Off Topic Thread too point uh

molloyjh wrote: »

Like I said I'm not going to get into the decriminalisation side of the debate. I simply don't know enough about it to have a meaningful conversation on it. I'm simply saying that the dangers at the moment are well documented and very real. That is the simple reality. Why the dangers exist is irrelevant in terms of the post that started this whole thing off. And what might be different if the drugs were regulated is also irrelevant because right now that's just pipe dream stuff that doesn't change the reality here and now.

The reason that they* are dangerous is because they are prohibited. (See Nutt's work, see the @medium article linked, see Portugal's experiences)
They are banned because the Government says so. (and we all agree to run by the Government's rules to create a society)
We choose the Government and by extension their policies.
Educating people about the facts and myths that surround currently illegal drugs may change their opinions on them.
Opinions changing on drugs, may eventually create pressure regarding changing the policies that ban them.
Changing the policies that ban them, removes the danger that the 'driving underground' element of the War on Drugs has caused.

Evidence based politics has a lot of merits, in that you can always fall back on the data. Unfortunately, when we have politics that has no underlying data support, and even worse, underlying data suggesting exactly the opposite of what the legislation was founded upon, questions should be raised. No tinfoil hat here, but if you follow the train of logic I've given above, your suggestion infers that we should simply submit to the whim of the state instead of asking for it to do better.

*I am pretty much only discussing ecstasy in this post.

molloyjh wrote: »

Like I said I'm not going to get into the decriminalisation side of the debate. I simply don't know enough about it to have a meaningful conversation on it. I'm simply saying that the dangers at the moment are well documented and very real.

It should be added to the above that the dangers are also very rare.

The amount of admissions into A&E for MDMA related issues is minuscule compared to alcohol.

Deleted User wrote: »

People being mis-sold things that are unregulated is dangerous.
At a bake sale, if a bar contains nuts but doesn't state it, could kill someone. Does that mean that people shouldn't buy goods from bake sales? The misinformation is far more dangerous than the substance.

There's a huge issue with the criminalisation and therefore the inability to regulate the illegal substances described. The metrics used to decide the basis of banning the substances appear to be quite arbitrary and contrary. Tobacco and Alcohol, both legally regulated and controlled substances are orders of magnitude more dangerous than many illegal substances.

If it's not a protectionist policy, then what are they banned for?

Like I said I'm not going to get into the decriminalisation side of the debate. I simply don't know enough about it to have a meaningful conversation on it. I'm simply saying that the dangers at the moment are well documented and very real. That is the simple reality. Why the dangers exist is irrelevant in terms of the post that started this whole thing off. And what might be different if the drugs were regulated is also irrelevant because right now that's just pipe dream stuff that doesn't change the reality here and now.

.ak wrote: »

Eh I think you're joining dots that aren't there. MDMA isn't dangerous in controlled situations. If you do 3 times the speed limit you KNOW you're doing that. The stuff being sold in pill form is supposed to be MDMA but clearly isn't because of cowboy chemists. That's not exactly a fair assumption to be made - the problem is people THINK they're taking something atleastly fairly pure. A better analogy would be if someone did 3 times the speed limit but was never actually told what the speed limit is....

Don't believe everything you hear in school or TV is what I'd say to that.

The 'drugs are bad mmmkay' school of thought is head in the sand stuff, hence the beautiful irony of the Mr Mackey character.

If anything ak this post is head in the sand stuff. You're saying that people don't know what they are getting. My point is that we all know that they don't know what they are getting and can't be sure of what they are getting. That is the simple reality, and you've expressed it yourself.

I'm not saying that taking something like MDMA is dangerous. I'm saying taking something that someone is telling you is MDMA is. That's massively different, for all the reasons you've already pointed out. And cases like Ana's just go to prove the point I'm making. People who do these drugs don't know what they are putting in their body. Worse still they know it could potentially be harmful even if it's not meant to be. That is the danger. And it's a well known danger.

molloyjh wrote: »

The reality is that messing around with illegal substances as it stands right now is irresponsible, reckless and downright dangerous. We all know it.

People being mis-sold things that are unregulated is dangerous.
At a bake sale, if a bar contains nuts but doesn't state it, could kill someone. Does that mean that people shouldn't buy goods from bake sales? The misinformation is far more dangerous than the substance.

There's a huge issue with the criminalisation and therefore the inability to regulate the illegal substances described. The metrics used to decide the basis of banning the substances appear to be quite arbitrary and contrary. Tobacco and Alcohol, both legally regulated and controlled substances are orders of magnitude more dangerous than many illegal substances.

