Drug Laws Part II

manonthemoon

In the previous thread about the Drug Laws in this country, most people (as most people in the country)were in agreement that the laws are useless and draconian.

However, for any of these laws to change we need a politican to actually stand up and say

"I think the drug laws in this country are wrong and do not work"

I remember labour MP Tony Banks calling for some sort of legalisation about 10 years ago.

Does any politican in this country have the BALLS to make such a statement?

I think not.
Obviously, they are intelligent people and they probably hold the same views as you and I on the matter, but to be "soft on drugs would be commit "political suicide"


Its quite sad really

Biffa Bacon

You seem to be under the impression that any of our politicians have beliefs or values or ideas. They don't. Rest assured that nothing will change unless they change it in the UK first.

Typedef

Here are the facts, now try not to call me a nazi for stating 'what I believe to be facts'.

Cannabis, makes you paranoid, anyone who has smoked more than a cursory amount knows this to be a fact, if you refute this, you have not smoked enough of it to actually have any kind of valid opinion based on experince.
Cannabis makes you lethargic, it inhibits the production of certain chemicals in your brain either dopamine or seratonin and this is why people who smoke alot of this stuff or 'use it habitually' typically stay in bed all day, because their bodies must lie dormant that much longer to attempt to replenish the depleted levels of this substance.
Cannabis affects the libido and if used over a long enough time will turn an otherwise intellegent person into an utter moron, anyone who has met habitual hashish smokers will know what I mean here, it's like talking to someone with a congenital mental disibility.

THC the active psycoactive agent in cannabis will build up in your body fat and thus will be deposited in your fat as you 'gain weight' and will be released as you 'loose weight' LSD users typically refer to the effects of such a release as a flashback as LSD or in large enough quantities THC is released into your blood stream. In large enough amounts TCH will act as an hallucenogin this effect is know as 'hash tripping' and is one of the psycoactive effects that is present with consumption of THC in cannabis.

While LSD, psylocbyin(magic mushrooms) and THC are not the same substance, they all do have much the same effect in sufficient quantities, though THC is far less likely to cause major psychotic events associated with consumption of psycoactive drugs know as 'a bad trip', but a 'hash trip' is normally associated with extreme lethargy and or extreme paranoia
Feel free to stop me knowledge gurus/defenders of democracy

MDMA or Esctasy is an Amphetemine and thus is associated with many of the effects of such substances. Exponentialy increased heart rate, sometimes very high body temperature and it can be extremely harmful to your kidneys and liver. MDMA is also associated with some ancillary brain damage and prolonged use of this substance can lead to extreme depressions especially as users 'come down' off of their 'buzz' or when the effects of the MDMA begin to wear off.
To placate the effects of this 'come down' it is not uncommon for users of Ecstasy to smoke heroin or opium, this is a fact investigate before refuting this please. This is one way that people who ordinarily would have no intention of ingesting opiades like Morphine, Heroin and so on, will at a time when they are vunerable and feeling badly (like the 'come down' to E) will be at great risk of coming into contact with opiades.

Opiades are highly addictive substances and give an almost unparralled feeling of euphoria and contentness, but are also phycially addictive. Users of hard drugs like Amphetimines,Cocaine and speed and Morphine and Heroin (being opiades) can experience extreme muscle cramps know as Charlie horses, leesions of the skin and due to the nature of cocaine in particular and can experinece extreme loss of oxygen to the muscles resulting in cramps. Ulcers are not uncommon when using Amphetemines also.

It is possible to overdose on MDMA, Amphetemines(speed), Cocaine, Heroin, Morphine, Ketamine(a horse tranquilizer) and it is quite possible to become psychotic from taking LSD or psylocybin(magic mushrooms), while THC can as I have mentioned above lead people to be paranoid zombies.

The facts are I doubt most people would argue for legalisation of anything other than cannabis.
THC will still affect the short term memory of a user up to two weeks after ingesting it. Thus if you smoke two spliffs on Friday night, your co-ordination, reaction times and short term memory will all be impaired measurably seven days later and the short term memory up to two weeks later.
Thus users of such substances if it were legalised would have to abstain from usage for one week to be deemed fit to drive a truck for example. Now I know that fact doesn't sit too pretty with hash smokers, but it is a fact that your reflexes are impaired by THC consumption. Similarly people who require good short term memories would virtually be negated from being able to use this drug THC, because you would have to be 'clean' of THC for two weeks before your memory could be declared as anything even coming close to normal.

