Completely agree. Prohibition is a racket.

Strength and purity can be really dangerous. I'm a recovering addict and while most should do a test hit to see how strong it is. Sometimes it's so strong that tester will put you out.

Yup. But if you know the exact purity every time, no more guess work because it's the same every time.

Same for cigarette choices.

Yea but how many people know the purity of their product. Different batches always go up and down. I od'd this way. After using the product for a bit yea sure. But there is always guess work and different batches.

With legalization you have industrial testing. Every freaking box will be the same like medical morphine is.

Yeah. I wasn't talking about legal dope at all. Not even pharms.

Yeah but on an industrial scale your heroin, tobacco, etc etc. It has certain standards it has to adhere to.

Heroin would be made en masse and would be homogenous enough to test the purity. The same way Cannabis in WA is being tested for THC and CBD.

Stores would sell only clean heroin and junkies would need much less to get their high. We would have labeling to provide guidance for doses based on height and body weight. Easily.

Did I say they wouldn't ? Legalization is great. Not what I was even talking about.

1. They might not fear treatment but there would also be much less incentive to seek treatment since they wouldn't have to be clean to keep a job or keep their children. Not many people self-regulate their activities unless they have a push or external factor, particularly when that activity is so pleasure inducing as to create new dopamine pathways in the brain.

2. Your argument here is actually against legalization. Heroin varies in purity even among the "high grade" junk and this often results in people taking what they think is the same dose as usual but is actually more potent. In addition, heroin has more types of tolerance than just chemical tolerance. Behavioral and situational tolerance also factor in heavily. A user might take several mid to large size doses at a party or with friends and be fine because they've tolerated to socially using in that environment but then take the same dose at home to themselves or alone somewhere and nod off to never wake again.

3. It's not like heroin has a bad rap. It has exactly the reputation it deserves. Addicts shouldn't feel stigmatized but they shouldn't feel like they're doing what's best for them or that legality = safety. Heroin is an extremely dangerous and extremely psychologically and physiologically addicting drug, one of the few that I believe is rightly illegal. People underestimate it far too often and far too often they're the ones that die with a needle.

Hoffman might or might not have ODed if it were legal. Personally I think he would have ODed much sooner if it were legal and he didn't have to be somewhat concerned about its effect in his career.

1. According to what? Remove all the barriers to treatment and we will see a reduction in IV related injuries and deaths.

..I started replying to all of your points but then I realized you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Translation: you started typing an opinionated reply based on an ignorant opinion and then realized just how mindnumbingly stupid you would look actually typing up reasons why heroin isn't that bad and should be legal.

Wake up and smell the coffee kid, you can't win an argument by wishes and dreams coupled by shooting down any opposing perspective. I don't care how much heroine you've done or how awesome you think it is, it's a very dangerous drug and 8/10 times the people that underestimate it or overestimate their self control are the ones who OD and whose families people like myself have to counsel.

I've seen a few people come in for treatment because they genuinely realized they were killing themselves and that was actually great because the most successful people in recovery are the ones that want to recover for themselves. Recovery has to come from the addict, as therapists we just meet them halfway.

That being said, the people who are concerned or want to practice better health are far and away a minority compared to the people trying to get clean because of relationship pressure, a job opportunity or some other external factor pushing them. Recovery is recovery and it's always amazing to see an addict take that first step but it's generally expected that people there for someone else will relapse at least once and probably more.

The point is, heroin isn't something that legalizing it will remove the danger from. It is highly addictive and it interacts with reward pathways that are hard wired into your brain for survival. It's not as if anyone wants to be a stereotypical "junkie" controlled by the drug, most users I meet say they started because they didn't want to feel how they were feeling sober. When a powerful substance starts messing with your dopamine rewards though you can easily lose yourself. You might not think about it as losing control, but when a drug dictates who you spend time with and when you're not in control. It's sad but most users only realize they've lost control too late and even then unless there's an external factor pushing them they may prefer that loss of control if it keeps making them feel that wonderful consistently. If heroin were legal, there wouldn't be as much of a reason for a lot of people to actually give up that source of pleasure, and even for those that wanted to there wouldn't be any guarantee of less stigmatization.

You keep on defending heroin though, maybe next week you can do a topic on why meth should totally be legal too.

Go watch American Drug War you ignorant fool.

Legalizing > Decriminalizing > Prohibition.

Prohibition is just welfare for the prison industry and a control mechanism for the military industrial complex.

I didn't even read your sad reply because you don't know what you're talking about. Except the last line. Meth should be legal too. Because the harms of prohibition are greater than the harms of the drugs.

Oh man, you totally blew me away, documentaries are literally THE BEST sources.

Come back when you've studied any amount of biochemistry/chemistry/psychology/sociology and have actually worked in a clinical setting with people suffering from addiction. Better yet just come back when you have more than some blog posts on a "legalize it!" forum and some half ass scare documentary extrapolating claims for some drugs to all drugs, then we can debate if you can put some sentences together that actually form an argument other than "blah blah you're a fool blah blah prohibition".

P.S. - Prohibition does suck, in most cases. Heroin, meth and few other substances are very appropriately illegal. And Phillip Hoffman would have still died either way.

