Cocaine Found At Kennedy Space Center

[niart17]

Actually no, those are both guys that do some really stupid things. imho.

[MattC]

Actually no, those are both guys that do some really stupid things. imho.

Thats my point, doing drugs isn't any more stupid than drinking too much or anything else.

Doing either while you are at work or in charge of machinery is the stupid bit, the fact that it was cocaine is pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not a drugged up junkie, but I do get a little hissy when people yell "drugs are bad"

That bag of cocaine in a locker wouldn't do anyone any harm by itself.

[Fishwelding]

I personally don't think illegal drugs are a lot worse than legal ones.

Rich people are getting richer by selling legal drugs using television advertising, some of which lucre they pass on to politicians. Illegal drug growers and manufacturers haven't discovered lobbying yet.

I've recently considered the idea of legalizing some illegal drugs, with an important added stipulation: tax the %$*&$# out of them. Yep, pay for our rotting interstates, bankrupt state governments, many more F-22s, more NASA, and anything else we wish to do. We might even be able to lower income and property taxes. You might say "but tax evasion/smuggling/black market will be rife." Perhaps, but even if we let a third slip by, we'll still make a ton from what's sold legally.

And frankly, after we do that, I don't want to hear a single complaint from all the 4:20 folks--we legalized it, didn't we? That's what you wanted, wasn't it? That's what all your self-righteous, first-world-problem-whining was about, right? Then again, I also don't anticipate too many complaints from them; they'll pay, complain, light up, and then chill out. We treat cigarette smokers as an underclass at this point, and few people now rush to their defense.

[Murph]

Hmm, the thing is, if the same guy had been caught with 15 bottles of vodka in his locker, would you have the same degree of vitriol in relation to it?

The people that handle security clearances would.

Regards,

Murph

[GreyGhost]

Thats my point, doing drugs isn't any more stupid than drinking too much or anything else.

Doing either while you are at work or in charge of machinery is the stupid bit, the fact that it was cocaine is pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not a drugged up junkie, but I do get a little hissy when people yell "drugs are bad"

That bag of cocaine in a locker wouldn't do anyone any harm by itself.

I would like to think you feel the same about firearms ...

Gregg

[MattC]

The people that handle security clearances would.

Regards,

Murph

Thats what I'm getting at, the fact that in this instance it was cocaine isn't the bad part of this story, its that a guy had intoxicating substances at work, doesn't matter what they are, its the act not the substance that makes this wrong imho.

On the subject of legalising drugs, my opinion is that there is no point in having cocaine, weed, heroin etc all illegal and uncontrolled in terms of content and manufacture, whilst allowing alcohol, tobacco and gambling to be legal, controlled, regulated and taxed.

Probably a good 50% of deaths from illegal drugs come from the stuff the drugs are cut with, not the drugs themselves. Bit like bootleg hooch in prohibition days.

I would like to think you feel the same about firearms

I'm undecided if I am honest. Whilst a firearm by itself is harmless, there is a difference, if someone steals that bag of cocaine from a locker, however nuts they might be, pretty much the worst thing they can do is OD themselves or possibly sell a bit on if the bag is big enough. The same can't be said of a firearm.

A madman on the loose with a block of hash doesn't scare me. A madman on the loose with a firearm does.

Edited March 15, 2011 by MattC

[GreyGhost]

I'm undecided if I am honest. Whilst a firearm by itself is harmless, there is a difference, if someone steals that bag of cocaine from a locker, however nuts they might be, pretty much the worst thing they can do is OD themselves or possibly sell a bit on if the bag is big enough. The same can't be said of a firearm.

A madman on the loose with a block of hash doesn't scare me. A madman on the loose with a firearm does.

A madman can poison the drugs just as easily and spread them around to many users by your scenario ...

That same madman could have stolen the car keys from an employee's locker and then started running people down too ...

And that gun could have been used by the rightful owner to stop the madman ... It's all a matter of perspective ...

Gregg

[Fishwelding]

Look, since we've wandered into policy discussions of drugs and guns, we're in danger of this thread taking an ugly turn into political viewpoints. To perhaps head that off (for once), let me assure anyone who seriously posts impassioned political arguments here will not be taken seriously. That's a promise. Political tirades never work. (My argument above was not impassioned, and probably not even serious, either.) People will rush past whatever gem of moral, ethical, righteous wisdom you hoped to bestow just to shout back at you their own opinion, with equal futility. You all know from past experience, that's how it works around here.

