(whisper) drugs?

Canaboid

"Cannabis poisoning *has* occurred resulting in death. It's rare, but it has happened."

How do you know ? (Third time i've asked)

Shinji

"My information is compiled mostly from the research of MHCJ Scholtes, an expert in drug and alcohol education. He works with a British publishing company, Band of Hope Union, and with the Board of Social Witness."

Both of which are massively anti-drug groups. He's hardly an independent researcher, now is he? The people who pay his wages pay him to discredit cannabis and other drugs. That's his JOB; so it's hardly a shock that he turns around and spouts whatever nonsense is necessary to do exactly that.

"In case nobody noticed, this is not a competition to see who is the smartest. In the left hand corner we have me - talking about the importance of not poisoning the body, of not getting mixed up in the illegalities of drugs in this country, discussing how it's important to get through things without the aid of drugs."

Let's get over this "poison" thing, shall we? You can use all the emotive debating language you like - and I know all about that, I won rather a lot of prizes for debate - but this is meant to me a mature discussion about a subject, not a political rally or a school debate. Stick to the facts, enough with the cheap debating points.

Oxygen is a poison in pure form. A human being who inhales pure oxygen will die. Pure water, if consumed in sufficent quantities, is a poison, and will also kill you. Any substance, consumed in excess, is a poison and will kill you. So yes, cannabis is a poison, but this proves utterly nothing, and is merely more of the usual wordplay used by the anti-drug lobby.

Secondly, who said anything about "getting through things"? You are extremely arrogant in your assumption that people only turn to drugs in order to get them through hard times, or that their use of drugs is a sign of personality flaws. This is patent rubbish. People eat certain foods because they like how they taste, and how they make them feel. People listen to music because they like how it sounds, and how it makes them feel. People play videogames because they enjoy the challenge, and like how it makes them feel. People drink alcohol because they like the taste, and enjoy how it makes them feel. And, surprise surprise, people use cannabis because they like the sensation, and enjoy how it makes them feel; not because they're depressed, or self-destructive, or in love, or whatever ludicrous reason you're suggesting.

Your medical arguments have been proved to be flawed. This is because you based them entirely on those texts which agreed with you, such as those written by Dr Scholtes - whose very employers make his opinions about as respectable as those of Hitler on the topic of the Jews.

I did like this snippet, though - "That is why it has not been used in medicine since 1930". Bzzzzzt! Challenge! The banning of cannabis in the USA, and subsequently in other countries, in the 1930s, was nothing to do with medical research, because we knew very little about it then. Rather, it was as a result of political and media pressure. Let me spin a little tale...

At the turn of the century, the major newspapers in the USA had a sideline business - they also made paper. Initially started as a venture to supply their own publications with newsprint standard paper, the major newspaper publishers now made more money out of paper-making than out of the newspapers themselves, and had invested millions - billions, in todays money - in building paper mills which relied on wood pulp. You can imagine the dismay, then, when a new paper making technique was imported (from China, I believe) - using hemp leaves to produce a paper which was stronger, cheaper to produce, and best of all, hemp regrows in weeks, not years like trees. The reaction of the newspaper men to this threat to their nice paper cartel was to use their power over the press to demonise Cannabis (and hence Hemp) as an evil demon drug, which made people go insane and commit murder, among other things. Where media goes, Congress follows, and the growing of hemp was banned.

Amazing how a debate like this over a harmless recreational drug has continued for the best part of a century, when the original lie was perpetuated by a few newspaper owners in the USA for personal gain. Drop a pebble in a pond, and watch the ripples spread...

Paladin

Originally Posted By Neuro-Praxis:
"I have done research and carried out surveys and won debates."

Id like to point out that debates have fvck all to do with being right or wrong. If they did that would befeat the purpose wouldnt it?

My little sister has won debates ffs.
Debating wins dont NOT = being right.

Besides, my guess is ure debating was against some secondary school dudes.
Well I got news for you.
The REAL world goes outside you lil school debate/ideals.
The real world isnt 'Home and Away' where bad guys and drug users = jerks and brainless suck up kids = good.

*sigh*.
Yes, Ive had a few drinks and my points arent as structured as usual, but I suppose it IS honest.

