Bad pills

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 03-10-2013 12:03AM

SV wrote: »

Yeah but if everything was legal then there couldn't be crime because....ehhh everything is legal?

Junkie wants gear. Costs 100euro, he's got €20. He's gonna resort to mugging, stealing or otherwise illegal way of getting the extra cash needed.

Edit: if your talking about legalizing everything so there's no such thing as a crime, Im not even dignifying that with a response.

SV · 03-10-2013 12:03AM

kneemos wrote: »

What do you think criminals will do?shrug their shoulders and say oh well.

I've no idea, how on earth do you imagine they'd make money?
Bearing in mind everything is legal.

collidgedosser · 03-10-2013 12:06AM

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

Junkie wants gear. Costs 100euro, he's got €20. He's gonna resort to mugging, stealing or otherwise illegal way of getting the extra cash needed.

They should just give heroin to the people who want heroin, and if you want to genuinley stop give them methadone. Addicts only use the phy to stop them getting sick and still take heroin. Im willing to bet heroin is cheaper to make than methadone. then that way they wont be putting their welfare into the hands of dealers

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 03-10-2013 12:09AM

collidgedosser wrote: »

They should just give heroin to the people who want heroin, and if you want to genuinley stop give them methadone. Addicts only use the phy to stop them getting sick and still take heroin. Im willing to bet heroin is cheaper to make than methadone. then that way they wont be putting their welfare into the hands of dealers

The state should give out free drugs?

Cody Pomeray · 03-10-2013 12:10AM

magicman88 wrote: »

Blue Ghosts? Well, it has an active ingredient which is a dangerous psychoactive compound known as dimesmeric andersonphosphate. It stimulates the part of the brain called Shatner's Bassoon. And that's the bit of the brain that deals with time perception. So, a second feels like a month. Well, it almost sounds like fun...unless you're the Prague schoolboy who walked out into the street straight in front of a tram. He thought he'd got a month to cross the street.

lyk dis if u cried every tym XXX

All commiserations to the Czech guy's family notwithstanding, threads like this are comedy gold. The anti drugs lobby who think bans mean anything, and the 'well rough' i

pills brigade passing on what they heard "on the street" and what was trending at electric picnic. give a fcuk!

if you fight for the right to put a chemical agent inside your body whose ingredients were cooked up by some amateur and whose safety cannot be verified, you're probably as stupid as someone who thinks you can legislate to end stupidity.

kneemos · 03-10-2013 12:11AM

SV wrote: »

I've no idea, how on earth do you imagine they'd make money?
Bearing in mind everything is legal.

The same way they do at the moment from non drug related crime.

SV · 03-10-2013 12:13AM

kneemos wrote: »

The same way they do at the moment from non drug related crime.

Right, you're not really elaborating here. I'm just going to assume you don't have an answer when you're giving cop outs like that.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 03-10-2013 12:17AM

SV wrote: »

Right, you're not really elaborating here. I'm just going to assume you don't have an answer when you're giving cop outs like that.

Dude you've come into a thread where people are discussing legalizing drugs so they can be regulated and controlled and others are saying it won't work.

Now your suggesting we legalize everything so there's no crime. Guess what? That won't work either.

Del2005 · 03-10-2013 12:18AM

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

It won't stop the drug dealers though. They'll still keep producing the cheaper drugs. You'll just be making it easier for curious teens to try their first E and after they've paid €20 for it and liked it, they'll buy a €5 one the following weekend off a dealer.

It's easier to get illegal drugs than legal drugs today for underage people as illegal drug dealers never ask for ID while legal drug dealers have to by law. At least if there's some kind of legalisation then more resources could be dedicated to the harmful affects of all drugs including alcohol, cigarettes and over the counter medicines.

collidgedosser · 03-10-2013 12:18AM

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

The state should give out free drugs?

The state have been giving out free drugs for a long time now, methadone clinics! valium prescribed on medical card!

kneemos · 03-10-2013 12:20AM

SV wrote: »

Right, you're not really elaborating here. I'm just going to assume you don't have an answer when you're giving cop outs like that.

returnNull listed it a few posts back.Robbery,whoring and racketeering.Criminals are criminals they don't change their ways.

Seachmall · 03-10-2013 12:24AM

kneemos wrote: »

returnNull listed it a few posts back.Robbery,whoring and racketeering.Criminals are criminals they don't change their ways.

But all those things would be legal, so they wouldn't be criminals for committing robbery, for example.