I majored in Social Policy, emphasized in drug war studies.

The government profits from prohibition and ruins lives over the possession of simple molecules.

Meanwhile, they import cocaine and imprison us. Regardless if meth killed the first time you used it I would still support it's legality. This is about personal freedom to do anything you want to with your body as long as it doesn't harm others.

Drug users aren't dangerous unless they are using hard drugs (typically) and don't have access to their fix. Legalization would bring prices down to an affordable level and junkies would be able to maintain their addictions.

Harm reduction works so much better than prohibition.

You can know all the chemistry you want about drugs, it doesn't change the reality. Prohibition doesn't work.

So, you majored in A) a major that doesn't actually interact with the psychology of the individual addicts or even generalized sociological effects of addiction at all, and B) double majored in something that doesn't actually exist. (That's per my Googling and basic knowledge, if you can show me where such a major program exists I'll fix that and wear the egg on my face. Unless you meant you took a class, which =/= a major.) Even if it were an actual program it's already admittedly biased seeing as how it's specifically about the drug war.

"Drug users aren't dangerous unless they are using hard drugs (typically)"

And what, methamphetamine and heroin are soft drugs? Uh, no.

Clearly you're either choosing not to (possibly because you're rationalizing an addiction of your own?) or you're just too stubborn to comprehend this so I'll type it in all caps for emphasis. LEGAL STATUS, PRICES AND EVEN CHEMISTRY DON'T MAKE HEROIN A SAFE SUBSTANCE FOR ANYONE. Even experience doesn't make that big of a difference, plenty of veteran junkies die of an OD every day because of a difference in purity (usually because of a dealer changing suppliers or changing their own product less) and plenty of first time users do too. IT IS NOT A SAFE SUBSTANCE. You can know everything there is to know about heroin and still overdose just as quick as a raging dumbass if you overestimate yourself or underestimate the substance. It's not just about drug users being a danger to others with this stuff, it's about them being a danger to themselves as well. Just because heroin is scheduled with weed doesn't make it as innocent and misplaced as weed is. Marijuana has no place being scheduled and especially not at schedule 1 because it has no real abuse or addiction potential. Heroin meanwhile is almost a metaphor for addiction and abuse potential is very high because A) It is very cheap comparatively, B) It is very, very addictive, C) Tolerance lowers very quickly and D) Effects are almost as soon as you finish pushing the syringe for IV users.

If you want to argue that people should have a right to kill themselves with drugs then by all means do it all fucking day, but don't pretend for a second that legalization is actually going to reduce rates of heroin overdose or abuse because that's bullshit, just like any claim that heroin isn't dangerous is absolute bullshit.

American Drug War is pretty imperial with it's evidence. I'd give it a watch before you rush to judge.

You didn't use the correct term.

Empirical is the term you're looking for, and no documentary slapped together by some people who clearly have a political agenda is going to erase my experience of over a year interning at a treatment center and several years of case studies, textbooks and more which all come to the same consensus: Heroin is bad for your body and psychological well-being, easy to abuse and very hard to quit.

You're right. Sorry no coffee yet this morning.

Heroin is horrible for you man. I'm not disagreeing. But we can either put people in jail and make the problem worse and continue profiting from it.

Or we can acknowledge that humans will always seek to get fucked up. Legalize. Tax. Regulate. Provide resources.

It's actually quite genius.

I still do and will continue to disagree with you there and believe that heroin is something that should remain illegal, because I see the consequences of legalizing it and having open use leading to increased use, increased addiction and increased rates of overdose. I'm all for reducing penalties for users and boosting resources for recovery and education though , and I know a lot of like-minded professionals. It is despicably stupid to penalize addicts with years in prison (which not only takes their freedom and ambition but costs taxpayers money). That money would be much better spent in more comprehensive education programs to keep people from getting started on a heroin addiction and more psychology-based recovery efforts to help those who have slipped into addiction.

We tried your way for the last 50 years. Cartels have never been stronger.

Your position means you are pro-cartel.

Um, no.

Penalties are still very stiff and include prison sentences instead of actual recovery efforts. The War on Drugs has wasted over a trillion dollars on incarceration and punishment oriented approaches to the problem which could have been better used for education, prevention, treatment etc. The only aspect of "my way" that's been tried is that it's illegal, and go figure that's the one aspect they've got partially right.

We had a pretty good mutual disagreement, why'd you have to go and convince me you're an idiot again by taking a statement of "heroin is bad, should be illegal and addicts should get treatment instead of punishment" and turning it into something as godawful stupid as "because you think that you support cartels."?

because I see the consequences of legalizing it and having open use leading to increased use, increased addiction and increased rates of overdose.

How do you explain the opposite occurring in Portugal?

...you do realize that Portugal didn't legalize drugs, right? They decriminalized them which involves lesser penalties handled from an administrative treatment perspective rather than a punishment for several years. In other words, pretty much what I was saying I support.

because I see the consequences of legalizing it and having open use leading to increased use, increased addiction and increased rates of overdose.

How do you explain the opposite occurring in Portugal after they removed criminal penalties?