While I recognise that cannabis is not physicall addictive, it's effects are too potent and long lived to be legislated and legalised. Even if you were to drink 10 pints (for example) and really be hung over the next day, the fact is that the day after that again your reflexes and memory would be quantifiably 'normal', however with cannabis this is not the case, there are studies that prove this for example Nahas in 1979 found that usage of cannabis once a week would lead to your body being 'constantly' tainted by cannabis and thus affected by it psycoactive agent THC.

There is my reasoning for not supporting the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs, feel free to call me a nazi, totalitarian, draconian despot, because hey, it's a free society

Clintons Cat

prolonged use of this substance can lead to extreme depressions especially as users 'come down' off of their 'buzz' or when the effects of the MDMA begin to wear off.

its not so much an extreme depression,more of a mild frustration,feeling of disappointment.

To placate the effects of this 'come down' it is not uncommon for users of Ecstasy to smoke heroin or opium

Sorry this just is not true.I have met many regular ecstacy users and not once has anyone ever recomended using heroin as a upper/downer from e.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Here are the facts, now try not to call me a nazi for stating 'what I believe to be facts'.

Now, before we even get started....either they are the facts, or they are not. You begin with a bald statement - these are the facts. Immediately, you hedge your bets against those who may prove you wrong by saying "oops - they may not actually be the facts, but they're what I believe".

Which is it m8 - fact, or belief?

Now - on with what you actually said.

Cannabis, makes you paranoid, anyone who has smoked more than a cursory amount knows this to be a fact, if you refute this, you have not smoked enough of it to actually have any kind of valid opinion based on experince.

Rubbish. Not only are you mis-presenting information, but your reasoning as to why we cant disagree with you is complete rubbish as well - if we dont agree then we havent smoked enough?

I'm not getting into a p1ssing match as to which of us has smoked more dope, but you are incorrect.

Canabis may cause heightened levels of paranoia in some test cases, when taken in sufficient qantities. It is as much situational and current-state-of-mind dependant as anything else.

OK - I've skipped over pretty much all of the rest of your "effects of canabis". Why? because every single one of them is one of the short-term effects, induced while the substance is active in your system. Something you forget to mention. You are also talking about the possible effects of continued long-term abuse.

It would be similar to me saying that alcohol impairs your vision, hand-eye control, effects your aggressiveness levels, and acts as a depressant.

Therefore, 90% of habitual users find themselves incapable of even many of the basic every-day actions,due to impaired mobility, are far more likely to do something rash due to an impaired ability to make judgements, and are far more prone to extreme bouts of depression and/or aggression.

Now, the key in both the alcohol and THC scenarios is that not a single one of these effects has been demonstrably shown to be a permanent side-effect brought on through continued long-term abuse. Ever if it were, you would still have problems arguing the illegality of THC based on these side-effects because the equiavalent permanent effects induced from alcohol and nicotine abuse are far worse.

THC the active psycoactive agent in cannabis will build up in your body fat and thus will be deposited in your fat as you 'gain weight' and will be released as you 'loose weight' LSD users typically refer to the effects of such a release as a flashback

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of "THC flashback" being a reality. In general, people who claim to have suffered from it have also taken LSD or other drugs which are known to cause flashbacks. To my knowledge, there are no known cases of THC flashback.

Even if there were possible, you would need absolutely massive amounts of THC absorbed into your fat, followed by ultra-rapid loss of weight for this to actually manage to release anything above pure trace levels of THC. One main difference between THC and LSD is the effect which a trace amount can have on you , mentally. With THC, it is essentially nil. Not so with LSD - hence the flashbacks.

I could, of course, be working off out of date knowledge, so please feel free to point me at something which updates my information

It is possible to overdose on MDMA, Amphetemines(speed), Cocaine, Heroin, Morphine, Ketamine(a horse tranquilizer) and it is quite possible to become psychotic from taking LSD or psylocybin(magic mushrooms), while THC can as I have mentioned above lead people to be paranoid zombies.

