PDA

View Full Version : True Life Drug Results


ephv
February 05, 2003, 07:21
I disagree with the "war on drugs" because there is no place in the Constitution that grants authority to the Feds to conduct such a war and/or expend the money. I also disagree with the personal use of drugs. This, however, is a personal choice that we all must make. In case you were considering using them, maybe this link will help persuade you to abstain. These are real photos of a drug user over a period of 110 months. She is only 38 years old in the last one. It is your choice.

http://www.blurofinsanity.com/mugshots/mugshot_horror.html

cycle_rcr
February 05, 2003, 09:36
ewww nasty

dino1
February 05, 2003, 09:55
Isn't that guy in arrowsmith.....oh I know, it's the guitarist for the rolling stones!!! Do I win anything?

W.E.G.
February 05, 2003, 10:16
Originally posted by dino1
Isn't that guy in arrowsmith.....oh I know, it's the guitarist for the rolling stones!!! Do I win anything?

Bingo! You win a date with Sandpaper Suzie (or is that Tommy?)

Blood of Tyrants
February 05, 2003, 10:19
I don't know, that chick looks way older than 29 in the very earliest photo.

Charmedlyfe
February 05, 2003, 12:21
And I guess you also believe that a company has an absolute right to dispose of hazardous/toxic materials on it's own property in any manner it sees fit with NO government intrusion/regulation. Dude, you MUST be smokin' crack!

What about the damage done to other people in BOTH cases? does that not matter somehow? How about my right to be left alone when a crackhead is burglarizing my home and living off my tax money?

Limey, alcohol, while a drug/depressant, is NOT a narcotic.....

ephv
February 05, 2003, 12:46
Charmedlyfe- The actions of a company contaminating their property is the jurisdiction of the state and local governments as long as their state constitutions allow it. We are talking about the Federal Govt war on Drugs. Companies do not have unalienable rights, only individual people do. The US Constitution does not grant authority to the Feds to have a war on its people over their desire to take drugs. 10th Amendment says if it does not specifically grant the power to the feds it is reserved to the states and the people. If you think it is a good idea to have a federal war on the population, then get an amendment passed to start the war. That is what was done when the feds wanted to have a war on alcohol. They needed an amendment to give them authority. We have become so accustomed to the feds passing any kind of crap law they want because it sounds good, we have allowed them to operate outside of their authority. As far as a crackhead breaking into your house, it is already illegal to break in whether he is on crack or not. Shoot the creep. If we pass laws because somebody might break a law while using a certain product then we have fallen into the anti-gunners play ground. Same reasoning. Since someone may use a gun when he breaks a law we should pass a law against anyone using or acquiring a gun. Don't get caught in that trap.

shootist
February 05, 2003, 23:34
The traditional definition of narcotics are derivitives of the opium poppy. Natural opiates such as morphine and codiene and synthetic and semi synthetic opioids such as demoral and Fentenyl.

This definition also excludes:

Downers-barbiturates
Speed-amphetimines
Weed and LSD-halucenigenics

Cops tend to lump them all under the term narcotics, but thats inaccurate. Alcohol although a depresant has not been and should not be refered to as a narcotic.

The truth is, contrary to what all the feel good head doctors and addiction specialist will tell you, alcohol is not really a drug, its a fairly effective toxin.

DABTL
February 06, 2003, 08:42
She has the appearance of a meth addict in the first photo. If you look at her skin and hair in the first photo the classic signs of meth addiction are present.

In the last photo she has lost all of her teeth. This is common among meth addicts who have been users for years.

In the first photo she probably had been on meth for several years. If she was 27/28 at that time the bloom of youth kept her appearances up. By the time she was in her 30's time and meth began taking their terrible toll on her.

Too bad.

Skans
February 06, 2003, 08:52
I'LL VOTE FOR LEGALIZING DRUGS, IF THE BILL SIMULTANEOUSLY GIVES ME THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO "EUTHONIZE" ANY DRUG USER THAT ASKS ME FOR MONEY, BURGLARIZES MY CAR, COMES ANYWHERE NEAR MY HOME, OR COMES WITHIN 10 YARDS OF MY CHILD.

I don't care if drug users (marijuana included!) stay in their house and waste away until they die, but once they become a burdon on society, or get in my way, I want the right to kill them. The only thing stopping me now is the fact that there is a law prohibiting me from doing so. So if you want to get rid of anti-drug laws, LETS GET RID OF ALL THE DAMNED LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blood of Tyrants
February 06, 2003, 08:58
Originally posted by DABTL
She has the appearance of a meth addict in the first photo. If you look at her skin and hair in the first photo the classic signs of meth addiction are present.