...and then, your only salvation from dying of apoplexy, of suffering a heart-attack brought upon by sheer internet-argument-induced rage, will be a moderator locking the whole thing down, or Randomcatfacts bringing in her/his(?) characteristic zen. But by then, the bigger damage is done--the Interwebz' collective mellow is harshed a little further.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Fishwelding

[MattC]

A madman can poison the drugs just as easily and spread them around to many users by your scenario

Hmm, I can't really see most people just going about their business saying "oh look, a madman selling drugs, better get me some of that action"

But yes, I agree, there is always a way in which anything can be abused, my point is that a bag of cocaine is no more harmful in itself than anything else, and probably less harmful than a lot of things. Its the fact that everyone tut tuts and points the finger saying "bad man for doing drugs at work" where the important word there is WORK not DRUGS. If he drank 50 energy drinks, had a caffeine rush, lost control of a machine and killed someone, everything that he did would still be perfectly legal, so its not the legality or social status of the substance that is the issue, thats my point.

I have my opinion about firearms, and I don't want to get into that debate here, because it is informed by personal experience, so, with respect, I will leave it be.

[RandomCatFacts]

France launched Felix the cat into space on October 18, 1963. The cat had electrodes implanted into its head to measure neural impulses, and Felix was recovered alive.

[Fishwelding]

France launched Felix the cat into space on October 18, 1963. The cat had electrodes implanted into its head to measure neural impulses, and Felix was recovered alive.

Wow! Just....wow! No, really....WOW! I didn't even get that last post-edit typed in before Randomcatfacts appeared! 10 minutes or less or your pizza's free!

[TaiidanTomcat]

If he drank 50 energy drinks, had a caffeine rush, lost control of a machine and killed someone, everything that he did would still be perfectly legal,

No, I just looked it up-- it turns out killing people is still illegal. I am as surprised as you are.

You are neive if you think that drugs don't total entire families in ways that guns and cars could only dream of. Its odd because guns are always seen as a social problem when used illegally, but drugs used illegally are always "it only harms the user" Of course it does --ask anyone with an addicted family member how individually concentrated drugs are. Its like you wouldn't even know your mom was on crack if she hadn't told you. Why drugs have no effect on murder, prostitution, abuse, welfare, disease, police tactics, poverty, government decisions or anything like that.

If I am in an aircraft And the man who just fixed the engine was on Cocaine (thats his a personal choice of course) and when the engine fails and we crash into a school yard, thats not a problem and none of the governments business. I would have rather he had a gun personally. I can shoot a man with a gun right back, learning to fly in an emergency is not as simple as it sounds im afraid.

Its why when an aircraft crashes the first thing they do is drug test everybody. Its the reason that government employees have to drug test so routinely. Drugs are not a personal problem if someone else being high kills someone else. Then its a social as it gets. The only way to keep drugs as a purely personal problem is to basically be a shut in and work at a place with little to no brains required, or of course like my pot addled aunt-- dont work at all and just live off the state. But once again its a social problem then...

Drugs are like any other tool, used responsibly there are no problems, used irresponsibly and the consequences can be awful. Just like guns, Cars, Alcohol, Cell phones, and that X Zacto knife you just replaced the blade on... the list goes on.

Edited March 15, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat

[MattC]

No, I just looked it up-- it turns out killing people is still illegal. I am as surprised as you are.

You know what I mean, the substance which caused it would be legal, if he were on drugs, the drugs would get the blame rather than him.

Of course it does --ask anyone with an addicted family member how individually concentrated drugs are.

Given that I was a drug addict, I don't need you to tell me that.

You are neive if you think that drugs don't total entire families in ways that guns and cars could only dream of

I am far from naive, but the reason cited for making drugs illegal is because of the harm they cause to society. My argument is that in themselves, drugs would, if legal, do no more harm than any other legal substance, firearm, machine or anything else.

Why drugs have no effect on murder, prostitution, abuse, welfare, disease, police tactics, poverty, government decisions or anything like that.

Has it not occurred to you that the high value of drugs on the street, and thus the propensity for addiction to the same to result in criminality, is partially due to their legal status?

