Drugs!

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, generally. BUT tobacco is not nearly as dangerous as cannabis and XTC.

XTC, (or MDMA) is a methamphetamine-based hallucinagin. It is quite dangerous. It can be fatal in its own right, or directly contribute to "accidental" death (like falling off a ledge or a car crash). It also isn't that great for your body.

Ecstasy is very rarely fatal, no more so than many legal substances such as the morning after pill to which a minute percentage of the population (we're talking in the range of one or two in 100,000) have an allergy.

Leading UK scientists agree that ecstasy is less harmful not only than alcohol and tobacco, but also cannabis, which in turn is also less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. In fact, they consider it more dangerous than only two other substances: alkyl nitrate (poppers) and khat. (link)

By the far the greatest risk with cannabis and ecstasy is arrest.

 

[tcampen]

Ecstasy is very rarely fatal, no more so than many legal substances such as the morning after pill to which a minute percentage of the population (we're talking in the range of one or two in 100,000) have an allergy.

Leading UK scientists agree that ecstasy is less harmful not only than alcohol and tobacco, but also cannabis, which in turn is also less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. In fact, they consider it more dangerous than only two other substances: alkyl nitrate (poppers) and khat. (link)

By the far the greatest risk with cannabis and ecstasy is arrest.

I read the article, but it did not detail how the rankings were derrived. I suspect the longterm health effects were factored in heavily, as drugs like MDMA (XTC) have far greater effect on perception and the ability for people to make sound judgements than tobacco.

It's true that a study in England and Whales from 1996-2002 resulted in only 202 deaths from MDMA - but that's still 200 hundred young people dead. And like alcohol, young people on MDMA engage in risky behavior that they would likely not otherwise engage in, such unprotected sex, etc.

And even though Alcohol can be a very distructive drug, I really don't see the logic in offering more drugs legally to the population as a solution to substance abuse.

 

[PsychMJC]

It's true that a study in England and Whales from 1996-2002 resulted in only 202 deaths from MDMA - but that's still 200 hundred young people dead. And like alcohol, young people on MDMA engage in risky behavior that they would likely not otherwise engage in, such unprotected sex, etc.

Young people engage in risky behavior no matter what. If you stuck a hundred teens in a room with pillows sooner or later someone would get hurt. What young people do and what adults are allowed to do are two entirely different things. We know this because we already regulate substances and activities by age. We don't take away the right from the entire population because a small number are unable to engage in the activity safely.

 

[allhart]

I don't see how people think, its normal to alter their state of conscience or to alter their state of mind to be happy? In the form of drug use. I think its sick behavior to shoot up heroin to only turn around throw up and pass out. They call that fun? I don't think so!

 

[tcampen]

Young people engage in risky behavior no matter what. If you stuck a hundred teens in a room with pillows sooner or later someone would get hurt. What young people do and what adults are allowed to do are two entirely different things. We know this because we already regulate substances and activities by age. We don't take away the right from the entire population because a small number are unable to engage in the activity safely.

But if you put a hundred teens in a room with loaded guns, sooner or later more kids would get hurt and much worse.

First of all, my point is why add fuel to the fire by introduction more drugs to a society having enough trouble with the ones we got?

Second, what "safe" use of herion, crack and methamphetamine are you referring to? Not all drugs are illegal. Red Bull is not illegal. Tylenol PM is not illegal. Cough syrup in not illegal. MDMA is not benign and is not harmless. (I would agree that government has taken a fairly harsh stance on cannibis, however.)

Now, I am in many ways a civil libertarian. But I do not see people having an inalienable right to ingest whatever they want. It isn't that simple.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I read the article, but it did not detail how the rankings were derrived. I suspect the longterm health effects were factored in heavily, as drugs like MDMA (XTC) have far greater effect on perception and the ability for people to make sound judgements than tobacco.

It's true that a study in England and Whales from 1996-2002 resulted in only 202 deaths from MDMA - but that's still 200 hundred young people dead. And like alcohol, young people on MDMA engage in risky behavior that they would likely not otherwise engage in, such unprotected sex, etc.

And even though Alcohol can be a very distructive drug, I really don't see the logic in offering more drugs legally to the population as a solution to substance abuse.

