative regulatory schemes that wouldn't put users in the position they're currently in. That said, I find it difficult to believe that people who want to put a substance in someone's drink don't have access to one - and the easiest, most common way of "spiking" a drink is to make it more alcoholic than expected, regardless of the legality of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What is a "date rape drug" and how do you think they should be controlled? A drug which allows you to receive sex without meaningful consent*. They should be scheduled or regulated as the current scheduling system allows (which is schedule IV for a lot of them). (*yes, alcohol fits under this definition. No, it is an exception to the rule, because social standards require it to be.) Chitin posted:That's not the argument we're having, actually - though it's understandable that some people would think that's the argument we're having. It is, because people are saying "repeal the entire Controlled Substances Act" and people have no idea what that entails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A drug which allows you to receive sex without meaningful consent*. They should be scheduled or regulated as the current scheduling system allows (which is schedule IV for a lot of them). Should Dimenhydrinate be a schedule IV drug? What about Diphenhydramine? There are so many drugs that cause the sorts of drowsiness that could lead to date rape, do you really think it's realistic to keep them as illegal? Has the CSA stopped a meaningful amount of date rape thus far?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Should Dimenhydrinate be a schedule IV drug? What about Diphenhydramine? There are so many drugs that cause the sorts of drowsiness that could lead to date rape, do you really think it's realistic to keep them as illegal? Has the CSA stopped a meaningful amount of date rape thus far? Don't forget doxylamine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Should Dimenhydrinate be a schedule IV drug? What about Diphenhydramine? There are so many drugs that cause the sorts of drowsiness that could lead to date rape, do you really think it's realistic to keep them as illegal? Has the CSA stopped a meaningful amount of date rape thus far? I'm not saying illegal, I'm saying "hard to get in large quantities". We already allow people to take currently scheduled drugs in small quantities (even the Schedule II ones, ie Desoxyn). e: Hell, Morphine is Schedule II and that's pretty commonly found in hospitals also.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not saying illegal, I'm saying "hard to get in large quantities". We already allow people to take currently scheduled drugs in small quantities (even the Schedule II ones, ie Desoxyn).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not saying illegal, I'm saying "hard to get in large quantities". We already allow people to take currently scheduled drugs in small quantities (even the Schedule II ones, ie Desoxyn). Yes but we want to do it to get hosed up, and no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use, it isn't any of anyone's business if I want to do that. It's my body.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What's a large quantity? Would you be opposed to people purchasing GHB for recreational use if the amounts they purchased were small enough? Depends on a few factors. If [negative effect] requires more dosage than [positive effect], then yeah that'd be a good compromise. I suspect it's not for GHB, however, which means that you have to weigh whether you value unlimited personal choice or whether there's so few people using it recreationally that banning it won't piss off many people. Warchicken posted:Yes but we want to do it to get hosed up, and no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use, it isn't any of anyone's business if I want to do that. It's my body. It is if you use it to gently caress someone else up. This has been pretty standard procedure for substances (eg, Tobacco) for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Depends on a few factors. If [negative effect] requires more dosage than [positive effect], then yeah that'd be a good compromise. I suspect it's not for GHB, however, which means that you have to weigh whether you value unlimited personal choice or whether there's so few people using it recreationally that banning it won't piss off many people. You suspect? Why would a negative effect take less of a drug than a positive one? What is positive and negative? It sounds like you're arguing from your gut, and I think you ought to know better than that. computer parts posted:Depends on a few factors. If [negative effect] requires more dosage than [positive effect], then yeah that'd be a good compromise. I suspect it's not for GHB, however, which means that you have to weigh whether you value unlimited personal choice or whether there's so few people using it recreationally that banning it won't piss off many people. Oh really? Tobacco is completely banned and will land you in prison for years because you possess it? This isn't just a matter of degree. Nobody should have their lives ruined for using a drug recreationally, period. Ever. Literally for any reason, at all, ever. The CSA does that, constantly. Controlling substances is fine. Making them safe is fine. Ruining lives and killing over them is not, which is what the CSA is for: ruining lives. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:You suspect? Why would a negative effect take less of a drug than a positive one? What is positive and negative? quote:Oh really? Tobacco is completely banned and will land you in prison for years because you possess it? This isn't just a matter of degree. Nobody should have their lives ruined for using a drug recreationally, period. Ever. Literally for any reason, at all, ever. The CSA does that, constantly. Controlling substances is fine. Making them safe is fine. Ruining lives and killing over them is not, which is what the CSA is for: ruining lives. The point of the tobacco analogy is to show that "I can do whatever I want with my body" ends when you hurt someone else. You can use drunk driving as a more appropriate example, as that does ruin lives both literally and in a legal sense. And again, you're taking "CSA" as meaning "Schedule I drugs". Guess what, Schedule IV drugs can be refilled several times in a six month period with a prescription! computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The negative effect being "making a girl unable to consent to sex" and the positive effect being "whatever recreational effect you wanted from it". I was being lazy, so sue me. This isn't lazy, it's just meaningless. I think you'll find that the distinctions you believe exist don't when you look closely. quote:The point of the tobacco analogy is to show that "I can do whatever