(I sense some confusion here.)

kneemos · 03-10-2013 12:27AM

Seachmall wrote: »

But all those things would be legal, so they wouldn't be criminals for committing robbery, for example.

(I sense some confusion here.)

You sense confusion?

returnNull · 03-10-2013 12:29AM

Seachmall wrote: »

(I sense some confusion here.)

On my part I think,hadnt realised we were discussing criminality where everything was legal!

Seachmall · 03-10-2013 12:35AM

kneemos wrote: »

You sense confusion?

It's a superpower of mine.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 03-10-2013 12:36AM

Someone's suggested legalizing everything, so there is no crime?

What happens if your house is broken into and you have your television stolen? Just go to Harvey Norman and walk out with a brand new one, no need to pay cos hey, it's not illegal right?!

kneemos · 03-10-2013 12:37AM

Seachmall wrote: »

But all those things would be legal, so they wouldn't be criminals for committing robbery, for example.

(I sense some confusion here.)

Robbery,fraud,protection rackets,selling stolen goods,muggings...

carlmango11 · 03-10-2013 12:42AM

kneemos wrote: »

Legalise mind altering drugs?good plan.
Please don't be boring and mention alcohol.

"Please don't be boring and point out the glaring flaw in my argument"

Seachmall · 03-10-2013 12:47AM

Johnny Electricity wrote: »

Someone's suggested legalizing everything, so there is no crime?

What happens if your house is broken into and you have your television stolen? Just go to Harvey Norman and walk out with a brand new one, no need to pay cos hey, it's not illegal right?!

I said if ecstasy was legal society would benefit from less crime.

Fr_Dougal pointed out my mistake by saying that if everything was legal there'd be no crime.

I clarified that I meant if ecstasy was legal society would benefit from less gang related crime.

The suggestion that we should legalise everything to reduce crime was purely accidental on my part. For some reason people are running with it.

kneemos · 03-10-2013 12:51AM

carlmango11 wrote: »

"Please don't be boring and point out the glaring flaw in my argument"

It's a pointless argument that comes up whenever someone mentions drugs.As if one legal drug validates the legalization of all other mind altering drugs.If anything alcohol shows us what a bad idea it is.

Seachmall · 03-10-2013 12:54AM

kneemos wrote: »

It's a pointless argument that comes up whenever someone mentions drugs.As if one legal drug validates the legalization of all other mind altering drugs.If anything alcohol shows us what a bad idea it is.

If you support the prohibition of alcohol it is a redundant argument.

But the fact is many don't. And many that don't do support the prohibition of other drugs.

If their supporting arguments have to do with the dangers of other drugs and those drugs can be shown to be objectively safer than alcohol (and many can) then it exposes a hypocrisy in their position and demonstrates an irrational bias.

That is why the alcohol comparison is used. It is a sound and perfectly valid argument given the right context.

carlmango11 · 03-10-2013 01:11AM

kneemos wrote: »

It's a pointless argument that comes up whenever someone mentions drugs.As if one legal drug validates the legalization of all other mind altering drugs.If anything alcohol shows us what a bad idea it is.

So do you agree with prohibition? Surely from looking back in history it's obvious that legalisation of a drug causes a lot less problems. This fact is being confirmed all around the world as our drug policies are changing.

And in any case, alcohol is a dangerous, dangerous drug. It makes people do stupid **** that gets them hurt or killed and it causes people to get into fights. It makes you sick the next day and causes long-term damage to your liver.

MDMA is safe. It doesn't do massive amount of damage to your body like alcohol does. It doesn't turn you into a slurring, stumbling, idiotic mess. Your mind stays (mostly) clear and it makes you empathetic, open and loving - practically impossible to get into a fight on. The worst effect you might get is feeling down the next day or two, but it's nothing compared to a bad hangover.

And why does the fact that it's mind-altering make it an instant no? If you don't want to get high then don't. Stop telling other people what to do if it doesn't affect you.

carlmango11 · 03-10-2013 01:12AM

Seachmall wrote: »

If you support the prohibition of alcohol it is a redundant argument.

But the fact is many don't. And many that don't do support the prohibition of other drugs.

If their supporting arguments have to do with the dangers of other drugs and those drugs can be shown to be objectively safer than alcohol (and many can) then it exposes a hypocrisy in their position and demonstrates an irrational bias.

That is why the alcohol comparison is used. It is a sound and perfectly valid argument given the right context.

