Home Non Cigar Related

Puro's Rants

145791051

Comments

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    iduno man... i think it had more to do with good parental advising and planning. they put me in good schools and kept me active in sports, scouts, and family activities. i wasnt offered drugs because there was no situation that would have lead to that.
    ...this brings up the parenting issue.

    I also feel that most (not all) drug dealers arent out to get little kids (under 10) hooked. why not? they dont have money to pay them.

  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    I must have just missed this intel because I haven't heard of this. I know smoking has got into the elementary schools around me. But as far as actual drugs like meth (which portland has a huge problem) I haven't heard of it hitting kids. I suppose it's possible, but like Kuzi said there isn't really any money with young kids. Though I never considered drug dealers smart.
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    It's probably more like Parents of 10 year olds who make/sell the substance and the 10 year old gets hold of it. 10 year olds probably aren't going to have that 10 spot for a hit of dope! Dope dealers aren't gonna sell only to the lunch money crowd. Now, the 15 or 16 year olds...the way parents give money to this crowd these days...I could see them as a target. Thata's about the age I was introduced to illegal substances

    Parents have a lot to do with this, but my parents couldn't do much to keep me from it, it goes far deeper than just one component of growing up.
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    I guess my point is that the "war on drugs" will never be enough. If you rid the world of drugs, something else will take over, the want, desire, ego, whatever that high gives someone will be found somewhere else and the obsession that makes "drugs" bad will be aimed in another direction. That is what has happened to me...now i'm hooked on cigars, which is legal and doesn't make my life as unmanageable.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    The number of adolescents aged 12-17 admitted to substance abuse treatment increased 20 percent between 1994 and 1999 according to the latest Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) report released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    Treatment admissions were dominated by four substances in 1999: alcohol (47 percent), opiates (16 percent; primarily heroin), cocaine (14 percent), and marijuana/hashish (14 percent). These four substances together accounted for 91 percent of admissions.

    I'm not saying it's a HUGE problem for 10 year olds, but they are going after kids younger and younger to get them hooked as early as possible. The average lifespan of someone on drugs wouldn't be as high as someone else, so why wouldn't they want to maximize their profits by expanding their demographics? And no, drug dealers aren't very smart, but the people behind the dealers are. You can't be an idiot and move huge amounts of this stuff across the boarders.
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    I wish I could refrain...

    I think if you talked to some of those 12-17...even 10 year olds that have used, there wasn't a stranger lurking in the corning with this mythical substance that he said would take them to the moon. Instead, I would guess that you find that a large majority were introduced to substances from friends/peers, maybe friends with older siblings or whatnot. Those large drug dealers, ones pushing things across boarders and such rely on this cunning part of the equation. So called friends sell to friends, using substances almost always begins as something that is completely social. And for those 12-17 year olds, it's less about the money and more about a good time. As anyone who knows someone who has used or pushed substances, money is nice, but there is something else they are looking for. Same way with those big-timers, in that search for the dollar, they are looking for something they can't get from money. The only difference between the big-time drug dealers and those consumed with greed working as CEOs is the simple distinction between the legality of their trade(maybe not these days).

    I can't say I'm against the war on drugs. If you ask my opinion, it is that people who sell drugs, use drugs, and such, need punishment. I do think that the overall punishment for those actions are a little too steep. I just had a friend who will do 10 days in jail later next month for a driving under the influence and possession charge, which is completely understandable, and he accepts that, but he's trying to get a job, since he has ruined his aviation degree with the possession charge, but has gotten denied for work without a felony record

    All I can say is that I'm almost 100% sure that the problem is much more than any law enforcement branch or branch of a government could ever understand. It'll take a concerted effort on the part of all of mankind to bring any change in this pattern to realization. I'm in.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    PuroFreak:
    The number of adolescents aged 12-17 admitted to substance abuse treatment increased 20 percent between 1994 and 1999 according to the latest Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) report released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    Treatment admissions were dominated by four substances in 1999: alcohol (47 percent), opiates (16 percent; primarily heroin), cocaine (14 percent), and marijuana/hashish (14 percent). These four substances together accounted for 91 percent of admissions.