Not everyone who uses drugs is an addict, living on the streets, sleeping in a gutter, just as not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, beating up on his wife and kids, wrecking the home, spending the savings, getting arrested for drink driving.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility, and again, my point is that it doesn't matter a fig whether a substance is legal or illegal, if it abused, misused, or used in an inappropriate setting, that is the sole responsibility of the user, it is not the fault of the substance.

I'm going to bow out here, I think I am somewhat in the wilderness with my opinions on this, and I don't want this to degenerate into a quasi-moralistic debate about the relative ethics of this, that and the other.

Edited March 15, 2011 by MattC

[TaiidanTomcat]

Has it not occurred to you that the high value of drugs on the street, and thus the propensity for addiction to the same to result in criminality, is partially due to their legal status?

No because I think that someone who is hooked will still do other illegal things (Murder/theft) even if the drug is legal. Alcohol is a case in point. Not everyone who drinks is abusive we know that but as you point out alcoholism is vicious, why would we want more of the same? Lots of folks point to booze as a reason to legalize drugs and I get it, but it also enters into moral relativism, its a race to the bottom at that point. "Sure I got high and killed two people but that guy got drunk and killed three, so whatever" And as a recovering addict you know how some drugs are much more potent than others... Just like how certain firearms are illegal here in the states.

You know what I mean, the substance which caused it would be legal, if he were on drugs, the drugs would get the blame rather than him.

Its kind of the same thing here. I didn't know that being high meant "it was the drugs not me"

Would you still feel the coke was harmless had he sold to some 13 year olds?

[RandomCatFacts]

I didn't even get that last post-edit typed in before Randomcatfacts appeared!

It is RandomCatFacts.

[MattC]

No because I think that someone who is hooked will still do other illegal things (Murder/theft) even if the drug is legal

Perhaps to a point, but if it were legal, and the cost therefore more comparible with, for example, alcohol, the need would be less, but yes, you won't stop criminality by making drugs legal, but neither will you ever stop people taking drugs by making them illegal. The harder it is to obtain, the more expensive it is, the more extreme the measures people will take to get hold of it.

Would you still feel the coke was harmless had he sold to some 13 year olds?

The coke itself is still the same as it ever was, it is the person doing the selling who is the problem, in the same way he would be if he were selling alcohol or tobacco to some 13 year olds.

By that token, going back to the firearms idea, would you be comfortable handing over a hunting rifle to a 13 year old in the street?

I can sum this all up, and this is the last I will say.

People are the problem, you can make things illegal, you can restrict, control and make all the moral and ethical arguments in the world, but the root cause of all the problems associated with drugs, alcohol, firearms and so forth, is the people who use or abuse them.

I thought I was in control of my drug use, and for a time, I was, I smoked a joint or two in the evenings, and did a bit of coke at a weekend, it wasnt a big deal, no more than having a couple of beers in the evening. I wasnt out of control, I wasn't harming anyone.

The problem was me, not the drugs, I was stupid enough to think I could maintain that, but of course, being a weak willed, easily lead teenager, I couldn't, so it got out of control. But then, when I started smoking tobacco, I thought I would never become addicted to that either, but I did. The difference was that I could feed my tobacco habit by spending a few quid in a newsagent, but my drug use, being illegal, demanded more extreme measures.

So, the problems I had with drugs were made worse by virtue of the fact that due to their illegal nature, I had to acquire them in an illegal way, which was expensive, and exposed me to some very shady people, and an environment which, for all my bravado and macho bullcr@p, I could not control.

It took me a long time to come off drugs, but I have been clean for over 10 years now, and whilst I would never put myself in that place again, I will always be of the opinion that part at least of the harm that period of my life did was because what I was doing was illegal, not because it was intrinsically harmful in itself.

Now, having a son of my own, I would always advise him not to dabble with drugs, but I would also advise him not to start smoking and not to drink to excess. I am not saying that making drugs legal would ipso facto make them harmless, but I do think that a large proportion of the problems associated with drug use are caused, and not resolved, by them being illegal.

[Fishwelding]

It is RandomCatFacts.

Okay, I get the capitalization of "R," but given that you have run the three words into one, capitalizing C and F seems superfluous. For example, I'm not FishWelding, as that adds a needless shift-key stroke. Then again, it's admittedly not unheard of: MacClellan, McDonald, and so forth. And, adding a shift key stroke or two burns more calories, a small, but not-ineffectual blow against America's obesity epidemic.