Again, Portugal didn't legalize drugs, they are still illegal but addicts are treated rather than punished with jail time. Which is what I said I support. You don't seem big on reading comprehension.

Are you daft? I just stated above that Portugal "removed criminal penalties." That doesn't equate with me saying they legalized drugs. I don't know why you're dodging answering a simple question. You stated you feel the consequences of legalizing it would include increased addiction. I'm pointing to an example of a country which decriminalized (removed criminal penalties for use) and, in which, the opposite happened. How do you explain that?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Are you stupid?

Firstly, decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. My entire argument was against legalization, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Also, just because penalties aren't handled by a criminal court doesn't mean there aren't penalties to serve as a minor deterrent, and Portuguese officials still confiscate drugs and only amounts under a certain limit are decriminalized.

In addition, since you obviously haven't bothered to check anything past "ZOMG NO JAIL 4 DRUGS!" you should know that statistics for heroin, ecstasy and cocaine use have been increasing among adult populations since the policy was enacted. This may be because people feel less stigmatized but considering there is still education about the matter and treatment availability my smart money is on "more people are using." There has been a positive trend in that less adolescents report using drugs.

There have been less deaths because, as I said, the money that was being allocated for prosecution and incarceration of drug users has been spent on education and treatment and gee golly whiz, once people know drugs are killing them and have support to quit they are more likely to quit. Instead of sending addicts to jail they're sending them to trained psychologists and addiction counselors and it's had a great impact so far.

One of us is very fucking stupid.

Firstly, decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing.

No shit dumbass. No one here said that. You keep responding with that as if I posited they were. No where did I write that.

In addition, since you obviously haven't bothered to check anything past "ZOMG NO JAIL 4 DRUGS!" you should know that statistics for heroin, ecstasy and cocaine use have been increasing since the policy was enacted

No. They haven't. Talk in your teeny-bopper Zomg bullshit all you want. You have no sources, ignoramus.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group).

Read more: Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz2sP3hDrQl

Here's another big shocker for you, genius. Legalization wouldn't have to preclude having successful treatment options for those with this problem. Oh my God! Zoigs! Fucking dork.

Yes, one of us is, and I'm talking to him right now.

1. You're the one who started disputing my claim that I believe the consequences of legalization would result in increased use, increased addiction and increased deaths. That means legalization, not decriminalization where addicts are sent to treatment, legalization (and open use as I said in my post) with no incentive other than self motivation to go to treatment.

2. Actually, they have you flaming dumbass. I said in my post that they have declined among the youth populations and that's true. But overall use, especially among adult populations, has increased. Here's a more in depth report if you think you can read it: Link . Don't let it strain your eyes though, it gets kinda technical.

3. Finally, no legalization wouldn't have to preclude having successful treatment options available, it would however not have the same incentive to attend treatment as a decriminalized charge and being referred to treatment would, which is what Portugal is doing.

Stop trying to seem smart, you haven't done enough research and you're not good at it.

Ok, teenybopper.

You're the one who started disputing my claim that I believe the consequences of legalization would result in increased use, increased addiction and increased deaths. That means legalization, not decriminalization where addicts are sent to treatment, legalization (and open use as I said in my post) with no incentive other than self motivation to go to treatment.

I asked you to explain this claim and you spazzed out, and have still failed to support it.

Actually, they have you flaming dumbass. I said in my post that they have declined among the youth populations and that's true. But overall use, especially among adult populations, has increased. Here's a more in depth report if you think you can read it: Link . Don't let it strain your eyes though, it gets kinda technical.

It's not helpful linking to a 143 page document. Way to cite sources. Everything I've read says there was a small, not statistically-significant rise in drug use among adults. More importantly there has been a decline in IV heroin use. This is a thread about heroin use, right?

http://reformdrugpolicy.com/beckley-main-content/new-approaches/future-directions-for-drug-policy-reform/portugal/

Stop trying to seem smart, you haven't done enough research and you're not good at it.

OK, you fucking clown. I should be like you and talk like OMG, Druggz, site no specific sources, and spaz out when people ask you questions. Then I'd "be good at sounding smart."

1. There's no research yet to support it because to date there hasn't been a valid study in a country where drugs are legal. Given that usage rates among adults have still increased even in a country where they are simply decriminalized, even by a "statistically small margin" *(.7% to 1.1% of interviewees for heroin), it's a safe bet that they'd increase even more if there was absolutely no push whatsoever to attend treatment or attain any education.

2. Okay, since you're apparently unable to read, you can check out page 18 and the following statistics tables. Even your own linked article points to an increase in use, and whether it's statistically significant or not it still represents an increase even with decriminalization policy in effect. IV use has thankfully decreased and this is mainly attributed to the preemptive education and the treatment for people who are found to possess drugs.

Again, stop trying to sound smart, because you are seriously lacking in capability at this point. You can't even spell "cite" the correct way or press Ctrl+F and type in heroin to search for statistics in a report, how are you even able to keep posting?

Again, stop trying to sound smart

ZOMG!! Drugzz.

Am I doing it right now? I'll just follow your lead. Thanks for posting some actual information, you condescending prick. It was like pulling teeth.

