Possible new prison in Hawaii

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, 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. -T

Interesting numbers....it seems that crack is the
cheapest, but the length of time of it's effect is
shorter. It's even cheaper than cigarettes. On the
alcohol side, I'm sure alcoholics will want the better
tasting and more expensive stuff. Even a cheap drink in
Waikiki is about $4.50 not inclu tip.

--alvin

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, gino wrote:

> 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.

Somehow when people in this news group were describing
ice as "cheapest", I was thinking of something like
$50-$100 a purchase-- ie more expensive than alcohol
but still afordable for the hoi poloi. $2000 in a
little baggie?? $500/oz?? That seems sky-high to me.
I guess the tiny dosage does make it cheaper, but it
could be an expensive habit if anyone were to really
abuse the drug. And we hear that addicts do develop a
higher tolerance and need more for the same high?

> 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.

If you consider risk to be part of the cost, then this
is just supply and demand at work, and competition
determines the lowest price for the given demand.

--alvin

"gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
news:1065803703-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> 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.
>
I was responding to the comment, "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.".

"Ben Sure" <normals@> wrote in message
news:1065818105-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> Drugs are weakeness . No one benefits only the dealers, anyone who
> smokes
> need to get a grip on life and stop hidding
> behind a habit that is distructive to ones being.
>
> To me a person is nothing but a person in a coma It keeps you from
> feeling, or thinking or facing the everyday presure of trying to
> servive. What a waste of human life. Thas a life. God somone help
> anyone that has to have a drug, or drinking habit.
>

Let me suggest that just about everything we do, that is considered
"bad"
for us, is a "weakness". Of course you may be one of those rare
individuals, who have no bad habits.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
> news:1065803703-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > 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.
> >
> I was responding to the comment, "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.".

It's hard to discuss one issue while ignoring the
other. Of course the crime rate would probably go down
if the costs of the drugs went down. But Gino is
concerned about the intangible costs of the habit which
mainly affect the individual and his family, and
friends.

Wouldn't these intangible costs be increased the longer
the addict stays on the drug? And wouldn't he/she keep
taking the drug as long as the cost of the drug was
within his/her means?? A reasonably sane and
intelligent person can figure out that a problem exists
with excess. But perhaps, there should be some
intervention to help the family get through the crises.

--alvin

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tongaloa wrote:

>
>
> "gino" <lancetteg001athawaiidot@> wrote in message
> news:1065802810-sch@news.lava.net...
> >
> > 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

I think this is one for the courts. When an addict
misbehaves in the workplace because of his addiction--
say like vandalising or negligence, etc-- then can the
mis-behavior be ignored because it is part of the
illness? I think the technical term is diminished
capacity. But the problem is that the addict was sane
at the time of the misbehavior. He knew the
consequences of the misbehavior. The company can pay
for treatment of the "illness" but does it have to
ignore the misbehavior as well?? For minor things, it
probably will, but here I'm talking about more serious
misbehaviors.

Re. supplying low cost drugs to registered people. It
does sound like a program that is even cheaper than
treatment. I think it should be considered along with
other alternatives, and efforts-- and not in isolation.

--alvin

[moderators note: Please bring the discussion back to Hawaii related.
Thank you... Sharon]

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1065909901-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> Wouldn't these intangible costs be increased the longer
> the addict stays on the drug? And wouldn't he/she keep
> taking the drug as long as the cost of the drug was
> within his/her means?? A reasonably sane and
> intelligent person can figure out that a problem exists
> with excess. But perhaps, there should be some
> intervention to help the family get through the crises.
>
Let me suggest there are "intangible" cost for every bad habit (well those
habits that others call bad) we humans have. There is an intangible cost
when we drive our cars recklessly. There is an intangible cost when we eat
too much. There is an intangible cost when we smoke, drink too much
alcolohol, and one of your favorite topics, gamble too much. Generally
speaking all the intervention in the world is not going to work, if that
individual is not willing to change. That is not to say, we should not
"try". There is also an intangible cost when you make a substance like
drugs expensive, because as we have learned, people who want the stuff, will
do just about anything to acquire the money that is needed to buy the
drug...another intangible cost.

You bet, I have a choice you see, this is within myself, I choose not
to let someone decide or intimidate me to being one of them. I choose
to be my own person with a choice to choose my habits. Its bad enough
when doctors prescribe drugs for pain that have side effects I CHOOSE
if I will take them, why make more problems on top of the one you have
with health problems, Drugs, smoking , drinking all create a layer of
health problems that are not treatable, Once the damage is done its
done.

So why choose to be a person that lets others decide for you and besides
you are making them the supplier money over your own weakness. Find
the courage and help within yourself do not be one that allows
yourself to sink into a private
war of yourself. I am proud I do not smoke and drink or choose to
allow others to be my ship hopelessness


Thank God and my parents for setting a good example of being your own
person.

The bottom line it was still my choice, I chose not to get into smoking,
drinking and drugs such a ice , meth all the rest of the garbage they
smoke.

You allow someone else weakness to influence you that is a big problem
within your self.

[moderators note: Please bring the discussion back to Hawaii related.
Thank you... Sharon]

Its very interesting to read the various input by everyone. Do you
ever look back and ask yourself why you got hooked on these Drugs that
control YOU, YOUR LIFE< You have no life but a slave to all kinds of
Drugs, or drinking habits.

WHY WHY is it so important to get high for what purpose??????

How much better off are you after you get high?????????

You loose your families , some never had one or will ever have one their
family is the guys that sell the stuff. They could care less, ITS
again called MONEY MONEY why do you allow yourself to get so caught
up in this CRIME AGAINST
YOU AND YOUR LIFE.

If we did not have people giving into this habit you would not need
Prisons built
Its a shame the welfare check goes to feed a habit that destroys
cultures and homes, and country or Islands. You want to keep it the
paradise or turn it into a
pit.

Alvin E. Toda asked:

> Perhaps it's a question of age that your friends will
> get control of their use as you have?

It's a matter of some concern and sadness that most of my young local
friends who regularly, even daily, smoke ice, have absolutely no
expectation of living to my age, or even for another year.

And I fear they may be right, especially the ones who are doing it daily.

> In this case, I would guess this is an effect-- ie
> unemployment is caused by their excessive use of the
> drug?? They'd rather minimise the time they spend
> "earning" the money for drugs, so that they can
> maximize the time spent on being high.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to maintain a 9-5 job if smoking
ice. I do know some musicians who use the stuff and work, but they are
fortunate in having very irregular work patterns. A Mon-Fri, 9-5, gig
just wouldn't be possible.

Nor would any of my young friends be likely to find a job which paid more
than the minimum wage, giving them less income than "disability" welfare
money.

Despite all the press hoopla about Hawaii being the "ice capitol" of the
USA, I very much doubt things are any different in most mainland cities.

> Why can't they just stop using

Why should they? What better does society offer them?