Logic is beautiful.

kneemos · 03-10-2013 01:13AM

Seachmall wrote: »

If you support the prohibition of alcohol it is a redundant argument.

But the fact is many don't. And many that don't do support the prohibition of other drugs.

If their supporting arguments have to do with the dangers of other drugs and those drugs can be shown to be objectively safer than alcohol (and many can) then it exposes a hypocrisy in their position and demonstrates an irrational bias.

That is why the alcohol comparison is used. It is a sound and perfectly valid argument given the right context.

That argument still uses the existence of one drug to validate another.
It the mind altering and long term effects I'd be concerned about.

collidgedosser · 03-10-2013 01:20AM

MDMA cannot be called a safe drug, fair enough thousands do it everyweekend, but the physiological effects are far from safe and nertological effect is not safe either

carlmango11 wrote: »

So do you agree with prohibition? Surely from looking back in history it's obvious that legalisation of a drug causes a lot less problems. This fact is being confirmed all around the world as our drug policies are changing.

And in any case, alcohol is a dangerous, dangerous drug. It makes people do stupid **** that gets them hurt or killed and it causes people to get into fights. It makes you sick the next day and causes long-term damage to your liver.

MDMA is safe. It doesn't do massive amount of damage to your body like alcohol does. It doesn't turn you into a slurring, stumbling, idiotic mess. Your mind stays (mostly) clear and it makes you empathetic, open and loving - practically impossible to get into a fight on. The worst effect you might get is feeling down the next day or two, but it's nothing compared to a bad hangover.

And why does the fact that it's mind-altering make it an instant no? If you don't want to get high then don't. Stop telling other people what to do if it doesn't affect you.

Seachmall · 03-10-2013 01:41AM

kneemos wrote: »

That argument still uses the existence of one drug to validate another.

Yes, but only if the drugs meet the requirements of validation as defined by the opposer of legalisation.

In this case, for example, the "requirements of validation" would be as safe or safer than alcohol.

If the opponent insists the drugs should remain illegal despite being safer than alcohol they are engaging in a fallacy known as Special Pleading.

At that point their argument is irrational and irrelevant.

kneemos · 03-10-2013 01:59AM

Seachmall wrote: »

Yes, but only if the drugs meet the requirements of validation as defined by the opposer of legalisation.

In this case, for example, the "requirements of validation" would be as safe or safer than alcohol.

If the opponent insists the drugs should remain illegal despite being safer than alcohol they are engaging in a fallacy known as Special Pleading.

At that point their argument is irrational and irrelevant.

I can see the argument but given a choice what government would legalise alcohol?it's been a part of every society since Adam fancied Eve.

mikom · 03-10-2013 02:12AM

kneemos wrote: »

I can see the argument but given a choice what government would legalise alcohol?it's been a part of every society since Adam fancied Eve.

Ahem............