EDIT- did you know decriminalization isn't the same as legalization? Oh, no one said they were? Well, I'll just keep reiterating that because I'm a clueless asshole and it makes me feel like I'm winning an argument somehow.

Actually I'd prefer it if you'd just stop posting and making yourself look more ridiculous with your painful lack of knowledge, but eh, you just can't help everybody.

Oh, and if you recognize that, then how the hell did you come up with the question about the "opposite" happening in Portugal if they haven't legalized drugs? That was what started your little pissing match wasn't it? I said something about legalization likely resulting in an increase in use and you retorted with a question about an "opposite" effect in a country that's decriminalized possession? Oh who cares at this point, just read the damn report.

Next time cite sources, don't be a condescending prick, and lay off the teeny-bopper ZOMG nonsense- then, maybe, people will take you seriously and not recognize you for the raging asshole you obviously are.

Oh, and if you recognize that, then how the hell did you come up with the question about the "opposite" happening in Portugal if they haven't legalized drugs? That was what started your little pissing match wasn't it?

No, it isn't what started this. This is how I know you're an idiot. You keep pointing to this non-existent event of me saying that Portugal "legalized" drugs when they solely decriminalized them.

As I said many times, every report and news article I've read has called Portugal's decriminalization a success. I then cited sources showing their IV heroin use declined. Zoig!

"from curiosity36 via /r/conspiracy/ sent 1 hour ago show parent because I see the consequences of legalizing it and having open use leading to increased use, increased addiction and increased rates of overdose.

How do you explain the opposite occurring in Portugal? contextreportmark unreadreply"

Oh my bad man, I must have totally misread that part where you responded to my claim about legalization with a question about "what's happened in Portugal."

Furthermore noone is arguing their program was or wasn't a success, the statistics show an increase in overall use though. Congratulations! You pasted an article from an entire website devoted to drug reform! Want a cookie? Even though your article was to the point someone should probably point out to you and your love of sources that academic sources and research studies are largely preferable as citations (which I gave when asked).

your article was to the poin

Should I be a condescending prick like you and point out your typos? Is that what people do when they're "trying to seem smart"? It's what you do, anyways.

Oh my bad man, I must have totally misread that part where you responded to my claim about legalization with a question about "what's happened in Portugal."

I'll dumb this down for you: A parallel situation where a country decriminalizes drugs is apt in a discussion about drug legalization. That doesn't mean that statement indicates I thought they had legalized. You really are stupid.

someone should probably point out to you and your love of sources that academic sources are largely preferable as citations (which I gave when asked).

Yeah, I gave Cato Institute study statistics, while you were spazzing out when asked for any and talking like a teenybopper clown.

You could and you'd be right, I made a typo. Unlike you however I proofread my own work and fixed it a soon as I reread it. You got me though!

Let me explain this like you're 5. Legalization is not parallel or similar to decriminalization in any way other than a lack of criminal penalties. People in Portugal who are found with drugs are sent for treatment rather than punished. This is in no way similar to legalization in which drug users would not even be referred to treatment when found with drugs. If you meant to parallel a situation to decriminalizaton then you should do so to decriminalization, not when someone talks about legalization (and taxation like OP was saying). They're separate terms for a reason.

You gave statistics pulled from the drug reform site you posted which pulled them from the Cato study. Like I said, that article happened to be on point. You shouldn't trust any web post that throws some statistics at you though, you should do some comparative research and find the studies for yourself. Do people not Google for themselves anymore?

Oh and keep saying teenybopper because it makes you look even more like a dipshit. Saying "zomg" once in sarcasm is one thing but picking an outdated slang in an invalid attempt to sound like the older/wiser one here is just pathetic.

You could and you'd be right, I made a typo. Unlike you however I proofread my own work and fixed it a soon as I reread it. You got me though!

No one isn't one word, either. Your grammar skills make you look like a dipshit. I'd school you further, but you're an unbearable prick.

Think you meant, "Fixed it as soon as I reread it."

Legalization and decriminalization are different, you're the only one who seems to have been confused about that.

If you meant to parallel a situation to decriminalizaton then you should do so to decriminalization, not when someone talks about legalization (and taxation like OP was saying).

No. It's perfectly apt to discuss legalization and decriminalization. Keep working on your grammar, teenybopper.

It's used interchangeably as a pronoun and I have yet to be corrected on it by anyone I didn't actively regard as a moron, but hey maybe I'll change it too for fun.

Are you trolling, or are you actually so dense as to acknowledge legalization and decriminalization as different and 3 lines later say its "apt" to discuss both in the same light?

It's used interchangeably and I have yet to be corrected on it by anyone I didn't actively regard as a moron, but hey maybe I'll change it too for fun.

No. It's not used interchangeably by people who use English correctly. You seem to have a problem with people smarter than you correcting you and then regarding them as morons. This explains a lot.

Look it up.

http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersideofwriting/a/Nobody-None-And-No-One.htm

Next, you'd want to learn to use commas. I'm not going to go through your sentences and do it for you, but, again, your lack of grammar illustrates your idiocy.

