Is it infallibly true that some drugs should be illegal?

[Bill_7154]

I think recreational drug use or anything that can alter spiritual reasoning should be avoided. Just as fasting and Lent teach us to control human desires (it’s not just about giving up meat or candy), the use of drugs and alcohol tend to lead to excess. It’s ok to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, but when it turns to excess, it alters that person’s ability to reason. With regard to drugs, most people use them because of their psychological effects, which generally impact reasoning in a negative way. How many more sins are committed when someone is in an altered state of reasoning, such as being drunk or high?

I realize this doesn’t directly answer your question, but whether a drug is legal, illegal, or controlled, I think you have to ask whether it has the potential to lead you to sin or lead someone else to sin as a witness to your actions. Sometimes it’s hard to quiet restless human desires, but the Holy Spirit is always there to guide those ready to listen.

Steve,

I agree with everything you say. However, I also recognize that the policy of drug prohibtion CAUSES thousands to be murdered and puts millions and billions in the hands of murders and terrorists. And it costs a fortune in taxes. And it hasn’t reduced drug use.

So maybe another approach, one that might have a better chance at reducing drug use, and especially drug abuse, should be tried?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[manualman]

You believe that there will be pushers if drugs are legal? If they were legal they would be dispensed bought and sold.

Yes, by the likes of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds, only on steroids. I consider these people pushers every bit as much as the guys on the street right now.

No thanks.

 

[Bradski]

Two European countries, Holland and Switzerland had extremely liberal drug laws and even more liberal drug law enforcement. Both Marijuana and Hashish were openly sold and there were even cafes that sold and permitted open usage. In both countries, law enforcement looked the other way with respect to hard drugs.
In both countries, their major cities became international magnets for drug users and sellers, and the death rates due to overdose and their crime rates soared. After more than 10 years of this, the legislatures in both countries had to reinstitute their drug laws and insist on strict enforcement of them.
The more than 10 years of liberality in both countries has prooved that a lack of drug legislation and strict enforcement is a hazard to public safety.

I don’t think you’re representing the facts correctly. In Amsterdam for example, they’re changing the laws to prevent tourists having access to soft drugs in cafes. The locals will still be free to buy them.

It was the tourists causing the problems. If you check the figures on drug use for Holland, for example, they are comparable of better then other European countries.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, by the likes of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds, only on steroids. I consider these people pushers every bit as much as the guys on the street right now.

No thanks.

Manual,

Then the government is the real pusher, subsidizing tobacco growth and sales. People can choose to use or not use tobacco and still sadly many choose to smoke.

 

[Bill_7154]

Manual,

Then the government is the real pusher, subsidizing tobacco growth and sales. People can choose to use or not use tobacco and still sadly many choose to smoke.

DEMAND for drugs is why there is a market for the illegal drugs in the first place. There is no need to ‘push them’, they sell themselves. Please don’t get this confused, or state this to try and make it look like the users are being chased down to be convinced to buy drugs. The users are the one’s that chase down the sellers. If they run out the users go crazy if they don’t have more than one person as a potential person to buy from.

Again, the whole market is driven by demand for the drug. Supply and demand. There would be no supplying by anyone if there were not a demand. Talking about drug dealers as ‘pushers’ is a significant mis-characterization of their role. The drugs sell themselves.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Steve80]

Steve,

I agree with everything you say. However, I also recognize that the policy of drug prohibtion CAUSES thousands to be murdered and puts millions and billions in the hands of murders and terrorists. And it costs a fortune in taxes. And it hasn’t reduced drug use.

So maybe another approach, one that might have a better chance at reducing drug use, and especially drug abuse, should be tried?

God Bless,
Bill

Bill,

I understand where you are coming from and someone more qualified than I would have to weigh in on medical use. It’s very painful to see a loved one suffering.