6000 B.C.
Cannabis seeds used for food in China.
4000 B.C.
Textiles made of hemp are used in China. (Pharmacotheon)
2727 B.C.
First recorded use of cannabis as medicine in Chinese pharmacopoeia. In every part of the world humankind has used cannabis for a wide variety of health problems.
1500 B.C.
Cannabis cultivated in China for food and fiber.
1500 B.C.
Scythians cultivate cannabis and use it to weave fine hemp cloth. (Sumach 1975)
1200-800 B.C.
Cannabis is mentioned in the Hindu sacred text Atharvaveda (Science of Charms) as "Sacred Grass", one of the five sacred plants of India. It is used by medicinally and ritually as an offering to Shiva.
700-600 B.C.
The Zoroastrian Zend-Avesta, an ancient Persian religious text of several hundred volumes, and said to have been written by Zarathustra (Zoroaster), refers to bhang as Zoroaster's "good narcotic" (Vendidad or The Law Against Demons)
700-300 B.C.
Scythian tribes leave cannabis seeds as offerings in royal tombs.
500 B.C.
Scythian couple die and are buried with two small tents covering censers. Attached to one tent stick was a decorated leather pouch containing wild Cannabis seeds. This closely matches the stories told by Herodotus. The gravesite, discovered in the late 1940s, was in Pazryk, northwest of the Tien Shan Mountains in modern-day Khazakstan.
500 B.C.
Hemp is introduced into Northern Europe by the Scythians. An urn containing leaves and seeds of the Cannabis plant, unearthed near Berlin, is dated to about this time.
500-100 B.C.
Hemp spreads throughout northern Europe.
430 B.C.
Herodotus reports on both ritual and recreation use of Cannabis by the Scythians (Herodotus - The Histories 430 B.C. trans. G. Rawlinson).
100 B.C.-0
The psychotropic properties of Cannabis are mentioned in the newly compiled herbal Pen Ts'ao Ching which is attributed to an emperor
c. 2700 B.C.
0-100 A.D.
Construction of Samaritan gold and glass paste stash box for storing hashish, coriander, or salt, buried in Siberian tomb.
70 A.D.
Dioscorides mentions the use of Cannabis as a Roman medicament.
170 A.D.
Galen (Roman) alludes to the psychoactivity of Cannabis seed confections.
500-600 A.D.
The Jewish Talmud mentions the euphoriant properties of Cannabis. (Abel 1980)
900-1000 A.D.
Scholars debate the pros and cons of eating hashish. Use spreads throughout Arabia.
1090-1256 A.D.
In Khorasan, Persia, Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain, recruits followers to commit assassinations...legends develop around their supposed use of hashish. These legends are some of the earliest written tales of the discovery of the inebriating powers of cannabis and the supposed use of hashish.
1200s
Cannabis is introduced in Egypt during the reign of the Ayyubid dynasty on the occasion of the flooding of Egypt by mystic devotees coming from Syria. (M.K. Hussein 1957 - Soueif 1972)
Early 1200s
Hashish smoking very popular throughout the Middle East.
1155-1221
Persian legend of the Sufi master Sheik Haidar's of Khorasan's personal discovery of Cannabis and it's subsequent spread to Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria. Another of the ealiest written narratives of the use of Cannabis as an inebriant.
1300s
The oldest monograph on hashish, Zahr al-'arish fi tahrim al-hashish, was written. It has since been lost.
1300s
Ibn al-Baytar of Spain provides a description of psychoactive Cannabis.
1300s
Arab traders bring Cannabis to the Mozambique coast of Africa.
1231
Hashish introduced to Iraq in the reign of Caliph Mustansir (Rosenthal 1971)
1271-1295
Journeys of Marco Polo in which he gives second-hand reports of the story of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah and his "assassins" using hashish. First time reports of Cannabis have been brought to the attention of Europe.
1378
Ottoman Emir Soudoun Scheikhouni issues one of the first edicts against the eating of hashish.
1526
Babur Nama, first emperor and founder of Mughal Empire learned of hashish in Afghanistan.
mid 1600s
The epic poem, Benk u Bode, by the poet Mohammed Ebn Soleiman Foruli of Baghdad, deals allegorically with a dialectical battle between wine and hashish.
1700s
Use of hashish, alcohol, and opium spreads among the population of occupied Constantinople.
Late 1700s
Hashish becomes a major trade item between Central Asia and South Asia.
1809
Antoine Sylvestre de Sacy, a leading Arabist, reveals the etymology of the words "assassin" and "hashishin"
1840
In America, medicinal preparations with a cannabis base are available. Hashish available in Persian pharmacies.
1843
Le Club des Hachichins, or Hashish Eater's Club, established in Paris.
after 1850
Hashish appears in Greece.
1856
British tax ganja and charas trade in India.

Sunglasses Ron · 03-10-2013 10:22AM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

All commiserations to the Czech guy's family notwithstanding, threads like this are comedy gold..

Comedy gold? There is nothing funny about some of the surviving victims who developed a condition known as Czech Neck.

Hoop66 · 03-10-2013 03:12PM

collidgedosser wrote: »

MDMA cannot be called a safe drug, fair enough thousands do it everyweekend, but the physiological effects are far from safe and nertological effect is not safe either

I'm not sure you've quite grasped the science you're trying to show off...

Physiological effects? Or Psychological effects?

The very fact that thousands of people have been taking it every weekend for years with very few adverse effects suggests that it is, in fact, relatively safe.

I'm aware that there have been one or two well-publicised deaths. Consider what the news would look like if everyone who was injured or killed due to alcohol misuse was reported in such a way? Then ask yourself why adverse effects of MDMA are reported in this manner and who might have something to gain from this.

Consider the state of many town centres, especially in Britain, on a Saturday night.

Again, ask the question:

Why are there so many warehouse like drinking establishments in town centres?
How were so many licenses for these type of premises granted?
Is it a coincidence that these licenses were granted during the early 90s when recreational ecstasy use exploded?

I'm rambling now, so I'll give it a rest. My brain must be destroyed from MDMA use...

Bad pills

Comments