I want with my body" ends when you hurt someone else. You can use drunk driving as a more appropriate example, as that does ruin lives both literally and in a legal sense. Exactly. The answer isn't the ban GHB, it's to prosecute date rapists. computer parts posted:And again, you're taking "CSA" as meaning "Schedule I drugs". Guess what, Schedule IV drugs can be refilled several times in a six month period with a prescription! Guess what, you can still be thrown in jail for possessing them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:This isn't lazy, it's just meaningless. I think you'll find that the distinctions you believe exist don't when you look closely. quote:Exactly. The answer isn't the ban GHB, it's to prosecute date rapists. Which is pretty hard as is, and there's no reason to not restrict the use of it aside from "ideological consistency". quote:Guess what, you can still be thrown in jail for possessing them! Yes, because you have a prescription drug without a prescription. There's a pretty good reason for not allowing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The negative effect being "making a girl unable to consent to sex" and the positive effect being "whatever recreational effect you wanted from it". I was being lazy, so sue me. Drunk driving is never safe for others encountering it, illegal drug use can be and usually is safe for others. This is besides the fact that most drunk drivers don't intend to cause accidents (meaning they were too intoxicated to make the decision to take a taxi), whereas you must be a criminal/rapist BEFORE you administer an involuntary dose of GHB. It's a terrible analogy. Let's not even get into why "social standards" are more important than women not getting raped in computer parts' world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh, so recreational use of GHB is for use in date rape, is that what you're saying? Because "the distinctions you believe exist don't" sounds a lot like it. No, that's not what I'm saying. If you want to know more about GHB can I recommend erowid? quote:Which is pretty hard as is, and there's no reason to not restrict the use of it aside from "ideological consistency". There's actually a great reason to not restrict the use of it, and that's that we shouldn't be restricting things without good reason. Freedom and all that jazz. The fact that a crime can be committed using it is not a good reason to ban something. quote:Yes, because you have a prescription drug without a prescription. There's a pretty good reason for not allowing that. Sorry, but "a good reason for not allowing that is that it's illegal" isn't a good reason for not allowing something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
There are plenty of drugs that are available only with a prescription that aren't scheduled. You're confusing the CSA with the prescription system. The CSA DOES say, however, that I need to pay a dude monthly and leave work for an hour so he can be like "how's that Adderall prescription" and I can be like "'s cool, write me the same thing for another month" and then try to keep track of a paper prescription. Oh, and if I don't fill it immediately because I skipped a couple of pills that month on vacation or whatever, I can't fill my next one on time. None of this is egregious, but it is asinine, and a barrier to someone less well-off than myself (say, someone in an hourly job where you can't gently caress off to the psychiatrist for an hour in the middle of the morning) seeking mental health services.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, because you have a prescription drug without a prescription. There's a pretty good reason for not allowing that. I don't think that's true. The punishment should fit the crime; I don't think putting someone in jail for six months for having a couple of valiums is an appropriate response. Really any personal off-label use or abuse of a controlled substance should be dealt with by non-punitive means, such as offering that person treatment. Putting someone in jail and having them with a drug conviction on their record does a lot more harm than what the person was doing to themselves in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not saying illegal, I'm saying "hard to get in large quantities". We already allow people to take currently scheduled drugs in small quantities (even the Schedule II ones, ie Desoxyn). Because recreational dosages for most drugs aren't hugely different from doses you might use to assault people and are completely dependent upon the body weight and metabolism of the consumer. To put it in terms of alcohol, what gets me nice and buzzed over the course of an evening might put a little 100lb girl (or someone with that slow-alcohol-processing gene) into blackout territory, especially if you drank too fast. How do you know whether I'm buying that fifth of vodka for myself to drink over the next month or whether I'll be sneaking the whole thing to someone that evening? People largely consume recreational substances for their incapacitating effects. Alcohol that doesn't lower inhibitions would not sell very well, nor would weed that didn't make you high (medical uses aside). People deliberately mix them with things like Xanax that put them at further risk of blackout. It's nonsensical to argue that recreational drugs should be legal but only in such small quantities that they wouldn't produce these effects, that just doesn't reflect real-world usage patterns. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Why is this even being discussed? Marijuana legalization has only recently become popular enough to pass in two states(and as a resident of one of those states, there is a bit of backlash on TV/radio from those against it), and the percentage of people who want to deschedule all drugs is likely lower than the percent that wants us to become a monarchy. Its not happening any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
This also gets tricky when you consider that pointing a gun at someone works just as good to remove their ability to concent or deny intercourse. Also there is hundreds of substances that would poison someone that can be cured but due to the sheer number of substances would not be able to be cured in time unless you knew what substance was used. Also depending on how you interpret how he defined "date rape" drugs any substance that kills someone also prevents their corpse from denying consent. Also we have to consider why and how the alcohol whould be exempt from this law. Is it the chemical makeup or its method of action? GHB has a similar chemical reaction as alcohol within the brainwhich is why it results in similar effects. If someone designed a 180 proof alcohol that was somehow odorless and tasteless marketed as "rape juice" that should be legal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 16:48
|
|