Are you trolling, or are you actually so dense as to acknowledge legalization and decriminalization as different and 3 lines later say its "apt" to discuss both in the same light?

I know you're an idiot, but legalization and decriminalization can be discussed concurrently. Preferably, however, (see how "however" has commas around it? Learn from that) not by idiots who fail at constructing basic sentences and use expressions like ZOMG as insults.

Remember how you used the rate of addiction in Portugal after decriminalization to theorize how addiction rates may rise after a theoretical legalization? That was an apt use of both. Dumbass.

So far I haven't demonstrated any real lack of grammar and I can pull up a website too! - http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/noone

Now I'll give you that even that site says it's "often considered incorrect" usage but hey like I said, no [space] one I don't consider a moron has corrected me on it (that means only you have).

Keep on distracting though because you have yet to present a coherent argument in favor of legalization that didn't consist of statistics pulled from a select segment of a population under a decriminalization policy.

My argument, however, was an apt use of both because (and this is hard to get over, I know) I provided relevant statistics on an overall use increase and made the argument that a situation of legalization without the same push into treatment in place of punishment would lead to even more use. As I said there aren't solid studies to back that claim up because no studies have come out of a country stupid enough in policy to legalize heroin but I presented a pretty good argument based on logic.

If you'd pull your head out of your ass and read thoroughly instead of trying to one-up me you could save yourself a lot of time and me a lot of unnecessary reading of drivel.

This is how stupid you are- I never was making an argument for legalization. I only asked you a question and you spazzed the fuck out.

No one uses "noone"- the people you considered "morons" correcting you were correct and, indeed, you're the moron. Keep using it if you want, but it's incorrect and telling as to your level of education and ability to keep learning. It made me laugh out loud that you're still using it, so, thanks, I guess. Keep using it, it's like an intellectual cow-bell you've chosen to self-harness around your dolt neck.

My argument however was an apt use of both because (and this is hard to get over, I know) I provided relevant statistics on an overall use increase and made the argument that a situation of legalization would lead to even more use

Which is why I said it was apt. So you now understand how grown-ups can discuss legalization and decriminalization. Good. It's not "hard to get over." I'm pointing this out for you again (really, try to learn)- you want to encase your uses of "however" with commas. It's hard to take you seriously when you can't construct sentences even after the process has been explained to you.

There's so many grammar and typos here I'm not going to bother. I'm the only one here forced to read drivel. Try to figure out where you came up with the idea that I was proposing legalization, you fucking dolt, and, for God's sake, take the free grammar lessons. Learn to use commas, stop saying "noone," and when people smarter than you correct you, don't dismiss them as "morons." They're likely correct.

Translation: "Even though I plainly asked how the "opposite" was occurring in Portugal in response to a statement about potential negative effects of proposed legalization which was the idea proposed by the OP, I still have yet to present a coherent argument in either way and have settled entirely on attempting to seem more intelligent than somebody through grammar rather than by making a real point. I also like to attempt sounding older and more mature by using words like teenybopper and pretending to be all grown up while making no valid points that actually address the original argument."

Granted, I corrected and insulted your pitiful spelling, grammar and use of the Internet so maybe I started it. Come on, who misspells "cite" multiple times? I did at least provide a real argument supported by relevant statistics though, whereas you've pretty much stuck with the grammar.

To tell the truth this was amusing at first when it was initially clear you were just another ignorant poster who hadn't done research outside of watching pro-drug documentaries and reading pro-drug websites, but now it's taking time away from better things I have to do. You can yammer about a "victory" if you like, anyone stopping by with half a brain and without a bias one way or another can probably figure out for themselves who made the most convincing argument.

Even though I plainly asked how the "opposite" was occurring in Portugal in response to a statement about potential negative effects of proposed legalization which was the idea propose by the OP.

This isn't even a fucking sentence.

Granted, I corrected and insulted your pitiful spelling, grammar and use of the Internet so maybe I started it. I did at least provide a real argument supported by relevant statistics though, whereas you've pretty much stuck with the grammar.

Don't cry, little guy. You're learning. I see you removed your dolt cow-bell, and that's a good step. You made a big deal about me accidentally saying site instead of cite in an attempt to "seem smart," but if that's how you want to frame it, go right ahead.

so maybe I started it.

Yeah, you're a condescending prick. That wouldn't even be tolerable if you knew how to make proper sentences. Zoigs!

I know, it was a typo because typing long messages on a phone is a bitch. (refer to post about better things to do) I did correct it however, I guess you were too busy hurriedly trying to think of something witty to say. Notice the comma and continued statement following?

You seem to have this misperception that anything you say affects me past baffling me that you can be this goddamn stupid and still come up with somewhat decently written posts. At this point I'm even being blatantly sarcastic about my post corrections and it still seems lost on you that I don't give a goddamn. Noone, however, commas, it's all beside the point if you can't even back up what correct grammar you present with any actual argument and so far you have yet to do that.

I'm going to go do other things now like watch TV and not waste my time reading the drivel of someone desperate to seem intellectual (not me, bub). Maybe you can do some heroin if you get lonely. "Zoigs!"