OK - ignoring the stuff you posted about the drugs we werent discussing this then leaves us with THC turning us into "paranoid zombies" - which as I have said is typically a short-term effect. As I have argued in another post, the "long term abuse" cases must be taken in proportion - look at the equivalent effects of long-term abuse of the legal drugs and tell me which is worse.

The facts are I doubt most people would argue for legalisation of anything other than cannabis.

We were never talking about the legalisation of anything other than canabis, that I can recall, so whats your point?

I'm not even necessarily saying that canabis should be legalised. I'm saying that it is a comparative drug to alcohol and nicotine, and there is much evidence to show that it is actually "better" in many regards than either of these. I want it to be classified similarly to them. If you want to argue that all three should be illegal, then I will support that as well - its the inequality of classification based on ridiculous reasons (including, as was pointed out at some point, corporate lobbying in the US in the 20s).

Thus if you smoke two spliffs on Friday night, your co-ordination, reaction times and short term memory will all be impaired measurably seven days later and the short term memory up to two weeks later.

Measurably, of course, being a meaningless word. While the differences can be measured, they are small enough to show that after even 6 hours, the differences are so small they are less significant than (say) the effects of a head-cold, a coupld of cups of coffee, or a few cigarettes. Again - "measurable" differences are not necessarily bad - there are a huge number of things in this world which will create "measurable" differences. Its "significant" differences which matter, and you dont get those in the absence of massive substance abuse (and again, alcohol and nicotine can easily manage the same).

Thus users of such substances if it were legalised would have to abstain from usage for one week to be deemed fit to drive a truck for example.

This is where you're gone astray. If you want to hold to this notion, then no-one with a head-cold can drive a vehicle, nor anyone who has had more than 3 cups of "standard strength" coffee in the past 12 hours.

Similarly people who require good short term memories would virtually be negated from being able to use this drug THC, because you would have to be 'clean' of THC for two weeks before your memory could be declared as anything even coming close to normal.

Care to mention a single situation where people "require good short-term memories"? Also - you are again presenting a "measurable" effect as a "significant" one. Do you even know the extent to which people are typically affected, and how much this varies depending on your THC intake?

Nahas in 1979 found that usage of cannabis once a week would lead to your body being 'constantly' tainted by cannabis and thus affected by it psycoactive agent THC.

Unfortunately, what they neglected to mention is that the THC in you system was no longer psychoactive, and was not stored in a form where it could ever amount to any significant effects. Measurable, perhaps, but not significant.

Also, they talk about "constant tainting". Hmmm - so nicotine smokers are fine then? No worries there - I mean, 20 a day wont leave you constantly tainted and affected by the drug, will it. All I'm looking for is equality. The reasons you have presented, when the truth beneath them is looked at correctly, show that THC is still no worse than the current comparable legal drugs.

There is my reasoning for not supporting the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs, feel free to call me a nazi, totalitarian, draconian despot, because hey, it's a free society

You have reasonbly valid reasons for not wanting it legalised, but I think you are reading only biased reports - (or selectively choosing the reports you wish to read).

For me, the short-term side effects of canabis are no more or less significant than those from alcohol. The long-term effects of moderate use (or slightly excessive) are preferable to those from alcohol and tobacco. Hell, even the effects from long-term serious abuse are better in my eyes. It is provably less addictive than nicotine, and roughly on a par with alcohol.

All of which leads me, as I said previously, to the conclusion that canabis should be given the same legal standing as alcohol and nicotine. This is what I would campaign for, because I'm pretty sure that the public would never accept a ban on all three, but I would accept it if they did.

As I said previously, my biggest concern is the ability to test for active vs present substances. This, for me, would be my only concern in legalising it, and would be something I would actually like to see addressed before or during any legalisation campaign.

jc

azezil

Originally posted by Typedef
Here are the facts, now try not to call me a nazi for stating 'what I believe to be facts'.

I don't have sufficient understanding about the effects of drugs to say wheather what Typedef has posted is total tripe or not but his statment here is a sad reflection on the current state of the boards at large, where peoples statments are blown out of all proportion and that certain individuals insist on draging other members of our community into flame wars because of personal differences.

I myself have taken to includeing such statements to take a pre-emptive strike against these individuals.