If these drugs were extremely difficult to get hold of already, I would at least see more substance in the prohibitionist stance. As it is, many if not most people are able to get hold of a lot of illegal substances with relative ease. It's not so much a case of offering drugs to people they can't already get, it's a case of not criminalising them, regulating the drugs to make them safer and taxing them to help pay for healthcare for the minority of drug users who become addicted or seriously harmed.

I'll agree that people are likely to engage in more risky behaviour whilst on drugs, but by and large people don't lose their faculties altogether. Incidentally, most people don't have the desire for sex whilst on MDMA. Men who do would also generally need viagra as well.

 

[HollandScotts]

I don't see how people think, its normal to alter their state of conscience or to alter their state of mind to be happy? In the form of drug use. I think its sick behavior to shoot up heroin to only turn around throw up and pass out. They call that fun? I don't think so!

I agree, shooting up sucks. But who are we to put someone is prison because they like needles?

First of all, my point is why add fuel to the fire by introduction more drugs to a society having enough trouble with the ones we got?

They're already here. It's not hard getting ahold of illegal drugs. Legalize em, and you can make them safer. Production standards and such. You can also regulate with some success who can get those drugs.

Now, I am in many ways a civil libertarian. But I do not see people having an inalienable right to ingest whatever they want. It isn't that simple.

Why not, it's my body? I dictate that you can't eat meat. How would you like it if I did that.

 

[BananaSlug]

What ever happened to personal responsibility? I don't care how cannabis makes you a "safer" driver, it is irresponsible to use any intoxicating substance while in a vehicle. If you are out driving while high and you get in a wreck, even if the person who hit you is truly at fault (ran a stop sign, etc) it would be YOUR fault for being intoxicated. That kind of stupidity does not help the cause.

I admit, I use it every now and then but I am within my own home and I never go out driving around (though I love walking through the forest). I also realize that I have more important things to do so sometimes it can be several months between uses. It's called responsibility and it's something that few parents teach their children. That's why we have teenagers who die in accidents from driving while drunk, that's why we have college students who die from alcohol poisoning, that's why we have 16 year olds getting pregnant, because parents fail to teach them RESPONSIBILITY.

Today's economy is like it is because people wanted to live beyond their means. Should we ban capitalism since children are living on the street because their parents couldn't manage money? Should we ban all fast food because of the obesity/stroke/heart disease/cancer/etc that comes from eating foods high in fat/chemicals/etc? Let's go ahead and make driving illegal, just look at all of the deaths that occur each year! There are a lot of things out there that hurt people a lot more that we do every day.

Many hallucinogens are NOT fun to do. They often taste terrible, cause vomiting (which is viewed by many cultures as cleansing, not bad), and can scare the jeebus out of you. People who use these plants (Ayahuasca, Peyote, Psilocybe, Cohoba, Epena, Iboga, HBWR. etc) view them as spiritual medicine NOT as a way to get "high."

Remember prohibition? Alcohol caused a lot more problems from being illegal than from being legal...

 

[HollandScotts]

I admit, I use it every now and then but I am within my own home and I never go out driving around (though I love walking through the forest). I also realize that I have more important things to do so sometimes it can be several months between uses. It's called responsibility and it's something that few parents teach their children. That's why we have teenagers who die in accidents from driving while drunk, that's why we have college students who die from alcohol poisoning, that's why we have 16 year olds getting pregnant, because parents fail to teach them RESPONSIBILITY.

Smoking and driving and drinking and driving aren't even on the same realm of comparrison.

 

[trunks2k]

Many hallucinogens are NOT fun to do. They often taste terrible, cause vomiting (which is viewed by many cultures as cleansing, not bad), and can scare the jeebus out of you. People who use these plants (Ayahuasca, Peyote, Psilocybe, Cohoba, Epena, Iboga, HBWR. etc) view them as spiritual medicine NOT as a way to get "high."

Iboga sounds like an interesting drug. I've seen some a couple shows on TV where the person takes Iboga. One of them being "Going Tribal" on the Discovery Channel. Their description of it was fascinating. The guy on the show said it was an amazing, frightening, and life altering experience. He described hallucinating about all the people he's ever hurt in his life, amongst other stuff that he's not allowed to talk about due to an agreement with the tribe he was staying with. Supposedly it's a pretty effect means of getting people to get off of addictions to drugs like heroin.