Since I am completely ignorant of the signs of meth addiction, would you care to educate me? What are we looking for?

BigDozer66
February 06, 2003, 10:28
I believe it is the "Interstate Commerce" thing in the Constitution that allows them to do it.

Those photo's were printed in the Dallas Morning News the other day.
The truth about drugs does hurt as those photo's show.
The same idiot's that are protesting about "No War for Oil" are the same vocal proponents of "legalizing drugs"!

BigDozer66

DABTL
February 06, 2003, 19:52
Originally posted by Blood of Tyrants


Since I am completely ignorant of the signs of meth addiction, would you care to educate me? What are we looking for?

Meth adds large amounts of chemicals to the body. It is entirely man made and has no natural component, as I understand.

The first photo shows a woman allegedly about 27. Look at her hair. It appears 'brittle', that is as well as I can describe it. Her skin texture is beginning to take on a tanned look, not color but like you treat leather. Lines in her face show premature aging. she appears gaunt rather than thin.

In the first phot it appears she may have already lost some teeth. By the last photo you can tell she is toothless.

My guess is she was being picked up for petty offenses. Had she spent some time in jail she might have been able to shake the drugs for a period of time. That might have mitigated the damage somewhat.

This is more like a 20 year habit than a 10 year habit. The reason there are no additional photos is probably because she is dead. she probably died friendless and alone. I say this because in the last photo she is emaciated and just skin and bones.

We see cases such as this all the time in the criminal courts.

mparrish
February 08, 2003, 02:26
Bill is spot on regarding this. While I won't debate the yes/no WOD song and dance, I witness the human degradation that occurs with hardcore drug and alcohol usage in my job as a cop.

The mugshot photos are pretty standard. Worst case I dealt with so far was a female I arrested. I wagered her age to be about 45 and she was rail thin. She was 26 and had been injecting and snorting meth since she was 14. She was also prostituting herself for drugs since 17. At the time I arrested her for petty theft, she was HIV positive (full blown AIDS), Hep C active and had at least two STDs by her admission. I was later told that she didn't make the trial a month later due to dying. That was truely sad.

I hate arresting hardcore street junkies who inject. I arrested one subject for theft and warrants, patted him down but let him keep his coat on because it was cold. I got him to the jail and the ordered him to take off his jacket. I just about passed out. You see, he had been shooting bad heroin for so long that over 50 percent of his right arm, from just above the elbow to his wrist (where the jacket cuff ended) was completely gangreneous and rotted. The stench was horrible (dead bodies have smelled better). I had to release him to the hospital instead of booking him. The ER staff told me that bone could be seen in places. I was later told he had to have his arm amputated. No one was sure how he managed to keep from dying from the massive infection.

Every person has to make the decision about doing drugs, drinking, smoking or eating fatty foods. Examples like these booking photos forever kept me away from drugs. The death of my beloved grandfather due to cancer kept me away from smoking. The near constant jailing of a brother for alcohol related offenses reminded me to stay away from booze.

Meth is horrible stuff. Imagine working is a toxic chemical factory every day without protective gear. Meth does the same to people.

Dr. Nick Riviera
February 08, 2003, 03:02
Oh God, yes, smoking a joint will make you kill your parents and rob the local bank.
We all know that doing a line of coke will make you jump off a skyscraper after you shoot up the area.
It is a given that if you buy a L1A1 it will make you kill people, right?
Smoking a joint might make you sound or act like a fool.
Then again, some get high and you would never know it.
Reefer doesn't do near the damage alcohol does, yet alcohol is socially acceptable.
For those old enough to remember the "Reefer Madness" government mentality back in the 1960's, we are going through that again.
For the record, I don't get high, and quit marlboro's on 2-17-02.

DABTL
February 08, 2003, 08:58
Originally posted by Dr. Nick Riviera
Oh God, yes, smoking a joint will make you kill your parents and rob the local bank.
We all know that doing a line of coke will make you jump off a skyscraper after you shoot up the area.
It is a given that if you buy a L1A1 it will make you kill people, right?
Smoking a joint might make you sound or act like a fool.
Then again, some get high and you would never know it.
Reefer doesn't do near the damage alcohol does, yet alcohol is socially acceptable.
For those old enough to remember the "Reefer Madness" government mentality back in the 1960's, we are going through that again.
For the record, I don't get high, and quit marlboro's on 2-17-02.

Reefer madness was made in the 1930's to warn against white people using black drugs.

Long term abuse of alcohol and marihuana lead to the dumbing down of the user. So?

I don't think people should be jailed for self abuse and self medication. It is not a good idea but there are many not good ideas lying about for people to do.

If you want to smoke be my guest. If you want to dip or chew tobacco be my guest. But don't come crying to me about the results.