    I'm not saying it's a HUGE problem for 10 year olds, but they are going after kids younger and younger to get them hooked as early as possible. The average lifespan of someone on drugs wouldn't be as high as someone else, so why wouldn't they want to maximize their profits by expanding their demographics? And no, drug dealers aren't very smart, but the people behind the dealers are. You can't be an idiot and move huge amounts of this stuff across the boarders.

    Hey Puro just a question here, as I am not making any judgements one way or the other. It is more an interest in how information is passed from source to source.
    Do you happen to know if the availability of spaces for people to be admitted for substance abuse treatment increased as well during that time?
    In a lot of cases where the government puts out data on these types of programs, there is a direct corellation between the number of placements available and the increase in kids being sent for treatment.
    Now don't get me wrong, I am all for these treatment facilities being available to those in the need. I just look at statistics coming from such programs being used as data to support the arguement of an increasing problem involving drugs and drug use, as spurious at best.
    If there are more spaces available during the times you quoted then there were in the five years previous to that time, well then of course there is going to be an increase in just about every catagory, data was being recorded in.
    Unfortunatley part of the problem is that we don't trust the source of these types of data as much as we used to because data and statistics can and have been manipulated to such an extent in the past that blind trust in this study or that report has gone the way of the DoDo bird.
    As for not being able to be an idiot and move huge amounts of this stuff across the border. Well many would say that more then one idiot has been left in control of whole countries, so why not?
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    Regarding the intelligence, etc., of dealers and drug gangs, as well as the economics of the drug trade, I highly recommend Freakonomics and Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    bbc020:
    I wish I could refrain...

    I think if you talked to some of those 12-17...even 10 year olds that have used, there wasn't a stranger lurking in the corning with this mythical substance that he said would take them to the moon. Instead, I would guess that you find that a large majority were introduced to substances from friends/peers, maybe friends with older siblings or whatnot. Those large drug dealers, ones pushing things across boarders and such rely on this cunning part of the equation. So called friends sell to friends, using substances almost always begins as something that is completely social. And for those 12-17 year olds, it's less about the money and more about a good time. As anyone who knows someone who has used or pushed substances, money is nice, but there is something else they are looking for. Same way with those big-timers, in that search for the dollar, they are looking for something they can't get from money. The only difference between the big-time drug dealers and those consumed with greed working as CEOs is the simple distinction between the legality of their trade(maybe not these days).

    I can't say I'm against the war on drugs. If you ask my opinion, it is that people who sell drugs, use drugs, and such, need punishment. I do think that the overall punishment for those actions are a little too steep. I just had a friend who will do 10 days in jail later next month for a driving under the influence and possession charge, which is completely understandable, and he accepts that, but he's trying to get a job, since he has ruined his aviation degree with the possession charge, but has gotten denied for work without a felony record