Disclosure: I'm not a drug user. I drink socially, use tobacco in some form occasionally during the summer (primarily in the form of a hookah), and have only smoked pot once which didn't do anything for me.

 

[lilakuh]

Other than medical reasons (which several places have already legalized it for), noboby has provided a good reason why someone should use it...

And here I though we are living in a free country, where there should be a good reason for making something illegal, rather than having me provide a reason why it should be legal.

By your logic, one could ask why, for example, coffee (containing caffeine!) should be legal. After all, no one has provided a good reason why it should be! Right? How about chocolate - can you provide me with a good reason why it should be legal?

 

[lilakuh]

If I were ever to have a hearth attack, I wouldn't want to have to wait for the doctor to see me because he was tending to the cocaine addict who destroyed his heart taking an illegal substance.

I don't quite get your line of reasoning. Have you ever checked how many people are hospitalized for overdosing on alcohol - either directly, or being hurt in an accident caused by alcohol intoxication? How many people inconvenience you at the doctor's because they are being treated for illnesses resulting from smoking tobacco? The only logical conclusion would be that you want to make drinking and smoking tobacco illegal too, yet you advise me to buy booze at a gas station rather than lighting up a joint.

Your point of saying that cannabis, heroin etc. are different because they are illegal is kind of moot in a thread where we discuss whether they should be illegal in the first place.

Also, you really need to show me a doctor where a patient with an acute heart attack has to wait because a cocaine addict is given preferential treatment. I wouldn't want to think that you are just spilling platitudes here.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And here I though we are living in a free country, where there should be a good reason for making something illegal, rather than having me provide a reason why it should be legal.

By your logic, one could ask why, for example, coffee (containing caffeine!) should be legal. After all, no one has provided a good reason why it should be! Right? How about chocolate - can you provide me with a good reason why it should be legal?

Hmm let me see - can one function better after a latte and a candy bar - or after shooting some heroin and smoking a joint?

Im going to go with door number 1 on that one and enjoy the latte and give the candy bar to my child.

 

[trunks2k]

Hmm let me see - can one function better after a latte and a candy bar - or after shooting some heroin and smoking a joint?

So where do we draw the line? Caffeine becomes detrimental if you become addicted to it, and it is chemically addictive. Drink too much caffeine and then the lack of it will cause headaches and fatigue not to mention higher blood pressure, etc. With something like, pot, you don't get that addiction.

Plus, if I'm going to be smoking pot, I'm probably not really worried about functioning at 100%.

 

[lilakuh]

Hmm let me see - can one function better after a latte and a candy bar - or after shooting some heroin and smoking a joint?

Im going to go with door number 1 on that one and enjoy the latte and give the candy bar to my child.

I don't see how this is an argument for chocolate or coffee. Rather, you seem to be making an argument against heroin and cannabis.

I was replying to the poster that thought it is a valid point to require arguments for why something should be legal, rather than having to provide reasoning why something should be illegal.

Edited to add: If you judge legality of a substance by whether you can function better by using it, or whether you can give it to your child, then alcohol and tobacco should definitely be illegal. Is that your position?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I don't see how this is an argument for chocolate or coffee. Rather, you seem to be making an argument against heroin and cannabis.

I was replying to the poster that thought it is a valid point to require arguments for why something should be legal, rather than having to provide reasoning why something should be illegal.

Edited to add: If you judge legality of a substance by whether you can function better by using it, or whether you can give it to your child, then alcohol and tobacco should definitely be illegal. Is that your position?

I didnt say anything about functioning better - I said functioning period.

When one is stoned they arent functioning properly. It is illegal now to drink and drive - youll lose your job if you drink and work etc.. but no it wouldnt bother me one bit if alcohol was illegal.

 

[lilakuh]

I didnt say anything about functioning better - I said functioning period.

When one is stoned they arent functioning properly. It is illegal now to drink and drive - youll lose your job if you drink and work etc.. but no it wouldnt bother me one bit if alcohol was illegal.

Well, you did say "Hmm let me see - can one function better after a latte and a candy bar - or after shooting some heroin and smoking a joint?"