Paladin

ROFL.
OMG Im so sorry. I completely missed reading neuros last post.....

"I checked up on the cannabis not leaving the body thing. I was working from memory in my last post and it's true - I take that back - it does leave - but only if the user quits using it. Otherwise it builds up "

ROFL

IT DOES LEAVE, BUT ONLY IF THE USER QUITS USING IT!
Like water you mean?!?! HAHAHA

Kali

"In case nobody noticed, this is not a competition to see who is the smartest. In the left hand corner we have me - talking about the importance of not poisoning the body, of not getting mixed up in the illegalities of drugs in this country, discussing how it's important to get through things without the aid of drugs.

In the right hand corner we have everybody else, condoning breaking the law, advertising the proagandistic benefits of cannabis, and proclaiming theri health afetr years of enjoying recreational drugs. You like to promote it even though it just sucks ass."

Right hand corner? I think you'll find that the majority of people on the "left", having experimented with drugs have a much better stance to give a proper view of both sides of the arguement.

just one more south park quote before I go which is quite relevant to the left hand side lobby.. "Drugs are an illegal narcotic and having never taken drugs I can honestly say they have nothing to offer".

Legal standpoint aside I don't see your arguments holding any weight at all, in fact nearly every point can be dismissed.

Nobody is advertising the benefits of drugs, merely stating their effects, in fact just what you done yourself where you stated that had a pleasurable result.

TwoShedsJackson

Ok, Smelly Socks, you started this so what's your opinion eh?

My own opinion is that people should be allowed take whatever substances they wish and abuse their bodies if they see fit to do so.

They're doing it right now anyway - so what harm to legalise drugs which would have two benefits: regulation of the supply and sale side means tax revenues from the government so we could get some new motorways out of these zoned-out hippies, and you would have far less violence and street crimes, an estimated 70% of which are carried out by addicts to help provide cash for their next fix.

Personally speaking, I have only ever taken a few tabs of acid years ago, and the odd joint. That's all I ever have the desire to take. If I want to make more, I will.

Tobacco destroys lives, of users and bystanders, as does alcohol, yet these are legal and heavily taxed - why does the government not just bite the bullet and legalise the rest? People are taking them anyway, and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Jak

Damn. Excellent posts lads.

One of the best pro-argument comebacks I've seen in a while. And the best thing I've read on the boards recently.

JAK.

PS -"The reason people who have taken cannabis over a long period of time seem slow, is because they are brain-damaged. I am not kidding. They have put their brain to sleep, and there is no way to wake it."

...or perhaps they are wasted.

C B

Castor,

Legalising all drugs would not prevent addicts from committing crime.

But I do agree that all drugs should be freely available to adults who wish to consume them.

Neuro,

I'm sure most people would have agreed with you a few years ago. The "facts" which you quote reflect admirable desk research on behalf of a schoolgirl but in truth "most" of the other people posting here have left school a long time and have a greater depth of personal experience.

I think you could break down the people posting to this topic into three groups.

1) those still in school who have very limited personal experience of the issues. (don't tell me I'm patronising you neuro, you may know people you take drugs you may even have personal contact or be related to an addict but you still display a limited knowledge of the topic)

2) those who have recently left school and are enjoying the wonderfully decendent experience of more freedom than responsibility and think all drugs are wonderful and fun and anybody who says otherwise is a boring old tit.

3) those who have been through both phases.

I think the advice of most of these people is to enjoy things in moderation and not to lose touch with the other parts of your life (family, friends, work, college, sport, music whatever) which will be more important in the long run.

---

Disclaimer: I'm a presumsious git and I am aware that people will be pi$sed off with being pidgeonholed into these categories so don't flame me about it.

TwoShedsJackson

C B, I didn't say it would stop them committing crimes altogether, but that it would reduce the level of crimes committed in order to feed addictions.

It makes sense to have them (drugs) available in a controlled environment where prices can be set and monitored, and are not subject to random inflationary whims of pushers et al.

C B

I thoroughly endorse the decriminalisation of drug use and drug sale. I have some sympathy for the sort of controls that you mention in your second post castor but in your first you refered to price control. The government will never be able to bypass the laws of supply and demand and it is always these laws which should govern the base price. The offence you refer to is tax evasion and should be prosectuted under the relevant laws which already exist not circumvented by creating private cartels like the drink industry.