Yeah, lot of "typos" and butchered sentences in your writing. I think that's why this concept of "trying to seem intellectual" or "trying to seem smart" is such a recurrent theme with you- it's something you attempt and fail often. Then when people try to correct you, you lash out at them.

Noone, however, commas, it's all beside the point if you can't even back up what correct grammar you present with any actual argument and so far you have yet to do that.

Like I said, I asked you a question and you freaked out, spewing insults with teenage internet ZOMG slang. It's not beside the point, as no one takes people seriously who fail at constructing sentences. It's good for a laugh when they're attempting to appear educated, but it's a cheap thrill.

You've got a lot to work on besides grammar, spelling, and proper English. Learning to be civil is even more important. My advice? Leave the TV alone for a while and pick up a book.

Wow, you're still at it? You must be desperate to prove yourself or far too sensitive to internet assholes. Nice job deleting your post an hour ago and reposting with less errors, I had better things to do than call you on it then but hey at least you're proofreading your own posts now.

Like I said, for all your purported knowledge of grammar, you still have yet to provide any other coherent point that supports legalization or anything that's been disputed. I cud tipe liek dis and still not have to worry about proving my intelligence to someone who can't even do their own research and provide a point besides "poor" grammar. If strong writing is your only strength maybe you need to pick up a book, you didn't even have the common sense to read your own articles you posted to see where it indicates the same statistic trends about which you were demanding citations from me.

I'll concede that I was the prick first with the reading comprehension comment, but if you want to cry about being civil maybe read how quickly your own posts escalated. Then maybe you can post completely concise arguments and questions instead of asking for vague clarification on something you should be able to google for yourself.

Nice to see you're still trying though, ZOMG TEENYBOPPER DETERMINED ZOIGS

I guess it's nice to know you're a dedicated dumbass.

Wow, you're still at it? You must be desperate to prove yourself or far too sensitive to internet assholes. Nice job deleting your post an hour ago and reposting with less errors, I had better things to do than call you on it then but hey at least you're proofreading your own posts now.

There were no errors. I just figure it was too nice and that you'd never give a straight answer on why you're an asshole. Do you want to explain it? I see that you concede you are an "internet asshole."

Better things to do. Yeah, why aren't you watching TV?

ZOMG TEENYBOPPER DETERMINED ZOIGS

You're good for a laugh. I picture you like a kid/ape-in-chains a couple years out of college, really impressed he earned a degree.

Your general idiocy, and that you're an asshole, was pretty much all I intended to prove. You did the proving. You learned some things anyways. ZOMG GIUSE DUh huh! What I asked, that I deleted, is why you're such an angry person and freaked the fuck out over a simple question. Do you know why?

Hahaha okay pal, picture me however you want. I'd like to still be young and considered fresh out of school, you can imagine me in a swimsuit too if that fits your fancy. You don't have to "prove" I'm an asshole, I'll plainly admit that because I'm not ashamed of it and as long as I'm able to produce better relevant arguments than shitstains like you I'll continue to feel no shame.

Since you're curious, I'm an angry person on the internet because after years of putting up with politely going through debates with nimrods like you who just don't get the point I've realized that some people won't comprehend a point unless somebody tells them in plain terms what a dumbass they're being.

Take yourself for example. You were convinced you had something resembling a point until I was an asshole with sources to back it up and then you went straight to nitpicking grammar. Unless you have another excuse for that, mines that I'm an internet asshole and I'm perfectly okay with it.

Well, at least you know you're an asshole. When trying to belittle other people, it helps to actually use words that exist and know how to make sentences, though. Otherwise, you're just laughable. You can't really look down on people or claim to be intelligent when you are as you are.

It was relevant to the discussion to bring up Portugal. Their rates of IV heroin use are lower now, as I cited. It was obvious you were stupid, as well, as you couldn't fathom a reason Portugal would be discussed as they didn't legalize just decriminalize. Portugal helped you prove a point later on though, so now you understand relevancy. Stupid assholes bother me. One or the other. Or try being nice. Definitely don't condescend though, otherwise smarter people will soundly trounce you, as happened here.

And "proofreading my posts now" ? I made one typo in a post, while yours are a fucking embarrassment. Noone and no one are used interchangeably? Getting actual material out of you was like pulling teeth as well, but, that's what an exchange is like with a proud asshole. Got to be proud of something, I suppose.

I do look down on you though, because other than some remarks about grammar you haven't posted a single fucking relevant matter that was in dispute and have continued to grasp at nothing but other statistics and arguments. IV usage rates have decreased because of increased education, which was a point I supported in an earlier post.

Most of your post material has been attempting to call me out on grammar issues and throw insults as a one up, but you think you "trounced" me and can offer me advice on condescension? Talking about assholes, you're in a severe state of denial.

It's okay though sweet cheeks, you'll wake up one day and either be okay with it or you'll realize what a completely irrelevant dumbass you are when you try to feign intelligence.

I'm tired of adding post stats to the OPs stupid topic, so can we just conclude this at I'm an internet asshole who occasionally makes typos and you're an irrelevant asshole in denial who clearly missed his calling as a poorly paid high school English teacher?

