[quote]Christine wrote:
I’m sure the legal process would cost much more, but I am cynical when it comes to our government’s ability to fight the so called war on drugs.
[/quote]
I don’t think even our government believes they will ever be successful on the war on drugs. These are Harvard graduates. They aren’t THAT stupid. There has to be some way that the government is actually benefiting from the war on drugs, or I can’t think of another reason that they’d possibly continue to invest in it.[/quote]
Well, it does create lots of jobs!
[/quote]
Just think if we would place that job growth in an area that would benefit us
[quote]ephrem wrote:
That’s something at least.[/quote]
Well, I’ll give obama this much, he does know that the drug laws are bullshit. He will veto it, so really it’s a waste of time and money to even bring it up.
I wrote my congressman and he knows I have some major pull
[quote]ephrem wrote:
How does that work exactly? Do you have to be a registered voter of the same party to write to him, or do you just have to live in his state?[/quote]
He represents the all the people in the district, so if you live in his district, you can contact him. I have actually gotten personal responses before. Speaking up really does work…
I actually had Saxby Chambliss contact the FDA on my behalf once because the FDA was threatening to pull all pain medicines with acetaminophen out basically rendering even the most mild narcotic a class 2 drug, which is very difficult to get. He called them and bitched and they actually backed down. The end result 2 years later was a harmless recommendation that the total daily intake of acetaminophen of 3000 instead of 4000 MG. Yes, that was because of me and my congressman.
Write your fucking congressmen people. Everybody thinks everybody else does it and it ends up not that many people do.
Got an issue, tell 'em. It does work.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
If you come for my booze we have a problem.
Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
If you come for my booze we have a problem.
Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
Given the New Zealand government’s zealotry against AAS I would have been hesitant to post this if I were you.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
If you come for my booze we have a problem.
Na, j/k, I would have a distill up and running in no time and make a killing.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It wouldn’t be so bad if your government had the ability to form a distinction between hard (physically addictive) and soft (non addictive) drugs.[/quote]
Either way, I don’t care about addictivness, it’s still none their damn business. In or out of the country.
I figure if I ignore laws, they go away…So long as I don’t get caught :)[/quote]
Well I disagree slightly there. There is a good reason to make the production of meth outside of a lab for scientific use, and there is good reason to ban its use in humans. The underlying issue with current drug laws is that they are too over-inclusive.
An example relevant to this site wold be anabolic steroids. If they were administered in a clinical setting with the appropriate PCT etc. they have no reason to be illegal. I should be able to walk down the road to a steroid “clinic” and get a thrice-weekly shot of Testosterone and handed some Arimidex or something similar on the basis that I feel like it.
Obviously you would need controls in place to avoid people double dipping and risking organ failure (nooo not ma balls), but it could work, it would provide jobs, and it would provide a taxable trade good/service.
Feel free to ban athletes from using, but why the common man? What logical reason is there?