If it's not a protectionist policy, then what are they banned for?

molloyjh wrote: »

And potentially a guy doing 3 times the speed limit could make it home safe every day. The real world doesn't deal in "potential" though. It deals in reality. And the reality is, as you said, that these pills are dangerous. We all know it. We can't avoid the warnings. Be they in school, on TV or through personal experience.

They guy doing 3 times the speed limit could behave in the exact same way every day and get away with it. But the increased level of risk is such that he's putting himself in danger every single time he does it. And if he does crash and kill himself he'd have nobody but himself to blame because he was being irresponsible, reckless and downright dangerous.

The reality is that messing around with illegal substances as it stands right now is irresponsible, reckless and downright dangerous. We all know it.

Eh I think you're joining dots that aren't there. MDMA isn't dangerous in controlled situations. If you do 3 times the speed limit you KNOW you're doing that. The stuff being sold in pill form is supposed to be MDMA but clearly isn't because of cowboy chemists. That's not exactly a fair assumption to be made - the problem is people THINK they're taking something atleastly fairly pure. A better analogy would be if someone did 3 times the speed limit but was never actually told what the speed limit is....

We all know it. We can't avoid the warnings. Be they in school, on TV or through personal experience.

Don't believe everything you hear in school or TV is what I'd say to that.

The 'drugs are bad mmmkay' school of thought is head in the sand stuff, hence the beautiful irony of the Mr Mackey character.

.ak wrote: »

Potentially MDMA, by itself, is the safest drug you could take.

But that's not what is being sold in pill form, unfortunately.

And potentially a guy doing 3 times the speed limit could make it home safe every day. The real world doesn't deal in "potential" though. It deals in reality. And the reality is, as you said, that these pills are dangerous. We all know it. We can't avoid the warnings. Be they in school, on TV or through personal experience.

They guy doing 3 times the speed limit could behave in the exact same way every day and get away with it. But the increased level of risk is such that he's putting himself in danger every single time he does it. And if he does crash and kill himself he'd have nobody but himself to blame because he was being irresponsible, reckless and downright dangerous.

The reality is that messing around with illegal substances as it stands right now is irresponsible, reckless and downright dangerous. We all know it.

molloyjh wrote: »

So people think they are safer than alcohol, but you consider them not to be safe, am I reading that right?

Ultimately for me this is the crux of the issue. There is simply no way to be sure that what is on offer is safe. None. There have been numerous stories and examples of just how dangerous taking drugs like this can be. Sadly this is just another one of those stories from the looks of it. If there are still people out there who think that this is in any way safe then I can't but have limited sympathy for those people who partake in something which has been so overtly advertised as being dangerous. If someone drives at 3 times the speed limit, loses control of their car and has a fatal collision with a tree we would all look at them and think "you deserved it for being so irresponsible". I don't see how this is any different personally.

Is alcohol potentially addictive and dangerous as well? Of course it is. But we all know that one bad pint down your local won't kill you. One bad pill could. I'm not going to get into the decriminalisation discussion as it's not one I'm well enough up on to do to any great degree.

Potentially MDMA, by itself, is the safest drug you could take.

But that's not what is being sold in pill form, unfortunately.

FWIW a 'dodgy pill' wouldn't kill you either. If you have an underlying issue it may though. The same can be said about alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc.

Buer wrote: »

But you're using your experience and the social circles you experience as your barometer. If you asked me to get you some pills I'd have to ring a guy I know and ask him if he knows anyone and, if successful, meet them somewhere. It takes effort to get drugs. Most people wouldn't know someone who could sell them one.

Having to phone around and agree to meet someone (assuming you know who to call) is not nearly as available as dropping around the corner to your local pub or shop to get a pill. There's also the stigma attached with them being illegal. A lot of people won't touch them because of it. Make them legal and you'd have far more people trying them out due to curiosity.

I know a good few people who wouldn't dream of touching an illegal pill who took pills from head shops simply because they were completely legal to consume.

Just on the bolded. Yeah, that's true, but the stuff in the headshops was far more dangerous than illegal MDMA. It's just another byproduct of non-regulation. Remember the mephadrone/bath salts stuff? Lethal, horrible toxic stuff, but all a byproduct of not being able to source the 'illegal' stuff through safe sources.

It's a weird old world sometimes.

.ak wrote: »

I know a lot of people who don't drink but will do MDMA because they consider it safer....

IF they're going to do them they should be safe.....

these things need to be regulated before it's safe.

So people think they are safer than alcohol, but you consider them not to be safe, am I reading that right?