Edit - I'm proud of many things, but wasting the recent hours of my life debating this shit with dumbasses like you and people who think heroin should be legalized isn't one of them.

That's funny though, because you're the moron. High School English Teacher, eh? Well, God knows you could've used a better one, it would've spared you wearing the dunce cap here.

IV usage rates have decreased because of increased education, which was a point I supported in an earlier post. No matter how much you pull out of your ass you can't ask a question about decriminalization in Portugal and expect your argument to carry weight in a debate about legalization with statistics as they are.

Maybe they would go down if they didn't half-ass it, fully legalized and, yes, educated. Logical failure on your part and further illustration of why it's apt to bring up Portugal. Citing statistics is now pulling things out of my ass? OK.

You thought "noone" was a correct word which leaves you looking down on anyone, intellectually, fucking laughable :)

Sweetcheeks? Picture me in a bathing suit? This is a little too homo-erotic for me.

I had a fantastic high school English teacher thank you, I even learned such amazing things as the appropriate capitalization of proper nouns and other terms (hint: high school and teacher aren't proper nouns and aren't capitalized unless beginning a sentence.)

I do deserve a dunce cap however for the simple fact that I keep coming back to this shit even though I say I'm finished arguing with your pretentious stupidity. I'm going to sleep soon so by tomorrow I'll hopefully have forgotten all about the waste of a few hours on here trying to debate something stupid with you.

As to your "argument" however, education is only half the battle and as long as it remains either compulsory to youth or as an alternative to punishment it'll continue to be a half-way effort that requires addicts to seek it to be effective. Adults can choose whether or not to pursue education on drugs just like they can choose whether or not to read those nifty anti-drug pamphlets and shit that are already widely available. The main difference and the main reason the Portuguese program has shown success is that instead of taking a punitive stance and throwing jail sentences at users and addicts, they send them to a panel consisting of a psychologist and an addiction counselor. This kind of system wouldn't be present in a legalized society because drugs would be legal. There wouldn't be any penalties whatsoever, administrative or criminal, unless you want to consider taxes a penalty. Portugal's system is genius because they still maintain that drugs are a health risk and illegal, but instead of smashing someone's life for suffering from a psychological and physiological condition they send them to treatment and get them an education about the matter.

Again, you can laugh at whatever you think of my intelligence, but you are the dipshit who couldn't even read statistics in your own articles or use a search function to find them in a document I provided that even had a table of contents.

Goodnight sweetcheeks ;)

The main difference and the main reason the Portuguese program has shown success is that instead of taking a punitive stance and throwing jail sentences at users and addicts, they send them to a panel consisting of a psychologist and an addiction counselor. This kind of system wouldn't be present in a legalized society because drugs would be legal.

It could be present if it was instituted that way. In some states it's legal to carry a concealed weapon, if the carrier of said weapons passes classes involving safety. We could make it so that heroin would be legal- if a potential user got a card for it by going to a similar panel as you mentioned.

This would provide all the benefits of the decriminalization of Portugal with added bonuses. People have been overdosing from heroin laced with fentanyl. Decriminalization wouldn't solve that but legalization would. Organized crime would take a tremendous blow and the money from taxes would be a boon to people who need it.

You're the one who started disputing my claim that I believe the consequences of legalization would result in increased use, increased addiction and increased deaths.

Yes, because it's nonsensical. When we look at Portugal, deaths by overdose and diseases spread through needles have decreased. That could be duplicated with full legalization as I described, with the added bonuses I described, and even less deaths as no one would be shooting up heroin adulterated with fentanyl.

Again, you can laugh at whatever you think of my intelligence, but you are the dipshit who couldn't even read statistics in your own articles or use a search function to find them in a document I provided that even had a table of contents.

Ridiculous, as the statistics and facts support my argument. They don't, however, support your notion that increased deaths would result with legalization.

Good luck with your anger and sexual identity issues (I know I'm sexy, but humiliating you shouldn't really turn you on)- I'm sure there's a connection there somewhere. Since you have admitted having grammar issues, and your writing is still painful (commas, learn to use them) I'd think hard before pointing out someone else's typos- you started that bullshit in one of your "attempts to seem smart," but you got me, I miscapitalized. ZOMG! Picture me in a bathing suit!

It's cute that you're still thinking of me and think you "humiliated" me, but I've been over this little squabble for a couple days and have moved on to talking to people who aren't fucking idiots trying to seem intelligent and don't argue for things like legal heroin. Go correct someone else's grammar, talk about some more shit you don't know anything about and keep thinking of me in that swimsuit since that clearly stuck with you despite your apparent struggle with closeted homophobia.

By the way, you're still a laughable moron.

Edit - Another "by the way," if you can stop focusing on how many commas I use (,,,,,,,,) or imagining me in swimwear, maybe this article would interest you : Link . Surprisingly, people don't like being put on lists for drug purchases or having their identities out there when they can buy cheaper drugs through a dealer they know and have used before. Organized crime probably wouldn't take much of a hit, especially not in the short-term.