I’m going out on a limb here and I’m going to compare legalizing drug use to legalizing abortion. Yes, they are apples and oranges and we all agree that abortion is far worse. The comparison has more to do with the way people respond than to the subjects in question. In part, it was thought that legalizing abortion would decrease fatalities and put “back alley” doctors out of an illegal practice, all without seeing a rise in abortion. What happened was a 1500% increase in the number of abortions performed (I could be off on that number, but I know it was drastic). Abortion has been pushed under the guise of “family planning” and “women’s health,” so that it has become a widely accepted alternative to contraceptives.

Again, I’m not trying to compare the severity of the two, only the mentality of people who aren’t able to govern themselves on individual morality and therefor rely on a government to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong. I know this doesn’t apply to you or the majority of the people on these forums. But because such a large portion of society relies on human law rather than divine law, legalizing some or all drugs has the potential to follow the same pattern with regards to excess once something is legalized.

I hope this rash comparison doesn’t come off as being offensive as it is not my intent. I’m just pointing out that not everyone has the same moral standards you and I possess. For large chunk of the population, once a government says it’s OK to do something, individual morality is out the window.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I think recreational drug use or anything that can alter spiritual reasoning should be avoided. Just as fasting and Lent teach us to control human desires (it’s not just about giving up meat or candy), the use of drugs and alcohol tend to lead to excess. It’s ok to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, but when it turns to excess, it alters that person’s ability to reason. With regard to drugs, most people use them because of their psychological effects, which generally impact reasoning in a negative way. How many more sins are committed when someone is in an altered state of reasoning, such as being drunk or high?

I realize this doesn’t directly answer your question, but whether a drug is legal, illegal, or controlled, I think you have to ask whether it has the potential to lead you to sin or lead someone else to sin as a witness to your actions. Sometimes it’s hard to quiet restless human desires, but the Holy Spirit is always there to guide those ready to listen.

I can get with this post. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Most people won’t get addicted to alcohol (supposedly, it’s the only physically addictive “drug” - and some severe alcoholics can go into seizures and die if they don’t consume some alcohol), so, it’s not like crack or meth were most people that use it over X amount of time will become addicted.

But here is a question I’ve always had: in our modern times what is the real purpose behind having a glass of wine or beer (which I think if we’re honest most people have more than just a glass) with a meal? Why not water? Why not a non-alcoholic beverage?

The purpose of drinking alcohol for the majority of Americans I see… seems to be to produce a mind alter effect. They want the buzz at minimum. Others want to get to a certain level of drunkenness. Some just want to get plastered.

Or what is the purpose of vodka, whiskey, rum and so forth? What is the purpose of the cocktail?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Alcohol abuse is a major problem in the USA and is behind more calls for police assistance than drug use is. It’s also behind domestic violence and other types of violence moreso than other drugs.

People often ignore this. More than one alcoholic has hallucinations too.

Yet it is not illegal to posses or drink.

I wonder if those soccer fans in Europe and Latin America that have brawls and riots in stadiums are usually intoxicated?

 

[CopticChristian]

I can get with this post. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Most people won’t get addicted to alcohol (supposedly, it’s the only physically addictive “drug” - and some severe alcoholics can go into seizures and die if they don’t consume some alcohol), so, it’s not like crack or meth were most people that use it over X amount of time will become addicted.

But here is a question I’ve always had: in our modern times what is the real purpose behind having a glass of wine or beer (which I think if we’re honest most people have more than just a glass) with a meal? Why not water? Why not a non-alcoholic beverage?

The purpose of drinking alcohol for the majority of Americans I see… seems to be to produce a mind alter effect. They want the buzz at minimum. Others want to get to a certain level of drunkenness. Some just want to get plastered.

Or what is the purpose of vodka, whiskey, rum and so forth? What is the purpose of the cocktail?

Time,

Nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet.

Where did you get the idea that alcohol is the only physically addictive “drug”?