    All I can say is that I'm almost 100% sure that the problem is much more than any law enforcement branch or branch of a government could ever understand. It'll take a concerted effort on the part of all of mankind to bring any change in this pattern to realization. I'm in.
    Ok, so why does WHERE they get it make it any less important to crack down on? Because they got it from a friends older brother they should be written off as a loss? That still doesn't defeat the fact that the war on drugs is a vital part of keeping our children safe. Once again, if they are 10-17 years old they aren't mature enough to make a mature choice, if the drug pushers aren't moving as much then there is less to trickle down to children... Notice I did say "as much" I know the war on drugs will never totally eliminate drugs in our country. But why make it easier to get this stuff out there...
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    Any less important? NO. I'm pointing to the fact that by stopping child x's older brother, or his friend, by punishing them, you aren't going to stop child x from getting what he is looking for. The problem is not the supply, its the demand! Or both for that matter. If you want to look at it like economics, the only thing that is happening is that dealers are paying more (whether it be with cash, jailtime, or whatever, the cost is higher) for it when supplies go down, and they forward that to the consumer(this will only make the consumer do more for what they want, they tend to compromise their values and some get caught doing so). Think gasoline, prices have gone down that past couple weeks, everyone's getting their "fix" for cheap. And alot of the folks in the states think that getting MORE is the answer, but the first thing you learn in economics is the idea of scarcity. We will run out. The only thing that will help us keep going is a drastic change in our desires!
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    laker1963:
    Hey Puro just a question here, as I am not making any judgements one way or the other. It is more an interest in how information is passed from source to source.
    Do you happen to know if the availability of spaces for people to be admitted for substance abuse treatment increased as well during that time?
    In a lot of cases where the government puts out data on these types of programs, there is a direct corellation between the number of placements available and the increase in kids being sent for treatment.
    Now don't get me wrong, I am all for these treatment facilities being available to those in the need. I just look at statistics coming from such programs being used as data to support the arguement of an increasing problem involving drugs and drug use, as spurious at best.
    If there are more spaces available during the times you quoted then there were in the five years previous to that time, well then of course there is going to be an increase in just about every catagory, data was being recorded in.
    Unfortunatley part of the problem is that we don't trust the source of these types of data as much as we used to because data and statistics can and have been manipulated to such an extent in the past that blind trust in this study or that report has gone the way of the DoDo bird.
    As for not being able to be an idiot and move huge amounts of this stuff across the border. Well many would say that more then one idiot has been left in control of whole countries, so why not?

    You are really missing the point, its doesn't matter if there are more people getting treatment because more treatment is available. The point is that there IS a problem that is affecting our children.

    And as to your point about idiots being in control of whole countries, would you say those leaders were successful? Because the drug pushers that have been smuggling this stuff in for years and years are VERY successful... If they were idiots they would be out of business in a few months or even a year.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    bbc020:
    Any less important? NO. I'm pointing to the fact that by stopping child x's older brother, or his friend, by punishing them, you aren't going to stop child x from getting what he is looking for. The problem is not the supply, its the demand! Or both for that matter. If you want to look at it like economics, the only thing that is happening is that dealers are paying more (whether it be with cash, jailtime, or whatever, the cost is higher) for it when supplies go down, and they forward that to the consumer(this will only make the consumer do more for what they want, they tend to compromise their values and some get caught doing so). Think gasoline, prices have gone down that past couple weeks, everyone's getting their "fix" for cheap. And alot of the folks in the states think that getting MORE is the answer, but the first thing you learn in economics is the idea of scarcity. We will run out. The only thing that will help us keep going is a drastic change in our desires!

    Ok think about it in these terms: If you have a buddy that is somewhat interested in cigar smoking, are you going to hook him up with a few sticks you have around so he can try them and see what he thinks, or are you going to go order him a Gurkha "HMR" for a few hundred bucks a pop? If you cut the supply the price will go up due to scarcity. This will limit the amount of people who can afford them, this will also keep as many people from introducing people to the drug.
    If when you started smoking cigars, everything on the market was priced as high as the "HMR" would you have started smoking them? COULD you have started smoking them??
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    It's an interesting philosophy on prevention. Rather than applying effort to preventing people from wanting it, instead make it harder and harder for them to get it. That in and of itself is suppose to keep them from wanting it? Ok, i may have not have taken up smoking cigars if that were the case, but hearing you guys talk about how good they were, I would continue want them. If this theory is gonna work, it had better all be gone. Otherwise that desire will be passed along, it gets passed along in these forums, I just got my first shipment of GOFs in today, something I would never have tried if it weren't for the great talk her on the forum. (btw I'm excited)
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    Well cracking down on the supply of drugs would be a lot easier than therapy or brainwashing for the entire country. No amount of TV, radio and billboard ads will do away with the desire of drugs. I'm not saying they should stop those forms of prevention, I haven't even said that trying to prevent kids from wanting drugs is a bad idea. My point was that the war on drugs as a whole, both sides of it, are an important fight for our country.

    P.S. Let me know how the GOFs are! I've been wanting to try them for a while!
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    PuroFreak:
    I'm not saying they should stop those forms of prevention, I haven't even said that trying to prevent kids from wanting drugs is a bad idea. My point was that the war on drugs as a whole, both sides of it, are an important fight for our country.

