Off Topic Thread too point uh

.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.

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.

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.

.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: »

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.

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?

.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.

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.

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.

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.

Podge_irl

I hate job interviews. I could do with some yokes I'm tellin ya.

Podge_irl wrote: »

I hate job interviews. I could do with some yokes I'm tellin ya.

They're just chats really. They want you to work for them, and want to make sure you fit in.

Getting the interview is the tough part, just got to talk for a bit about how you've got to where you are, and where you think you're interested in 'going'.

Chill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVp9rKF3hag

Deleted User wrote: »

....your suggestion infers that we should simply submit to the whim of the state instead of asking for it to do better.

You're looking far beyond the limits of what I'm discussing there. I'm simply talking about that linked post and the lack of sympathy for the individual concerned. I have limited sympathy because of the reality of the situation as it currently stands. Beyond that I don't have enough knowledge to comment any further or even hold an opinion on the matter in a broader context.

I do get what you're saying though and from a totally ignorant viewpoint don't disagree at all.

Burgo

Podge_irl wrote: »

I hate job interviews. I could do with some yokes I'm tellin ya.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

I hate job interviews. I could do with some yokes I'm tellin ya.

Are you the interviewer or the interviewee?

Fireball07

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.

The thing is... thousands of pills are undoubtedly taken every night, if not more, with no real adverse effects. It wouldn't be my thing really but on any sort of night out, you see people on pills (it's very noticeable) or people looking to buy them. And it is quite easy to buy them in a nightclub, whatever about at home.

I don't know about responsibility, some pills are bound to be dodgy but the percentage that actually does harm is very small and if you already have a couple of drinks in you and the music is playing, taking a pill will seem like the smartest idea in the world. And worst is people who end up taking 2, 3 or 4 to really get the buzz; which is almost certainly dangerous but they probably wouldn't even think about. People have always made bad decisions when not in full control of their senses.

I don't know what the solution is, there is an inherent risk in taking drugs for sure, but that risk seems so miniscule that I doubt it really affects many people's decisions.

dregin

.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.

Maybe not a psychological stepping stone, but a mate's dealer "accidentally" put a bit of heroin in with his weed. He thought nothing of it at the time, but hit some rough **** and decided to smoke it. Ended up OD'ing.

dregin wrote: »

Maybe not a psychological stepping stone, but a mate's dealer "accidentally" put a bit of heroin in with his weed. He thought nothing of it at the time, but hit some rough **** and decided to smoke it. Ended up OD'ing.

That's a bizarre situation... still not sure how it's related to the discussion though!

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Are you the interviewer or the interviewee?

Interviewee. All over now anyway.

Was an internal thing (for a big step up) and both interviewers sit within 10m of me in the office. Really unsure if that made it easier or harder. I find it impossible to judge how these things went so I'm gonna overly critically self analyse it for a couple hours then get drunk and all will be well with the world tomorrow.

Swiwi.

My 2c. On the one hand I feel genuine remorse for the girl and her family. I remember myself drinking not far off a bottle of whiskey in a small timeframe, the night ending up crashed at my hall of residence with copious amounts of vomit - I guess I could have gone out like a rock star, drowned in my own vomit. Of course, I was 18 (legal age in NZ for alc) and alcohol is not an illegal substance.

On the other hand, it's pretty foolhardy to swallow 3 tablets of ectasy from an uncontrolled source. I doubt there is strictly enforced "quality control" for such drugs, and with money being the bottom line, corners in safety will be cut. The risks are small, but they exist, and are entirely avoidable. There is no obligation to swallow pills to enjoy a night out. In general, ecstasy is probably not that dangerous, cocaine is to be avoided at all costs imo. However, if you take illicit drugs, you can't really complain if it turns pear-shaped, buyer beware and all that.

dregin

.ak wrote: »

That's a bizarre situation... still not sure how it's related to the discussion though!

Drugs lead to you associating with scumbags.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

It scares me that this attitude is still so prevalent: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95513757

64 people thanking the post, I bet most of them went out drinking this weekend too.

CatFromHue

alcohol is a regulated industry/product though.

CatFromHue wrote: »

alcohol is a regulated industry/product though.

Even so, it's a dangerous product, and even more so, they KNOW the damage it does. Just like smokers.

I wonder if a loved one of the poster's died due to smoke related cancer would they still have no sympathy?

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

alcohol is a regulated industry/product though.

Indeed it is and it's also a drug, one which costs the state far more every year through abuse and misuse than all the other drugs put together. Lack of control and regulation of "recreational drugs", leads to 100's of unnecessary deaths every year, it's abdication of responsibility by the state to regulate and control the sale and supply, leaving it instead in the hands of as someone so eloquently put it "scumbags" to control who don't really care about end users.

Pudsy33

.ak wrote: »

Even so, it's a dangerous product, and even more so, they KNOW the damage it does. Just like smokers.

I wonder if a loved one of the poster's died due to smoke related cancer would they still have no sympathy?

One pint, or one cigarette, isn't going to kill you though. You know the damage it does long term and you can weigh up the pros and cons.

On the other hand, one dodgy incident with drugs can be fatal. Whatever about MDMA being safe, you have no idea what else is in there.

awec

Off Topic thread is very profound today...

Pudsy33 wrote: »

One pint, or one cigarette, isn't going to kill you though. You know the damage it does long term and you can weigh up the pros and cons.

On the other hand, one dodgy incident with drugs can be fatal. Whatever about MDMA being safe, you have no idea what else is in there.

Which is the argument to decriminalise and regulate...