Possible new prison in Hawaii

Based on my reading and talking to folks who do use drugs...some rough
numbers...

Methamphetamine, $20 will get you high for a few days.
If smoked, about the same only you get there faster.
Crack, $3 will get you high for an hour.
Coke, $20 will get you high for a few hours.
Cigarettes, $4-$8 will last a day and with all the antismoking legislation,
the hobos are finding 'shorts' in short supply :-) and
Alcohol, $1.50-$XXX will last a day

Pakalolo, I don't know anyone addicted to this and
have met hundreds of people who smoke it.

-T
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.> wrote in message
news:1065718204-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
> news:1065670520-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
>
> > >>
> > > If addicts cannot afford them, that to me would mean
> > > we do not have a durg problem in Hawaii. Yet, from
> > > what I read and hear on TV we do have a drug probem
> > > in Hawaii. So, do we have a durg problem, or don't
> > > we. And who are the users, if we do have a problem
> >
> > It would hardly be so bad if they could. Trouble is
> > that when they can not afford these drugs, then
> > everyone suffers to support their habits. Jerry, have
> > you been keeping up with the news? This is kind of like
> > basic drugs 101.
> >
> Okay, let's take a steop backwards. How much does it cost to support a
> habit.
>
>
>

Jerry Okamura asked:

> How much does it cost to support a habit.

Despite exaggerated claims in the press, most heavy ice users I know
spend $40-60 a day on it.

tongaloa wrote:

> Methamphetamine, $20 will get you high for a few days.

Try three or four hours.

Why on earth do you keep writing stuff you obviously know nothing about?

tongaloa wrote:

> "gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
> news:1065685801-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>>> Using pakalolo as an example. Pakalolo is bulkier per high than ice
>>> or
>> cocaine. It is stronger smelling making it more easily detectable.
>> In the same space you can carry $200 worth of easily smelled pakalolo,
>> you can carry thousands of dollars worth of ice or even cocaine, which
>> are harder to detect and people become more dependent on... Out to
>> make
>> money selling drugs? What are you going to sell? The addict will take
>> whatever you give them...
>>
>
>
> If it's a supply side probem then it's easy to solve...
> No prohibition > no profit > no promotion > fewer addicts.
> GIVE them whatever drugs they want for a dollar a day or less and
> we'll see
> a decline in the number of new addicts, less crime, and won't need the
> new
> prisons!
>

There is a strange logic to your conclusions. Even if a drug costs
NOTHING, that does make a person no longer an addict. Addiction is
not determined by how much money is spent on the drug of choice.
Addiction is a behavioral problem. An addicts number one priority
is the consumption of drugs to the exclusion of all other needs.

You can cut down crime, but you will not change the fact that someone
is an addict.

Taking the profit out of selling drugs by providing the drugs free/cheap
does have certain tactical advantages. Taxes or income generated could
be used to pay for treatment and education.

It would deny a source of income for other criminal or terroristic
activities.

Alvin E. Toda wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, gino wrote:
>
>
>> Using pakalolo as an example. Pakalolo is bulkier per
>> high than ice or cocaine. It is stronger smelling
>> making it more easily detectable. In the same space
>> you can carry $200 worth of easily smelled pakalolo,
>> you can carry thousands of dollars worth of ice or
>> even cocaine, which are harder to detect and people
>> become more dependent on... Out to make money selling
>> drugs? What are you going to sell? The addict will
>> take whatever you give them...
>
>
> Hey, Gino, I thought ice is cheaper, or cheapest.

Please note in my previous post that I was referring
to the volume of the drug. Or the space that the drug
is taking up.

To make it more clear for you let's take a sandwich
bag full of Pakalolo and say that one ounce fits in that
bag. Let's give that ounce of pakalolo the high side price
of $1,000.

In the space that one ounce of pakalolo uses you can fit
more ounces of ice or coke in that same baggie. If you are
willing to buy, I'll do an exact test for you. But, I think
that you find that at least four times more ice or coke by
weight will fit in the same bag as the pakalolo. Even giving
the ice a low side price of $500/oz the same baggie that carried
$1000 worth of pakalolo could carry $2000 worth of ice.

When one breaks everything down to $/high then we are
talking something different. The high from ice is longer acting
than pakalolo and MUCH longer than a coke high. You need less
dosage, so it is cheaper to use.

Pakalolo GROWS from even scattered seeds. How much cheaper can
you make ice or process coke???

> "Thousands" of dollars sounds takai to me, and I would
> guess, more like cocaine. Aren't we talking about a
> drug which is even cheaper than pakalolo because police
> crackdowns on growers have made the pakalolo supply
> smaller than ever over here in Hawaii??? I mean the
> police even go after legitimate growers who have
> ailments that require the stuff.

Pakalolo becomes more expensive because the risk of getting
caught is higher. Because there is more risk for less volume
dealers are not as likely to go for it. Supply goes down.