    P.S. Let me know how the GOFs are! I've been wanting to try them for a while!

    I agree that the war on drugs is important. Yet, I believe it is pointless without an equal effort in both prevention and treatment. Some folks need a really good brainwashin'(usually after some hefty consequences). They aren't bad people, they just look for something they can't find in drugs/money/cigars/knowledge.

    ps. I'm sure a GOF will find it your way sometime
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    There's a measure on my ballet in portland that allows for treatment of drug users instead of locking them up over and over, and though I am not entirely on board, I still think it's better than locking them up all the time. Treatment is a good idea, but after one gets out, if they go back to "their old lives" then I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
  • laker1963laker1963 Posts: 5,046
    PuroFreak:
    laker1963:
    Hey Puro just a question here, as I am not making any judgements one way or the other. It is more an interest in how information is passed from source to source.
    Do you happen to know if the availability of spaces for people to be admitted for substance abuse treatment increased as well during that time?
    In a lot of cases where the government puts out data on these types of programs, there is a direct corellation between the number of placements available and the increase in kids being sent for treatment.
    Now don't get me wrong, I am all for these treatment facilities being available to those in the need. I just look at statistics coming from such programs being used as data to support the arguement of an increasing problem involving drugs and drug use, as spurious at best.
    If there are more spaces available during the times you quoted then there were in the five years previous to that time, well then of course there is going to be an increase in just about every catagory, data was being recorded in.
    Unfortunatley part of the problem is that we don't trust the source of these types of data as much as we used to because data and statistics can and have been manipulated to such an extent in the past that blind trust in this study or that report has gone the way of the DoDo bird.
    As for not being able to be an idiot and move huge amounts of this stuff across the border. Well many would say that more then one idiot has been left in control of whole countries, so why not?

    You are really missing the point, its doesn't matter if there are more people getting treatment because more treatment is available. The point is that there IS a problem that is affecting our children.

    Umm NO the point I was responding to was one that you made a claim to there being an increased number of children of varying ages getting involved in treatment programs. You used those numbers to make a point, and I responded to what you said. Please don't try to change the subject I responded to in order to make your point.
    And as to your point about idiots being in control of whole countries, would you say those leaders were successful? Because the drug pushers that have been smuggling this stuff in for years and years are VERY successful... If they were idiots they would be out of business in a few months or even a year.
    Time is irrelevant. If they were brilliant criminals they would stay in business forever and they would also remain anonamous for their entire lives. Eventually they all seem to screw up some how, greed, laziness, carelessness, above the law attidtude. The REAL brilliant one's(not even the Mafia bosses are) never even become a blip on somebody's radar. There are NOT that many around if reading the papers and seeing Mafia bosses, Gang members and even White collar criminals being brought to justice, eventually, is any evidence.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    I never said they were brilliant, I just said they aren't total idiots. They are pretty sharp to come up with some of the ways to smuggle things. I've seen hidden compartments in arms rests there you have to turn the heat all the way up and turn the windshield wipers on to open... Thats pretty good. If these guys would have gotten an engineering degree they could have done something with their lives! haha
  • ScramblerScrambler Posts: 746 ✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    The number of adolescents aged 12-17 admitted to substance abuse treatment increased 20 percent between 1994 and 1999
    I would guess that the VAST majority of these fall into the 14-17 range, with very few (but not none) 12 year olds. This is kind of like the anti gun statistics about X number of "children" killed by gun violence every year, where children is defined as anyone under 19 or even 21. People hear the stat and think it's all these 6 year olds dying (which does happen, recently an 8 year old tragically died while shooting under certified supervision), but in reality most of the deaths are gangbangers engaged in violent crime themselves - certainly not innocent victims.

    I'm not completely sold on it, but I have heard some very convincing arguments against the war on drugs, with a key point being that said "war" actually encourages violence, rather than stops it.