On the issue of free drugs for addicts I have grave reservations. On the surface this looks like an excellant policy for reducing the incentives for drug sellers to get someone addicted, however a substantial percentage of the population are genetically and phsycologically addictive and such a policy would do nothing to help these people, only worsen their plight.

Canaboid

CB, In the case of heroin I do not think more ppl will be attracted to it because it's free. If they introduce voluntary euthanasia will people put themselves forward because they can ? No, but those who wish to will avail.

C B

Canaboid,

You said that it should be free for registered addicts and I obviously agree that this will not in itself make more people become addicted. I never said anything to the contarary so I must assume that you hhad a response ready for anybody who disagreed with the concept of free heroin for addicts and you posted it without reading my response.

So here's some time for you to scroll back ( I promise nothing interesting will happen while you're away).

du di du do ............
........................

"So, I says to Mable, I says,...

........................
........................


Oh! good you're back.

Now I'll think you'll find that I said that the best reason to provide free drugs to addicts (aside from your excellant point on reduced crime) was that it reduced the incentive for sellers to get people (especially young teens)addicted.

However if drugs are freely available to all adults it is highly likely that a greater percentage of the population will try them (This is obviously not a fact but most sensible people would agree that it is quite likely). Given the fact that somewhere between 2 and 8 per cent of the population are genetically predisposed to addiction this will lead to a higher percentage of the population becoming addicts. A programme of free scores for such people would only worsen their situation.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 01-03-2001).]

Shiminay

WOW!
Really good topic - played all!

Anyway, here are the results from the Mayo jury...

CB's "pidgeon-holing" was (in my opinion) spot on. I'm currently in the transition from phase 2 to 3. I've smoked hash and grass, but never anything more. I enjoy it and the way it makes me feel. I don't go out of my way to get it - if I wanted some, but couldn't get it, then that's cool - such is life.

As for your opinion Neuro - I respect that you're entitled to it, but I can't agree with it because you can't speak about something of which you have no experience.
I hope you realise that's what people here are saying - they're not directly having a go at you, merely your opinion on this matter.

Anyway - legalise it!!!

---

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...</font>

Canaboid

If I misinterpreted what you said CB then it is due to your inconcise prose

"However if drugs are freely available to all adults it is highly likely that a greater percentage of the population will try them."

I dont agree. Nobody suggested "availability to all adults" only to registered existing users. See my previous point.

Smelly Socks

I do believe hash has potential to be mentally addictive, for whatever reason(escapism? like any drug?), because someone I knew admitted to me he was mentally addicted to it. In school he used to smoke a joint EVERY single lunch break.. and he went to meetings about it.

But.. the best reason to take drugs is not escapism obviously, but to experience new things and to be a bit more open minded about stuff. But of course its not the only way...

And I see everyone is no stranger to hash, but E is now quite popular too. Can we debate over the known data of this drug?
like:
good things:
>happy beyond belief
>if your with people you like, you will be really affectionate
>you remember it the next day!
>you dont get sick
>you dont stare at womens arses and shout obscenities
>in moderation its relativly safe, given you are aware of how much water to take etc..

bad things:
>telling people you dont know you love them and your off your face (like someone else said)
>making insane faces and scaring people
>grinding teeth
>becoming dependent on it
>depleting your seratonum/dopimine levels
>getting caught

?? anyone else ??

oh yeah, and I asked this a few times, has anyone seen "requium for a dream"? (it was in the IFC)

TwoShedsJackson

With regard to genetic disposition to addiction, drugs currently are freely available to all adults, in supply at least.

If I want some heroin all I have to do is head over to Oliver Bond St. flats or Fatima Mansions. I don't.

I don't think that if heroin was available free of charge to people you would have any more people taking it than currently do - the problem is not the drug itself, it is lack of education on it's effects, and generally a cycle of poverty which traps the victim.

If the cops spent less money busting people for relatively harmless drugs like marijuana and more money educating people about drugs and providing facilites and such for people in disadvantaged areas then there'd be less heroin abuse.