Alcoholics that are addicted that withdraw can withdraw and have seizures but not all that withdraw have seizures and about 10% have what is called DT’s however not all have DT’s. A percentage of those that go into DT’s do die.

If you ever read the AA big book you will find the answer to “why does anyone drink”…for the effect. What is the purpose of alcohol…a beverage with an effect. Cocktails are a vehicle to allow the spirits that taste like gasoline out of the bottle to be consumed pleasantly without the gasp of the taste of the straight stuff.

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes, by the likes of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds, only on steroids. I consider these people pushers every bit as much as the guys on the street right now.

No thanks.

Would you prefer to purchase your diabetes medication, your nitroglycerin to treat impending heart attacks, diali\ysis treatments, asthma medications, etc for your child from a pharmacy that is regulated by the government, or would you prefer to purchase them in some back alley in the ghetto?

Don’t bother answering, we all already know the answer as well as what the truth is that you tried to refute by making this post of yours, that I just destroyed.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

But because such a large portion of society relies on human law rather than divine law, legalizing some or all drugs has the potential to follow the same pattern with regards to excess once something is legalized.

.

Steve,

Are you suggesting that, should prohibited drugs be made legal for those 21 and older and either bought with or without a prescription…that you and a majority of your friends would start smoking crack and shooting heroin?

FYI, the gov’t did a study on mj use by teens in states where mj was decriminalized and/or made legal for medicinal purposes (I forget which or if it was both) and teens in the states where mj was decriminalized and/or legalized saw a slight DROP in mj use compared to states where it was outright prohibited. So we have some info right there that is pretty current.

And should you care to research it, we also have information on alcohol use during prohibtion and after prohibtion. I"m pretty sure this info is available on www.leap.cc

My guess is that drug use among non drug users would not change and that drug use among drug users would increase, at least at the START of ending drug prohibtion. But if monies wer diverted from the war on drugs to treatment drug use and abuse could decline significantly.

Of course the murders and robberies would stop. And police would have much more time to investigate and catch and lock up those who commit crimes of violence and theft.

LEAP believes there would be a net positive effect and they are made up of police, judges, etc… yet no one seems to be willing to listen to what they have to say.

Is it that you and everyone else is scared to learn the actual TRUTH?

I can’t come to any other conclusion other than that at this point.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

People often ignore this. More than one alcoholic has hallucinations too.

I wonder if those soccer fans in Europe and Latin America that have brawls and riots in stadiums are usually intoxicated?

I happen to know lots and lots of Brazilians, they are passionate about their soccer. None of the ones I know are drinkers.

Do you really believe that in countries such as Portugal and Spain and France that they have even close to the same ammt (or intensity) of college age flat out plastered drunken orgies on a regular basis, to the degree that it is almost as if they are minoring in ‘getting hammered’?

Because I don’t.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Steve80]

Steve,

Are you suggesting that, should prohibited drugs be made legal for those 21 and older and either bought with or without a prescription…that you and a majority of your friends would start smoking crack and shooting heroin?

Bill,

I have no evidence that what I described would happen. The comparison was to point out that so much of society has turned away from God, that human law holds more weight than divine law. While I would not personally start doing drugs if they were legalized, I’m certain that for some of my friends, the fear of being caught and arrested is the only thing holding them back.

The important thing is to ask why the drug is being used in the first place. Many people use it to “escape” from reality. At what point does it become sinful? You would have to ask someone more knowledgeable on the subject, but I would assume at the point when the body is damaged and/or reasoning becomes impaired.

I honestly don’t know what the statistical data would look like if some drugs were legalized. What I do know is that it opens the door to greater temptations, including many that aren’t governed by human law, but are spiritually damaging. Acts of sensuality are among the leading when it comes to sins committed with impaired reasoning. Regardless of what human law says about anything, we should strive to approach all things as Jesus taught us to. Not because He doesn’t want us to have fun, but because He knows more than we do what opening the door to temptation can lead to. It’s not worth risking Heaven for a few material joys on Earth.