Maybe when you get done with that if you have time you can lurk around some drug use communities or talk to an actual heroin addict. The fentanyl doses aren't always accidental or some sick prank by a dealer, it's a product with demand in the subculture because of the added kick it has. While it happens far too often the odds of someone just happening to buy a fentanyl-laced dose from their dealer without knowing probably aren't that high, seeing as how fentanyl costs money and packs an extra punch which would provide a better selling point and more money for the dealer.

See, if you actually knew about drugs, you would know fentanyl isn't desirable amongst addicts as it isn't euphoric relative to heroin.

closeted homophobia

Ha. That's your issue, man. Who suggested picturing someone in their swimsuit? Who used the phrase sweetcheeks? You've got a crush on me, Lolita. And I'm not homophobic. That's cute and oddly flattering.

You dodged everything above which soundly proved you wrong. Good job. As to your link- if you want to argue that pot dealers are going to flourish in the face of legal sales, then good luck. It's not an argument I'd make.

Heroin deaths go down with decriminalization. They would go down with legalization, as I described. Fentanyl's not desirable now.

Organized crime probably wouldn't take much of a hit, especially not in the short-term.

Here's what your link says:

“The black market will not disappear altogether, but it’s definitely not that lucrative,” said Art Way, the Denver director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Wow, are you dumb. The black market for heroin would most likely not even exist if it were legal, to take the stance that it wouldn't take much of a hit is beyond laughably stupid.

The biological effects of the fentanyl analogues are similar to those of heroin, with the exception that many users report a noticeably less euphoric "high" associated with the drug and stronger sedative and analgesic effects.

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

Haha! You were defeated! Just apologize already

Are you stalking me because I said I don't think you can blame zionism for Cointelpro?

As to this issue, are you really taking the side that the black market for heroin wouldn't be destroyed if it were legalized? Black markets exist because of prohibition. That's self-evident. No one would risk imprisonment to buy a potentially lethal product when they could buy the same product legally that they know won't kill them and will be of a known high quality. That's logically self-evident.

Really?

Like no one dies from alcohol poisoning ether right?

A lot less than it used to now. Because we all know what alcohol does to us.

If he died from AP would u still call for its legalization?

It's already legal and regulated.

The grand majority of us know what alcohol poisoning looks like. We know to not let our friends sleep on their backs.

You can't outlaw stupidity, but you can legalize education and wisdom.

It's also a lot harder to die of AP. One MG too much of Heroin and you're done. You'd have to consume 10+ beers in a short period of time.

So tell me he was not alone. What what would a heroin OD looked liked? Can you just turn him on his side and he'll be fine?

No, you have to rub his belly and tickle his feet. /s

911 would be telling you what to do. I imagine part of it would be keeping his throat clear of blockages and keeping oxygen flowing into his body.

Gotcha. Thanx.

Plus, since prohibition ended, events like these have ceased:

The American Government Once Intentionally Poisoned Certain Alcohol Supplies, Resulting in the Death of Over 10,000 American Citizens

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/the-american-government-once-intentionally-poisoned-certain-alcohol-supplies-resulting-in-the-death-of-over-10000-american-citizens/

I'm sure there's no parallel to draw though.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/12/most_cocaine_now_laced_with_po.html

um...

I know they import enough cocaine.

They also dosed an entire village in France with LSD.

Don't put anything past them.

Sarcasm, gonzo.

I read he had four or five packets of heroin that were stamped with the ace of spades- and that this stamp hadn't been seen in NYC since 2008. He had used a couple of them and was then found with the needle in his arm. It seems like he saved a bunch of heroin from a good batch and then took too much of it.

Would legalization have saved Hoffman's life? It's impossible to say, but decriminalization has been extremely beneficial to the Portuguese.

I think it would have created a culture where he was able to be more open about it and seek treatment if he had problems.

Maybe the batch went bad?

I think it would have created a culture where he was able to be more open about it and seek treatment if he had problems.

I'm for legalization, but he could have done that in our culture. He couldn't, legally, get ibogaine, but he could have gone to many doctors and gotten methadone or suboxone. He could have legally ordered kratom online. He wanted to keep getting as high as he could and he, apparently, wasn't concerned with pushing the limit- hence why he shot up and didn't smoke or snort.

Maybe the batch went bad?

If anything, it would decrease in potency.

I still think legalization would have given him a more even playing field.

Portugal decriminalized, and, again, I'm all for that, but people do still overdose and die.

A lot less of them. Combined with an educated populace....

Don't listen to him. He is just a shill checking us when we "go too far."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21645-philip-seymour-hoffman-didnt-have-to-die

Portugal decriminalized, and, again, I'm all for that, but people do still overdose and die.

A lot less of them. Combined with an educated populace....

Yup. But if you know the exact purity every time, no more guess work because it's the same every time.

Same for cigarette choices.

Are you stalking me because I said I don't think you can blame zionism for Cointelpro?

As to this issue, are you really taking the side that the black market for heroin wouldn't be destroyed if it were legalized? Black markets exist because of prohibition. That's self-evident. No one would risk imprisonment to buy a potentially lethal product when they could buy the same product legally that they know won't kill them and will be of a known high quality. That's logically self-evident.

Really?