    I have never used any illegal substance, even weed, and I don't plan to. I know plenty of people that do, it would be far too easy for me to get my hands on it, I just choose not to. I'm personally against drugs, but I'm not certain that we have been attacking the problem with the right tactics.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    laker1963:
    Time is irrelevant.
    I agree. And that means age is irrelevant. Something else I agree with. If only I could get my parole officer to go along.
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    what? your parole office doesn't believe in the "if there's grass on the playing field..." concept...what a conservative!
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
    bbc020:
    what? your parole office doesn't believe in the "if there's grass on the playing field..." concept...what a conservative!
    lol, oh there is some kind of wrong in that statement..
  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    Tuesdays ballot in MA will have a question requesting to lower the penalties and fines for anyone caught with under an OZ of weed! Im all for it, to unclog the jails and get us closer to leagalizing this stuff.
  • bbc020bbc020 Posts: 1,422
    obviously one of the largest cash crops in the states...never been taxed, other than the few folks that get caught and get fined.
  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    need to pay for this war somehow, get some tax on the dubee
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    I am not a huge fan of a lot of things President Bush has done, but I do agree with him on the Iraq war, maybe not the way it was all handled, but I agree that it was something that needed to be done. I've heard Bush called a "war criminal" and a "liar" for several years now and I know posting this won't change anyones mind. If they hauled out a totally assembled nuke bomb at this point most people still wouldn't believe it, but it does give me a bit of satisfaction and makes me feel he has been somewhat vindicated over the whole ordeal. Most of all I thought it was an interesting article, so take from it what you may...

    "Yellowcake" (or "yellowcakes") is a concentrate of uranium that results from the refinement of uranium ore. It is used for making fuel for nuclear power plants and for use in nuclear weapons.

    According to published reports including CBS news, the United States secretly moved a huge stockpile of yellowcake in early August, 2008, from Iraq to Canada, partly to keep it from falling into the hands of either terrorists or foreign governments such as Iran.

    The operation was reportedly more than a year in the making and took three months to execute. It included carrying 3,500 barrels of yellowcake by road from Baghdad, then flying them on 37 military flights to an atoll in the Indian Ocean, then carrying them aboard a U.S. ship bound for Montreal. In all, it added up to more than 500 metric tons of material from Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.

    The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium company and it will be used in Ontario, Canada, for use in nuclear reactors.

    A CBS report said, "And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration. "
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    This is not news. As the same AP article, published back in July, goes on to say:
    While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment . . .

    Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

    Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
    IOW, this is yellowcake that's been there since the end of the first Gulf War, everybody has known all along it was there, it was documented and monitored by the UN inspectors, it is not the yellowcake supposedly purchased from Niger, and it isn't WMD.

    There's nothing here that lends any new credence to the pre-war claims made by V.P. Cheney, Sec. Powell, etc.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    I knew it was from before the Gulf War and it wasn't from Niger, but I didn't realize it was known about and monitored by the UN inspectors. Well, until Sadam kicked them out of the country...

    I still believe there were chemical weapons in the country that were hidden and smuggled out through Syria, but regardless if it is ever proved, i believe the world in general and the Iraqi people BY FAR are much better off with Saddam.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    I saw this on the News and found it on youtube. It is in my opinion the best most sincere political video I've ever seen. Just wanted to share it with those who might care to see it if you haven't already. It has over 11 million views on youtube already.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8&feature=email
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    PuroFreak:
    I knew it was from before the Gulf War and it wasn't from Niger, but I didn't realize it was known about and monitored by the UN inspectors. Well, until Sadam kicked them out of the country
    Of course, he did let them back in. Then we kicked them out.
    PuroFreak:
    I still believe there were chemical weapons in the country that were hidden and smuggled out through Syria, but regardless if it is ever proved, i believe the world in general and the Iraqi people BY FAR are much better off with Saddam.
    If that's what you believe, Puro, then, well, that's what you believe. I haven't seen any evidence for it, and it's not the kind of thing I can just take on faith. There seem to be lots of issues like this, these days, where one side or the other just has a firm belief that something's true, the other side doesn't share that belief, and then the national conversation pretty much breaks down; empirical evidence is something people of differing views can discuss back and forth, but beliefs are impenetrable.
Sign In or Register to comment.