Ultimately for me this is the crux of the issue. There is simply no way to be sure that what is on offer is safe. None. There have been numerous stories and examples of just how dangerous taking drugs like this can be. Sadly this is just another one of those stories from the looks of it. If there are still people out there who think that this is in any way safe then I can't but have limited sympathy for those people who partake in something which has been so overtly advertised as being dangerous. If someone drives at 3 times the speed limit, loses control of their car and has a fatal collision with a tree we would all look at them and think "you deserved it for being so irresponsible". I don't see how this is any different personally.

Is alcohol potentially addictive and dangerous as well? Of course it is. But we all know that one bad pint down your local won't kill you. One bad pill could. I'm not going to get into the decriminalisation discussion as it's not one I'm well enough up on to do to any great degree.

Buer wrote: »

But you're using your experience and the social circles you experience as your barometer. If you asked me to get you some pills I'd have to ring a guy I know and ask him if he knows anyone and, if successful, meet them somewhere. It takes effort to get drugs. Most people wouldn't know someone who could sell them one.

Having to phone around and agree to meet someone (assuming you know who to call) is not nearly as available as dropping around the corner to your local pub or shop to get a pill. There's also the stigma attached with them being illegal. A lot of people won't touch them because of it. Make them legal and you'd have far more people trying them out due to curiosity.

I know a good few people who wouldn't dream of touching an illegal pill who took pills from head shops simply because they were completely legal to consume.

But doesn't that mean it's more to do with the social circle, education and vulnerability itself rather than the pill being a stepping stone?

Zzippy wrote: »

I don't think weighing them in grams rather than ounces will make them less dangerous... or maybe you meant decriminalised?

I am a staunch advocate of the metric system!

Worth reading about Portugal's efforts when discussing decriminalisation too.

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's my speculation: this girl would still be alive if a large percentage of common designer drugs were decimalised and regulated.

I don't think weighing them in grams rather than ounces will make them less dangerous... or maybe you meant decriminalised?

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's my speculation: this girl would still be alive if a large percentage of common designer drugs were decimalised and regulated.

Cocaine is one of the most common designer drugs and is horribly addictive and damaging.

Here's my speculation: this girl would still be alive if a large percentage of common designer drugs were decimalised and regulated.

.ak wrote: »

I don't think so. It's as easy to get as a pint now! I think there is a link between intelligence and addiction though, as simple as that sounds but there are correlations already there, I'm trying to find the study I read on it recently.. But the point is that people vulnerable to addiction already have access to them and that won't change.

But you're using your experience and the social circles you experience as your barometer. If you asked me to get you some pills I'd have to ring a guy I know and ask him if he knows anyone and, if successful, meet them somewhere. It takes effort to get drugs. Most people wouldn't know someone who could sell them one.

Having to phone around and agree to meet someone (assuming you know who to call) is not nearly as available as dropping around the corner to your local pub or shop to get a pill. There's also the stigma attached with them being illegal. A lot of people won't touch them because of it. Make them legal and you'd have far more people trying them out due to curiosity.

I know a good few people who wouldn't dream of touching an illegal pill who took pills from head shops simply because they were completely legal to consume.

.ak wrote: »

That's terrible for them, if that's the case, but they'd be the exception rather than the rule.

A study was done recently about the effects of addiction from drug use. Only a tiny minority of people become addicted after recreational drug use. The idea that the 'lighter' drugs are a stepping stone to the harder stuff is a myth.

It is and it isn't, there's certainly credence in the claim that people who buy pills/weed are more likely to see opportunities to try harder stuff. Introduced to different circles etc.

But that's a social dynamic and not got much to do with any sort of 'gateway claim' laid at the foot of the drug itself. Similar consideration would be the idea that a newbie training at a 'Leisure Centre' Gym would be less likely to get involved with Steroids etc than if they'd started at a 'meathead' gym. It's not to do with the actual physical gym, nor the exercise chosen, but the interactions that the individual gyms can create.

Here's a fantastic article on the failure of the War on Drugs that I think you'd like. There are a lot of drug myths that people are far too afraid to talk about and dispel.

.ak wrote: »

The idea that the 'lighter' drugs are a stepping stone to the harder stuff is a myth.

It's not a myth, really, although there's arguments against it. There are studies supporting both sides of the argument but there's certainly evidence supporting the idea that accessibility to softer drugs, particularly at a younger age, leads to people trying harder stuff.

There's studies against it too but it's certainly a very valid debate and all these studies are done in an environment where drugs are illegal and more difficult to come by.