Canaboid

Twaddle spewed by Typedef
Blah, blah, blah, Complete crap

Typdef, you're a victim of your own bias, relying on information from one side of the argument without even considering it may be incorrect. How do I know ? A wealth of 1st hand experience in the issue at hand. Do you have this experience or what have you based your opinions on ? I doubt you can find a credible source to back up even one of your claims, which Bonkey has already dealt with admirably.
I genuinely thought you were trolling when I saw this and your reply in the other thread. Now I'm pretty sure you're just gullible.

Meh

Typedef -- can you post links to scientific studies which support your claims? Otherwise this is just going to become another oh-yes-it-is-oh-no-it-isn't thread.

Typedef

Originally posted by Canaboid


Typdef, you're a victim of your own bias, relying on information from one side of the argument without even considering it may be incorrect. How do I know ? A wealth of 1st hand experience in the issue at hand. Do you have this experience or what have you based your opinions on ? I doubt you can find a credible source to back up even one of your claims, which Bonkey has already dealt with admirably.
I genuinely thought you were trolling when I saw this and your reply in the other thread. Now I'm pretty sure you're just gullible.

Hey less with the hostility please.
Calling everything I have said crap is simply stupid.
I could care less if you think I'm gullible, that is a non-issue, personal defamation is not on.
Please abide by these rules.
Typedef

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
Calling everything I have said crap is simply stupid.

Let's see...you post sweeping statements and provide no references or sources whatsoever. There are literally hundreds of studies out there on the web dealing with the effects of marijuana. And yet you couldn't manage to reference ONE to back yourself up. Therefore I'm going to agree with Canniboid: Typedef, your post is CRAP.

I could care less if you think I'm gullible, that is a non-issue, personal defamation is not on.

So you're allowed personally attack him by calling him stupid (see quote above), but he's not allowed criticize your posts by calling them crap? You need to look up the difference between criticizing someone's opinions and an ad hominem attack. There is a clear difference between stating "Your post is stupid" and "You are stupid". One is against the rules; the other is not.

Typedef

Meh I thought you would appreciate a link that refutes the claims of Nahas
http://www.drugtext.org/articles/michka1.html and if I can find one a link that backs up the claims well here is his homepage anyway http://translate.google.com/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.med.nyu.edu/people/nahasg01.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNahas%2Bon%2Bthe%2Btoxicity%2Bof%2Bcannabis%26hl%3Den

So the university of New York regards his work as of a high enough standard for him to be a research professor at the department of Anesthesiology. The pertinant paper is entitled Nahas G, Latour C. The Human Toxicity of Marijuana. The Medical Journal of Australia 1992: 156; 495-70.

The vast body of reference on this subject seems to come from the pro-Cannabis lobby.
Here a a related link http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Health/SBANS/thc_sb.html and unfortunately I have to go back to work now, so I may try to google up the entire text of the paper when I get home.
Typedef

Typedef

Meh obviously you posted the above while I was providing links for you and please don't call me stupid, like I say if you don't have respect for others at least have respect for yourself.

Actually Meh, I can't believe you, I was ****ing wasting my time digging up these poxy links for you and all you can do is post that tripe above, what the hell is your damage man? Please think before hitting submit next time. Jesus christ I responded to Canaboid and I was in the process of responding to you with the links requested wtf do you want blood?

You cannot even wait long enough to get responded to before jumping to conclusions, that is poor logic, drawing conslusions without adequate reference, therefore your logic and objectivity are flawed. So please the next time you choose to call my objectivity into question at least get your source straight first please and try not to arbitrarily fly off of the handle in future.

Typedef

Meh

Originally posted by Typedef
please don't call me stupid, like I say if you don't have respect for others at least have respect for yourself.

My eyesight seems to be failing me. Could you please quote the part in my post where I called you stupid? I can't seem to find it...

manonthemoon

I think we knid of drifted off the point here

bonkey

Would you girls all please take a deep breath, count to ten, and calm the fsck down.

This is the second thread on this topic I'm closing because enough of you people can neither post civilly, nor resist the urge to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation (real or perceived). Next time, I'll just start kicking people off the forum for a week.

I could just edit the posts, remove the inflamatory stuff, and ask you to begin again civilly, but given that I already closed one thread for this crap I had hoped that you all would manage to take the hint and be civil this time round.

I was obviously wrong.

Thread closed.

Any thread discussing this same topic in the next week be deleted immediately.

jc