> --alvin
>

Jerry Okamura wrote:


> Okay, let's take a steop backwards. How much does it cost to support a
> habit.

You've gone backwards many miles, not just steps.

It costs your soul, your dignity, your priorities and values to support
a habit.

You don't acquire habits like you do cell phone plans. "I'll take a 1000
minutes of ice per week for $100 dollars a day."

Habits or addictions are NOT determined by dollar amounts.

tongaloa wrote:

> Based on my reading and talking to folks who do use drugs...some rough
> numbers...
>
> Methamphetamine, $20 will get you high for a few days.
> If smoked, about the same only you get there faster.
> Crack, $3 will get you high for an hour.
> Coke, $20 will get you high for a few hours.
> Cigarettes, $4-$8 will last a day and with all the antismoking
> legislation,
> the hobos are finding 'shorts' in short supply :-) and
> Alcohol, $1.50-$XXX will last a day
>
> Pakalolo, I don't know anyone addicted to this and
> have met hundreds of people who smoke it.
>

How long the high lasts depends on each individual. Some people
have higher tolerances than others.

Drugs are generally sold by weight and not the amount of time
they allegedly last.

"tongaloa" <tongaloa@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:1065738001-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>
> If it's a supply side probem then it's easy to solve...
> No prohibition > no profit > no promotion > fewer addicts.
> GIVE them whatever drugs they want for a dollar a day or less and we'll
see
> a decline in the number of new addicts, less crime, and won't need the
> new
> prisons!
>
I would not agree that there will be less people using the drugs if you
legalize it.

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.> wrote in message
news:1065804615-sch@news.lava.net...
>
>
> "tongaloa" <tongaloa@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:1065738001-sch@news.lava.net...
>>>
>>
>> If it's a supply side probem then it's easy to solve...
>> No prohibition > no profit > no promotion > fewer addicts.
>> GIVE them whatever drugs they want for a dollar a day or less and
>> we'll
> see
>> a decline in the number of new addicts, less crime, and won't need the
>> new
>> prisons!
>>
> I would not agree that there will be less people using the drugs if you
> legalize it.
>

I doubt the number of people using the drug will drop the instant it's
decriminalized. However, the rate at which new users join their ranks
should
be greatly reduced. WHY?

If there is no profit in a product, there is little incentive to market
it.
Is all this stuff we hear about dealers trying to get people hooked BS?
If
so, then why do we spend all the money telling kids that this is
reality?
When you lie to kids about one thing, they are less likely to believe
the
truth, that the stuff can be harmful.

If addicts don't have to buy their drugs and can rot in public, it
sends a
lot clearer message to people contemplating use than the present
messages
(which tend to exaggerate everything).

"gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
news:1065802810-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> tongaloa wrote:
>
>> "gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
>> news:1065685801-sch@news.lava.net...
>>
>>>> Using pakalolo as an example. Pakalolo is bulkier per high than ice
>>>> or
>>> cocaine. It is stronger smelling making it more easily detectable.
>>> In the same space you can carry $200 worth of easily smelled
>>> pakalolo,
>>> you can carry thousands of dollars worth of ice or even cocaine,
>>> which
>>> are harder to detect and people become more dependent on... Out to
>>> make
>>> money selling drugs? What are you going to sell? The addict will take
>>> whatever you give them...
>>>
>>
>>
>> If it's a supply side probem then it's easy to solve...
>> No prohibition > no profit > no promotion > fewer addicts.
>> GIVE them whatever drugs they want for a dollar a day or less and
>> we'll see
>> a decline in the number of new addicts, less crime, and won't need the
>> new
>> prisons!
>>
>
> There is a strange logic to your conclusions. Even if a drug costs
> NOTHING, that does make a person no longer an addict. Addiction is
> not determined by how much money is spent on the drug of choice.
> Addiction is a behavioral problem. An addicts number one priority
> is the consumption of drugs to the exclusion of all other needs.
>
> You can cut down crime, but you will not change the fact that someone
> is an addict.
>
> Taking the profit out of selling drugs by providing the drugs
> free/cheap
> does have certain tactical advantages. Taxes or income generated could
> be used to pay for treatment and education.
>
> It would deny a source of income for other criminal or terroristic
> activities.
>

Separate the problems.
1)Addict and his personal/immediate family problems.
2)Addict and the probems he causes the larger community.

The expense of 2 could be eliminated completely!
How to do it? Perhaps decriminalizing the non-addicting drugs and
making it
easy for addicts to obtain the others. Perhaps through a 'free drugs for
registered addicts' program. With computer tech the way it is, the
registered folks could be screened by empoyers and not assigned to
'dangerous' tasks. Otherwise, by the logic of 'addiction as an
illness', the
ADA prohibits discrimination in the workplace. Wow, they could pay taxes
too!

-T