 

[manualman]

Would you prefer to purchase your diabetes medication, your nitroglycerin to treat impending heart attacks, diali\ysis treatments, asthma medications, etc for your child from a pharmacy that is regulated by the government, or would you prefer to purchase them in some back alley in the ghetto?

Don’t bother answering, we all already know the answer as well as what the truth is that you tried to refute by making this post of yours, that I just destroyed.

LOL, yeah you “destroyed” me by equating mind altering drugs the people take to get a high to medicines that people need to correct a health condition. You’re a real debating genius.

If you really don’t comprehend the reality that products of ALL sorts are PROMOTED, thus creating demand in the first place then we just aren’t able to have any productive conversation. I suggest you volunteer somewhere where you might actually meet some people who have lived in a drug infested environment. Tobacco companies used to do it with billboards, magazine ads, sponsored placement in film and TV before all these things were banned. They donated “free” cigarettes to the armed forces during wars as a “patriotic” gesture to our soldiers (who then got hooked, of course). Illicit drug pushers do it by offering “free” highs to non-users so that they develop the habit. If you don’t know that, you have no business opining on the subject at all.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Time,

Nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet.

Some like to say that. But I’ve seen plenty of smokers hand strangers cigarettes on the street. I’ve never seen anyone that smokes cigarettes (or marijuana) sell their bodies for sex to get another cigarette either.

That being said… I do acknowledge cigarettes are highly addictive.

Where did you get the idea that alcohol is the only physically addictive “drug”?

Well… truth be told I don’t believe it is. But like a lot of terms - like biological race - it depends on how you want to define that term. If you want to define physical addiction as the medical community does meaning withdrawal from the substance may result in death, then I guess alcohol is the only physically addictive substance (known so far).

But I think crack and heroin or meth are physically addictive too. But this means broadening that term to to be inclusive of people that go through physical responses or have pronounced chemical reactions in their brains to either the thought or withdrawal from those drugs, even though such episodes may not result in death.

In rehab centers - at least the V.A. - alcoholics and addicts are routinely told alcohol is the only physically addictive drug and that crack and heroin are only psychologically addictive. Of course, there are college educated social workers and addiction therapists that disagree with this.

After all… I’m old enough to remember when the U.S. medical community came out publicly and said anabolic steroids do not increase muscle mass and that it’s all in the minds of the body builders.

Alcoholics that are addicted that withdraw can withdraw and have seizures but not all that withdraw have seizures and about 10% have what is called DT’s however not all have DT’s. A percentage of those that go into DT’s do die.

True… that is why I said severe alcoholics. The Veterans Administration has some numerical system or categorization they place alcoholics in. I can’t remember the numerical category. But a veteran I knew that was an engineer (and used to work for oil companies), so, no dummy, was listed as one of the most severe alcoholic types. I think he told me he was listed as “Type 5” alcoholic and they only gave him so many months to live if he ever picked up and drank again.

I read this French-Jewish cardiologist book on his alcoholism too. He was one of Frances and the world’s top cardiologist. I didn’t know alcoholics could have seizures from going without alcohol until I read his book. I didn’t know some would begin to fall down (even while not intoxicated or drinking) and seriously injure themselves (break bones, dislocate joints) either.

He says this prescription drug he took cured his alcoholism where the most expensive rehabilitation centers (for wealthy people) and AA couldn’t even arrest his drinking. He also claims in his book that he helped another white collar professional use this drug (which he prescribed to him) to not just end his alcoholism but turn the guy into a social drinker that never exceeded 3 drinks.

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1153524/Could-pill-cure-alcoholism-Doctor-drinking-early-grave-tells-fairy-tale-recovery.html

**Could this pill CURE alcoholism? Doctor drinking himself into an early grave tells of his ‘fairy tale’ recovery

By Olivier Ameisen
UPDATED: 16:31 EST, 23 February 2009 **

**Alcoholism affects one in 20 adults and is notoriously difficult to treat. Leading American cardiologist Dr Olivier Ameisen was a compulsive drinker for years until he was ‘cured’, he says, by a drug commonly prescribed for muscle spasm.