Of course we're talking here about the Government that won't allocate 3 million pounds to a comprehensive anti-drugs program, but will give the GAA 20 million quid, like wtf?

Even that obliquely illustrates my point - if money was spent on community facilities and things for people to do, instead of them leaving school at 16, getting a $hit job or no job, and then taking drugs because they've nowt better to do and heroin is all over the place.

It's a problem that has to be nipped at the source, not at the end where people are already addicted psychologically or physically.

Baz_

please for smelly socks sake don't delete this because of his last post, hes asked this question a number of times (apparently) and each time it gets edited, or deleted, and hes obviously asking for a reason, so just don't delete it on him. Just listen to(read) the question and give him the best goddamn honest answer you can come up with.

I by the way think its a mugs game, even cigarettes are a mugs game, probably the biggest mugs game, but thats me, I've no experience whatsoever at taking drugs (have people very close to me taking drugs) so I can't be of much help. waaaaaaaaay to prejudiced.

Anyway hope that helps you get the responses you want.

Frodo@work

Smellysocks i would agree with you that pills are fun,hell people wouldnt do it if they werent.
i take it you have only started taking them.
beware dont get to into them. 3 or 4 of the people that i hung out with when i did pills are now mad, not in a funny way but in a sucidal manic depressive way.
ive been in that whole raver drug culture lark and ive seen tons of fallouts.
e's and acid are funny ,enjoyable . they give you the impression that your as cool as f"ck, but they always end up taking there toll, depresion.
anybody that has done pills regulary over a couple of years will tell you this, and it aint nice.
if you want to do them just be carefull

TwoShedsJackson

Well I do want to see 'Requiem for a Dream' but haven't got time atm, will get it on video though as it does look good.

As for E, never taken it, don't plan to. Don't really need it (or alcohol) if I want to stare at women's ar$es or shout obscenities in the street

C B

Castor,

So you believe that people should have the freedom to purchase drugs as they choose but not sell them as choose? I don't wish to get back to the limited freedoms arguement but that sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Canaboid

Well CB thats was the model imposed for MJ in the netherlands and it works well.
On the subject of Heroin being legal, all registered addicts should be provided with free heroin. They then no longer have to devote vast amounts of their time to aquiring money through criminal means. Bear in mind that this is already done with methodone to a certain extent. Methadone is legally prescribed but is considered to be a harsher alternative than H with regard to the effects on the body.

TwoShedsJackson

The currently legally available drugs such as alcohol are not available to be sold between individuals as they choose - you have to go to an offie or pub to buy it.

The reason for this is so that the Government of course get their share of the sale - a huge earner for them.

If drugs were to be legalised then I would favour an official, monitored way of selling them to consumers as in shops like offlicences etc. Obviously people would sell amongst themselves and swap etc. but why bother buying from a friend or 'pusher' at a price worse than what you could get over the counter? And they are unlikely to sell for less.

Controlled selling removes the inflated prices caused by supply and demand in a black market situation as currently exsists.

An example is second hand car sales between two individuals - if someone sells someone a car for a thousand quid, they should add on another two hundred for VAT, then fill out a tax return and send the Government a cheque for the two hundred quid. Does anyone do that? Do they fu<k.

Becasue one of the reasons I favour legalising drugs (apart from freedom issues) is that the Government could then tax it properly and use the revenue to hopefully improve the country, yes I do favour controlled selling of legalised drugs.

At the moment thousands of man hours and millions of pounds are being wasted by the Gardai on chasing down and combatting drug imports and pushers - I read some time ago that 92% odd of all busts are for cannabis, unquestionably the least harmful of all currently illegal drugs. A waste.

Frodo@work

Leagalising drugs would also insure quality.
While fantastic for me it would be even better for junkies that are slod dodgy gear.
about 20 junkies in the uk and ireland died recently because of impurities in the heroin they bought.
Banning drugs and prosacuting users is a pointless exercise. people are going to do them and going to be able to get if they are legal or not.
Whats the point in something so rampent being illegal.
Christ my mother has even had a spliff are 2 in her life, as im sure most of are parents have, even if the deny it.