Sounds to me that you are indeed talking about functioning better. Maybe I misunderstood, and you were saying that you need a latte and a candy bar to function at all, "period". That would be kind of sad though.

Nevertheless, do you mind addressing the original question? What is your argument for chocolate and coffee, and your argument for them being legal?

No one is arguing against the illegality of drinking and driving, or drinking on the job, by the way. Those regulations make sense, and you're creating a strawman by pushing that argument.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Well, you did say "Hmm let me see - can one function better after a latte and a candy bar - or after shooting some heroin and smoking a joint?"

Sounds to me that you are indeed talking about functioning better. Maybe I misunderstood, and you were saying that you need a latte and a candy bar to function at all, "period". That would be kind of sad though.

Nevertheless, do you mind addressing the original question? What is your argument for chocolate and coffee, and your argument for them being legal?

No one is arguing against the illegality of drinking and driving, or drinking on the job, by the way. Those regulations make sense, and you're creating a strawman by pushing that argument.

No it was about a contrast between the two not overall. In other words can you function more easily if you have ingested caffine or if you have used heroin?

My question had nothing to do with being able to function on caffiene vs not having any.

The ability to function period WAS my argument - you can function using one but not the other.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I didnt say anything about functioning better - I said functioning period.

When one is stoned they arent functioning properly.

What exactly do you mean, and where exactly do you get your information from? Do you speak out of personal experience, or do you have studies/articles that you reference?

I mean, I've done an awful lot of research on this topic, and I would like to point out that cannabis use physically cannot lead to overdose, since it has never been attained in humans and since one would need to smoke something to the effect of 1,500 lbs of cannabis in 15 minutes (estimated). Also, cannabis use doesn't lead to brain damage, and not only is there no link between cannabis use and cancer, but people who smoke both cannabis and tobacco get less cancer than people who only smoke tobacco! And it seems, cannabis can reduce lung tumor growth. (Which doesn't even make sense to me, I'll admit, but that does seems to be the case.) Also, they might be using compounds from cannabis to treat cancer!

So far as intoxicating substances go, cannabis does not seem to be a very harmful one. I think that it should be legal for adults to use it, and I agree with the SAFER campaign that it makes sense to treat cannabis like we (should) treat alcohol: as a fun occasional pass time for consenting adults.

And, of course, medical cannabis should be legally available to those who need it.

It is illegal now to drink and drive - youll lose your job if you drink and work etc..

As well it should be. Someone who is drunk on the job is probably not doing their job very well, and someone who is drunk and driving is a risk to others on (or near) the road. But someone responsible who drinks after work, on the weekends, or every once in a while, in a private home, really isn't a risk to others and isn't effecting their job performance.

Likewise, someone who uses cannabis in the privacy of their own home can also be a responsible person, in my opinion. I don't see any reason for punishing otherwise law abiding citizens as an obviously failed tactic to "prevent drug use".

but no it wouldnt bother me one bit if alcohol was illegal.

I seem to remember someone trying this, and it failing miserably. Oh yes! They called it Prohibition and it happened in the USA from 1920 to 1933. And it not only didn't succeed in getting rid of alcohol, it made alcohol more dangerous (since no one regulated what went into it) and gave all of the profit to organized crime.

Personally, I feel that, because prohibition of drugs doesn't seem to work, the US should try another tactic. Obviously, there are still addicts, there are still homeless junkies, and there are still minors that are all able to attain their drugs of choice. Illegal drugs are available almost everywhere, even in jails and schools. I really don't see the point in the US Government continually trying the same things when it comes to recreational drugs, and yet expecting it to work this time. I really think that the US as a whole needs to re-evaluate their ideas about recreational drugs and recreational drug users.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What exactly do you mean, and where exactly do you get your information from? Do you speak out of personal experience, or do you have studies/articles that you reference?

I mean, I've done an awful lot of research on this topic, and I would like to point out that cannabis use physically cannot lead to overdose,<snip> .

Sweetie I said heroin mostly and also no one can function as clearly after smoking a joint then they could before - the rest is what you have attributed to me that i never even said so i snipped it because its not relevant - at no point did i say anything about overdose what can happen etc.. .