His claims have created a huge stir in the medical world.**

Admitting my problem drinking to my friends and colleagues terrified me, too. I feared being ostracised, and since I felt that drinking should be under my control, I felt ostracism would be justified.

Through the next two months after going to A&E, I managed to abstain. Then one afternoon I bought a bottle of vodka. Over the next few weeks I drank myself back into A&E. I didn’t realise what had happened at the time - I lost consciousness except for a vague impression of medical personnel milling in the lobby of my building or on the street. But when I awoke I was attached to several intravenous tubes and a urinary catheter.

One of my first visitors was Professor John Schaefer, an outstanding neurologist whom I knew very well and greatly admired. With matter-of-fact kindness and no hint of moral judgment, he explained that I had suffered multiple seizures, which had been controlled with intravenous Valium.

I had been kept heavily sedated for two days and I was continuing to receive Valium intravenously to treat acute withdrawal.

The seizures were so violent that they produced rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown in muscle tissue that is toxic to the kidneys and is measured by the level of CPKs - creatine phosphokinase isoenzymes - in the blood.

The same thing can happen to people who suffer from traumatic injuries (a colleague told me that on seeing my chart in intensive care, he assumed I must have been in a massive car crash, because my CPKs were extraordinarily high).

 

[TimeEntrance]

I happen to know lots and lots of Brazilians, they are passionate about their soccer. None of the ones I know are drinkers.

Do you really believe that in countries such as Portugal and Spain and France that they have even close to the same ammt (or intensity) of college age flat out plastered drunken orgies on a regular basis, to the degree that it is almost as if they are minoring in ‘getting hammered’?

Because I don’t.

God Bless,
Bill

Maybe not those countries. But England and the U.K. certainly have a strong “pub” and drinking tradition. And while I don’t know for sure I suspect those “soccer hooligans” in England are often battling in gang warfare while intoxicated. But maybe I’m wrong [shrugs].

 

[TimeEntrance]

Illicit drug pushers do it by offering “free” highs to non-users so that they develop the habit. If you don’t know that, you have no business opining on the subject at all.

Man, I don’t want to get into the debate between you and Bill, and I don’t have a problem with you or him, but I just wanted to point out that’s a myth.

The bulk of street drug dealers - that I’ve ever come across - are lazy, greedy, and of average IQ. Most of them only make about $300 a week in profits.

Liberal media tends to portray them as brilliant, hardworking, and overall ethical young black men that if they went legit would run the largest banks and corporations in the world. That’s because they’re educated morons. It takes skill to sell a piece of junk used car as a used cars salesman. It takes to geniuses or smooth talker to get a crack head to buy some crack. And the quality of crack sales itself. It also doesn’t take business and math genius to threaten bodily harm to someone if they don’t pay you.

Now, the more conservative media pushes commercial propaganda that street level drug dealers are giving out free drugs to non-users. Baloney. Those greedy bastards won’t give a thing out for free 9 times out of 10 - unless it’s a former addicted customer of theirs that they want to get back.

The conservative media also pushes commercial propaganda of street level dealers offer free drugs to grade school kids. Hilarious! Never seen that happened once in my life from Las Vegas to Milwaukee. Most dealers do have some ethics enough that they won’t sell - let alone give free - drugs to a small child. How would they make money anyways? Dealers prefer working people. Constant paychecks and nice sums of money. Not small kids with a few buck for lunch money and no job. That is also propaganda - akin to demonizing Jews - to justify and get the public behind the Government in incarcerating more of it’s citizens than any other nation on earth including communist China.

Most street dealers buy their drugs from mid-level drug dealers who buy them from larger scale drug dealers. How are you going to be broke, have about $300 dollars to invest in drugs, and then give most or all of it away. Part of what you make isn’t profit but has to go to “re-uping.” You won’t have profit or re-up money if you give all your stuff away for free.