Still, I'll stick with Fishwelding, because that's what's above the avatar. Most people just type "fish" anyway, which works well. Come to think of it, I probably should ask the Grand Galactic Inquisitor of ARC to change my screen-name to simply "Fish," as I haven't seen anyone post under that moniker, so I don't think there'd be confusion. Offhand, I don't know if there's an abandoned account with that name; I imagine there is, or I've managed all these years not to run into the active "Fish" here (a considerable feat, if true), given the commonality of the word.

Yep. Just checked. "fish" came and went in summer, 2007, having gotten an answer to his on-topic question. Oh well, missed my chance...

Edited March 16, 2011 by Fishwelding

[RandomCatFacts]

The Catfish (order Siluriformes) are a diverse group of ray-finned fish, which are named for their prominent barbels, which resemble a cat's whiskers. The catfish range in size and behavior from the heaviest and longest, the Mekong giant catfish from Southeast Asia and the second longest, the wels catfish of Eurasia, to detritivores (species that eat dead material on the bottom), and even to a tiny parasitic species commonly called the candiru, Vandellia cirrhosa.

[Miccara]

It is RandomCatFacts.

Soooo, RandomCatFacts isn't just RandomCatFacts after all...

The magic is gone. You're dead to me now.

[RandomCatFacts]

Some people believe that cats have nine lives, because cats can survive falls from high places with few, if any injuries.

[4scourge7]

The Catfish (order Siluriformes) are a diverse group of ray-finned fish, which are named for their prominent barbels, which resemble a cat's whiskers. The catfish range in size and behavior from the heaviest and longest, the Mekong giant catfish from Southeast Asia and the second longest, the wels catfish of Eurasia, to detritivores (species that eat dead material on the bottom), and even to a tiny parasitic species commonly called the candiru, Vandellia cirrhosa.

I have both been amused and informed, all at the same time.

Life is worth living again.

Yea RCF!!!!!!!

[Antonov]

NASA? You'd really single out NASA amidst the widespread stalemate in anti-drug enforcement?

Yup. I single out NASA because people in highly technical, mission-critical jobs in which they hold other people's lives and billions of taxpayer dollars worth of advanced technology in their hands really, really need not to be snorting blow. And they really, super-especially need to not be snorting blow at work.

If the car dealer down the street or the bank manager up the block are snorting cocaine, that's terrible, but not a potential tragedy. Nobody's going to die and billions of dollars worth of equipment is not going to get wrecked if they're not on their game. At NASA, it's a different story. So yeah, I am singling NASA out.

[Fishwelding]

Antonov, I defer to the career SNCO on this one, for the additional example.

As a 23 year Air Force SNCO, I get a little insulted when I have to pee in a cup. I swore an oath, know the regs, know the consequences so why on earth would I do drugs. Yet every month they find some moron who does exactly that.

My point is not that it's excuseable. My point is that it's a much bigger problem than NASA. You've driven over major bridges built by guys using this stuff. You've passed commercial vehicles driven by people using this stuff. You've probably been overflown by aircraft maintained by people abusing drugs. There's all sorts of mixing of drugs and lethality that NASA has nothing to do with. Plus, those well-to-do high schools I mentioned, where the stuff is essentially sanctioned, are producing kids who's money will land them in prestigious higher ed, and then in positions of authority when you're too old to question them any longer. So no, I'm not going to give them an especially hard time, when the rest of society can't get its act together, either. Two convictions in two years? I'm impressed! At least they appear to be trying to catch some!

And honestly, I don't claim to know how to solve it. I'm not cool with drug abuse (illegal or legal, mind you--I'm not okay with TV advertising of pharm, either, but that starts down another big-league, and needless argument). But our enforcement efforts have almost become too cost-prohibitive to continue, and I've yet to see really impressive victory numbers in that mega-campaign. It's one of those places that the market mechanism works so well, it literally overruns law and order. People want the stuff, and they'll pay enormously for it, in both cash and risk.

[Trigger]

RandomCatFacts has the best avatar on ARC. That is all.

[Fishwelding]

RandomCatFacts has the best avatar on ARC. That is all.

Stands to reason. There has to be more photographs and video of house-cats on the internet than any other...well, no, probably not that much. Anyway, there's a lot of feline photography to choose from on the web.