SantaHoe

---

"As for the whole "love" thing, it's just a lot of cràp"
no its the only frame of reference remotely conected to the exerience of taking an e,i guess you have never fallen in love that strongly or you would understand the effect of seratonin however released upon the body

---

What a lot of out-of-context drivel.


That is all.

C B

QUOTE
"However if drugs are freely available to all adults it is highly likely that a greater percentage of the population will try them."

I dont agree. Nobody suggested "availability to all adults" only to registered existing users. See my previous point.
END QUOTE

I think you'll find that at the point of your interjection Castor Troy and I were discussing "availability to all adults", and the modalities of such a programme. I presumed that seeing as how you cited the dutch system you were supporting the proposition of a total decriminalisation of drugs. perhaps I misinterpreted you but you should try to make yourself clearer.

QUOTE
With regard to genetic disposition to addiction, drugs currently are freely available to all adults, in supply at least.

If I want some heroin all I have to do is head over to Oliver Bond St. flats or Fatima Mansions. I don't.
END QUOTE

Castor the current regime does prevent/ deter a large number of individuals (note Neuro) from experimenting with heroin. The reality of the situation is that if heroin were legal more people would try it. This would lead, by definition, to a greater number of genetic addicts trying it, which would in turn lead to a greater number of addicts.

QUOTE
It's a problem that has to be nipped at the source, not at the end where people are already addicted psychologically or physically.
END QUOTE

I see that Neuro has gotten to you! This point is predicated on the notion that people only take heroin to "escape" or to combat depression. In truth many use it just to experiment or to feel something new. All the education in the world isn't going to rid people of their curiosity (in fact good education should instill curiosity).

I agree with the other points you make though about greater information and community development.

Smelly Socks,

E is a messy drug if you've tried it once or twice then stop now there is nothing more you can get from it other than mental disorders. The same goes for acid.

Smelly Socks

Acid?? Thats a completely different story!! The physcedelic drugs are completely unaddictive, not mentally or physically, and are not used on the weekends to have a good time, but to have an experience and to look at your life really deeply. But acid is too intense, I aint never doin that!!

I read somewhere that Acid is like being in a mad Japanese cartoon with bright colours and lots of stuff you dont understand. Mushrooms are like being in a Pee Wee Herman film where your running around laughing like a little kid. Mescaline is like being in a Scooby Doo cartoon where you have to try to solve some mystery.....

Yes I know E is bad, but mental problems take years to develop in fairness, I dont plan to do that

Ser

can see some people here know what they are talking about.

where other's know less then 0 about anything, are they missinformed, or just stupid?

dont know who told you what 'acid' or 'shrooms' are like, but you are incorect.

yeh keep away from the bad drugs, stick to the good ones like aclho and fags, you proly read that in the sun right?

excuse me while i lol?

Smelly Socks

What????
What drugs have you ever taken? I havent taken LSD/Acid but I have taken mushrooms and that would be a very accurate description imo! I mean its obviously not that simple, but you dont sound like you have a clue...

but anyway.......

Frodo@work@home

DONT DO ACID
of all the 'soft' drugs this is by far the worst, no matter what anybody tells you.
it will melt your head and theres a good chance itl leave you in a mental institue.
ACID IS BAD
trust me i know what im talking about.
1 of my best mates got while in germany back in 95 got stuck in a trip for 2 weeks ,and has suffered years of parania ever since.
it may not kill like other drugs, but its the only 1 that you can notice destroying your brain.
as for all that 'expanding minds' crap, thats just toss.
i used to do a lot of 'recreational' drugs in my youth (the biggest regret of my life) and the first one that i stoped doing is acid.
why
because its the one you see doing most damage to people.

Smelly Socks

"Like falling in love"

Or like the feeling when u eat chocolate, only 100 times more.... but before everyone starts telling me how bad E is, I know!! I have heard people saying how they are trying to stop them because they have being going through weeks of depression, and people saying they were completely hooked on them ETC. Being aware of these things is essential.

"ACID IS BAD"
I agree completely, although I know alot of people who have done it and are fine now, but it seriously distorts your perceptions of reality and there is that risk of fu#king up your head for a long time.
Mushrooms are OK though, being something like 1000 times less powerful than acid, and causing only minor damage to your liver (about the same as a few pints). Makes you laugh your head off, which is good for you..