Drug dealers are greedy usually - not all but most. They remind me of the Mexican cartels not satisfied being rich and bringing in $100 million in profit a year. No, they have to battle other cartles because all of them wouldn’t be satisfied being billionaires but want to be trillionaires.

I was actually moved by a documentary on Brazilian drug gangs to a degree. Ruthless people, however, during Christmas they would deliver about $50 worth (in U.S. worth) of crack cocaine to their customers for free - as a Christmas gift. U.S. drig gangs probably earn 10 times what those Brazilian gangs do and it will be a cold day in hell before they’d give out $5 worth of crack for free on Christmas or at the notice of the death of your child.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

I have no evidence that what I described would happen. The comparison was to point out that so much of society has turned away from God, that human law holds more weight than divine law. While I would not personally start doing drugs if they were legalized, I’m certain that for some of my friends, the fear of being caught and arrested is the only thing holding them back.

The important thing is to ask why the drug is being used in the first place. Many people use it to “escape” from reality. At what point does it become sinful? You would have to ask someone more knowledgeable on the subject, but I would assume at the point when the body is damaged and/or reasoning becomes impaired.

I honestly don’t know what the statistical data would look like if some drugs were legalized. What I do know is that it opens the door to greater temptations, including many that aren’t governed by human law, but are spiritually damaging. Acts of sensuality are among the leading when it comes to sins committed with impaired reasoning. Regardless of what human law says about anything, we should strive to approach all things as Jesus taught us to. Not because He doesn’t want us to have fun, but because He knows more than we do what opening the door to temptation can lead to. It’s not worth risking Heaven for a few material joys on Earth.

I, for the most part, agree with your first 2 paragraphs. The part I take exception with (and am doing so as a generalization as I don’t know your friends) is that people over-estimate how many ‘other’ people would use drugs if they were legalized.

I read a study once where people were asked 2 questions:

1. If drugs were legalized would you start to use them? 90% said NO
2. If drugs were legalized would your neighbors start using them? 90% said YES

Can you see the obvious disparity here? Almost everyone says they won’t use them, but almost everyone thinks everyone else WILL use them. Both can not be true.

As far as opening the door to temptation, I disagree. I think the temptation has to do with the fact that they are illegal, forbidden fruit and all. Real life examples are countries with low age legal drinking and low alcohol abuse vs. usa with high age legal drinking age and high levels of alcohol abuse.

Another is a government study that showed there was a slight DECREASE in teen use of marijuana in states where mj was decriminalized and/or made legal for medical reasons compared to same or more levels of use in states where it was outright forbidden.

And I am AGAINST drug use. I simply think that the war on drugs is a huge failure and don’t see how anyone in their right mind can claim it’s being successful. Add onto that the cost in $, human lives, and millions put in prisons where their children are raised without parents or in single parent homes… those are a lot of negatives…with what to show for it? Drug use and abuse is the same as before the war on drugs started. Drugs can’t even be kept out of max security prisons. Maybe if another policy were tried, instead of the policy of drug prohibtion, we would have at least SOME success in reducing drug use and abuse. And for sure we would have less murders and robberies. And billions wouldn’t be going into the hands of terrorists and drug kingpins responsible for ordering hundreds of murders.

I believe one thing Jesus taught is not to murder (and by extention support murder). This is what you do when you support the war on drugs. With such a focus on the war on drugs (which is a failure) addressing the actual PROBLEM in an effective way got lost somehow.

Now people blindly follow the war on drugs like it’s the pied piper, assuming it is doing something positive to address the drug problem. Whereas the reality is that it is doing nothing to address the actual drug problem and adding a bunch more problems onto society over and above the problems created from drug use and abuse.