Bridge93 wrote: »

I thought I heard that she thought it was E but it appears to be something far more dangerous instead. PMA I think it was called?

All speculation at this stage.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

But the problem is that it does lead to normalizing drug culture and can bring things down a dark path. It taking a pill becomes as normal as having a pint, there will undoubtedly be an increase in people willing to try something that is far more addictive and harmful such as cocaine.

This is based of nothing whatsoever, but I wonder if there is at all the possiblity of the opposite effect? So many illegal drugs are safer than alcohol that perhaps the warnings lose all impact as people just don't take them seriously and this could make them more likely to try drugs such as cocaine.

Buer wrote: »

I do think that some level of regulation should be examined (but I doubt it will ever come to pass) as the safest approach.

But the problem is that it does lead to normalizing drug culture and can bring things down a dark path. It taking a pill becomes as normal as having a pint, there will undoubtedly be an increase in people willing to try something that is far more addictive and harmful such as cocaine.

I don't think so. It's as easy to get as a pint now! I think there is a link between intelligence and addiction though, as simple as that sounds but there are correlations already there, I'm trying to find the study I read on it recently.. But the point is that people vulnerable to addiction already have access to them and that won't change.

Tox56

Buer wrote: »

I think you're making a massive assumption there, .ak, when you say:

Most young people in a particular social circle do them, largely concentrated around the club scene (as opposed to your average Saturday night in the local nightclub where people take them but far fewer). You can go to clubs or gigs and not encounter anyone taking pills. I know a few of my friends did them, on occasion, but the majority of us didn't and we were all avid gig and festival attendees.

It's not part of us. It's something that has exploded in the past 25 years in Ireland. Before that, it was unusual for people to have had anything more than a joint.

Regarding the incident, yes, it's a tragedy and I feel sorry for her family. But I've limited sympathy for her. The dangers of drugs are hugely documented and communicated to us throughout our youth. The alcohol argument employed by users is a red herring and is a topic for a completely different discussion; we all know alcohol carries its own dangers. But that has got nothing to do with the fact that people are taking an illegal and unregulated substance that has known dangers.

Regarding the testing kits, people aren't going to use testing kits on a night out if they purchase a pill in a club. Also, going on the comments from a consultant on Newstalk this morning, the testing kits are nowhere near sufficient. To accurately test these substances, they require proper lab work and testing. The online kits are very hit and miss, according to him.

I dont think it's fair to say most people do them on a normal weekend at a club, in fact I think if you were to do a survey on how many do you'd get pretty low numbers, but if you were to ask how have done it once, or ocassionally at music festivals, the numbers would be a lot higher. And it really only takes one 'mistake' for something to go wrong. It's easy to say now that you know the dangers and you get what's coming to you etc, but I really think that's 2020 hindsight talking

Bridge93

I thought I heard that she thought it was E but it appears to be something far more dangerous instead. PMA I think it was called?

I do think that some level of regulation should be examined (but I doubt it will ever come to pass) as the safest approach.

But the problem is that it does lead to normalizing drug culture and can bring things down a dark path. It taking a pill becomes as normal as having a pint, there will undoubtedly be an increase in people willing to try something that is far more addictive and harmful such as cocaine.

Burgo wrote: »

But they area banned already.

They are but I think it highlights the issues - making these illegal means they're unregulated and being filled with garbage.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere. Fine, keep them illegal, but make them more safe because people won't stop taking them.

Also, FWIW, the tragic case involving Ana, has yet to be confirmed that MDMA was the cause of the issue. Only the Irish Mirror are running with that from what I can see.

dregin wrote: »

I think it says a lot that people who frequent the above need pills to enjoy themselves. I know far too many people who've gotten into drugs through pills and ended up on heroin to entertain the thought of doing pills. I probably wouldn't have as much an issue with them, if they were actually regulated. After all, BEEEEEEERRRRR.

That's terrible for them, if that's the case, but they'd be the exception rather than the rule.

A study was done recently about the effects of addiction from drug use. Only a tiny minority of people become addicted after recreational drug use. The idea that the 'lighter' drugs are a stepping stone to the harder stuff is a myth.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Just normal nightclubs? If it's going on all around me fair enough, but I honestly would not have had a clue. I know some of my friends have dabbled but very much a minority.

Well depends on your view of 'normal' nightclubs, but I've worked in nearly every major music venue in Dublin, without naming the venues themselves, and it's very much a done thing. The thing is, most people are intelligent about it and don't go broadcasting it to the world or upsetting other people around them. But there is always an element that don't subscribe to that...