I suggest we reconsider the effectiveness of the policy of drug prohibition. I suggest we evaluate all of the negatives (and any positives that may exist) and then look at alternate proposals from those who happen to be in a position to have knowledge in the area’s of public policy, drug use and abuse, and the war on drugs. LEAP is one such organization.

I highly recommend you go to their site www.leap.cc and click on ‘watch a video’ on the top left. Then click the video on the left and watch it, listening with an open mind. If you do that I’d be interested, very interested in fact, in what your thoughts are on what they have to say on that video as you seem to be a reasonable person. I also request that when watching you avoid any temptation to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’.

Could you do me that favor? Please?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

LOL, yeah you “destroyed” me by equating mind altering drugs the people take to get a high to medicines that people need to correct a health condition. You’re a real debating genius.

Here is a quote posted by CopticChristian that YOU quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CopticChristian
You believe that there will be pushers if drugs are legal? If they were legal they would be dispensed bought and sold.

Then you responded with this:
Yes, by the likes of Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds, only on steroids. I consider these people pushers every bit as much as the guys on the street right now.

No thanks.

So, you, in effect consider the big distributors to be ‘pushers’ just like the guys on the streets. I took exception to that, suggesting that the big distributors of drugs are NOT just like pushers on the streets, pointing out that people obviously prefer to get their drugs from the big players rather than the guys on the streets when they have a choice (as in my examples of diabetes meds for your kids, etc).

Understand?

 

[Bill_7154]

:

If you really don’t comprehend the reality that products of ALL sorts are PROMOTED, thus creating demand in the first place then we just aren’t able to have any productive conversation…

Of course I understand that things are promoted. But it’s my understanding that most things that are promoted are promoted as a means of competing with a similar product sold by someone else. Toyota promotes. Chevy promotes. But regardless of their promotions people have a demand for cars and will buy them. They would buy them if there was no promotion for cars. You understand and agree with that don’t you? Or do you think no one would buy cars if car dealers didn’t ‘promote’ their particular brands?

Water is promoted. Various different brands. But there is demand for water even if there was no promotion. In economic speak, water is a ‘static’ product, the demand is constant regardless of the economy while some other products are ‘elastic’, the sale of those products fluctuates with the economy, like high end motor homes or timeshares. In bad economic times the sale of those products drops a fair to significant ammt.

Drugs are a ‘static’ product also. The demand stays pretty constant regardless of what the economy is doing. Do you understand the law of supply and demand? When there is demand for a product it will always be supplied. Drugs fall into this catagory.

:
I suggest you volunteer somewhere where you might actually meet some people who have lived in a drug infested environment.

I lived in a black and hispanic ghetto as a white man for over 10 years. I was the only white person who lived there. I ran a drug rehab house across the street from the largest projects in the city of Boston, MA. This was back when the crack epidemic was happening and there were dozens and dozens of different ‘gangs’ in Boston, all at war with each other over the crack market. This was back when young black males were being murdered on a daily basis in Boston. There were groups of 40 or so young gang members who would hang out on one side of the street a stones throw away from the house I lived in, another 20 on the other side of the street, closer to where I lived. They were all selling drugs. The only white people you saw in that neighborhood, day or night were either police or my supervisor who came to the program 1 day per week during the daytime. I personally witnessed several violent crimes take place,day and night. So I have more experience than probably anyone here on this forum when it comes to 'living in a drug infested enviornment.

:
Tobacco companies used to do it with billboards, magazine ads, sponsored placement in film and TV before all these things were banned. .

Sure they did. But it was simply one companie’s tobacco advertizing to try to pursuade people who were already going to buy cigarettes to buy THEIR PARTICULAR BRAND of cigarettes rather than another companies brand. Are you of the belief that if tobacco companies didn’t advertize the demand for cigarettes would go away? Cigarettes/tobacco/nicotine is reportedly the most addictive drug on the planet. You think that marketing and advertizing is what sustained people to continue to buy cigarettes after they were already hooked?