PDA

View Full Version : Time to run the gamut: Drugs.


mercatfat
01-10-2003, 09:28 PM
Seeing Wakky_Baccy's avatar, I knew I had to make this topic. It had to happen eventually.

Drugs. Should they be legalized or not? If so, completely legal or legal in doses? Should only certain drugs be legalized? Type.

I'll type a defense later, I've typed too much already for the moment.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 12:44 PM
Well I don't think they should, except for certain life or death medical situations. But is it true that places that have legalized drugs have less problems with them? Becuase teens do drugs to be cool or rebellious so if its made legal, they wouldn't be doing anything wrong and maybe the drug problem would lower. What do you think?

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 01:26 PM
I highly doubt that legalizing drugs would improve the situation. Alcohol is illegal and there are a LOT of people killed every year by drunk drivers....and tobacco is legal and people die all the time from lung cancer they got from cigarettes. People do drugs not to rebel, but because they enjoy it. I personally think Marijuana should be legal perhaps, but nothing harder than marijuana.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 01:28 PM
I think that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes only but not legalized for everything. I know people who have gone down the drain from smokin it and if it was made legal... well it would make their day.

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 01:50 PM
But look at how many peoples lives have been completely ruined by alcohol. And while one cigarette is not as harmful to the lungs as one marijuana cigarette, people smoke packs upon packs of cigarettes a day, and people smoke maybe 7 marijuana cigarettes a day if they're pretty big pot-heads.

I think if it's legal to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol smoking pot might as well be legal too. If the government regulated marijuana then they could levy a tax against it similar to those on cigarettes, and that would make more money so they could pay for the debt they've caused with the war on drugs. Plus, people have shown that marijuana is a gateway drug...but maybe that's because we've treated marijuana like it's every bit as bad as heroin. So people smoke pot, like it, and find out that they're not completely f***** up.....so since everyone was wrong about marijuana they were probably wrong about all the other drugs.

Just so you know, i do not drink, smoke, or do drugs.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 02:01 PM
Yes I agree with everything you said about alchohol and thats not what I'm arguing about but since cigs are legal thats why people smoke so many of them because they wouldn't get in trouble with the law. Cigs should be made illegal to because of all the horrible things they put in them (rat poison, fiber glass etc.) It is no different with mary jane because if you buy it off the street they lace them with everything imaginable.

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 02:07 PM
Which is why the government should regulate marijuana like they regulate cigarettes....government marijuana would be completely pure, making it more potent than street marijuana so it would actually get smoked less often.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 02:11 PM
But people would still want the street marijuana because of the things that are laced into it sometimes give people a "longer" or "better" high. And the US could never regulate marijuana becasue of how many people grow it at home, how much of it comes over the border and on cargo ships.

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 02:55 PM
personaly i am against drugs.... i do not think they should be legalized
many people smoke pot thats probably not one of the most harmfull drugs out there, but i dont think it should be legal ,pot isent a direct danger against yourself but it is to the people around you (i think of pot kinda like alchohal), drugs like kokain, heroin etc. should NEVER be legalized they are not just a extremely big danger to yourself but also to others

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But people would still want the street marijuana because of the things that are laced into it sometimes give people a "longer" or "better" high. And the US could never regulate marijuana becasue of how many people grow it at home, how much of it comes over the border and on cargo ships.
No, the things laced into marijuana simply increase the amount of marijuana they have but it's dilluted and not as potent. Plus if marijuana were legal then people wouldn't be selling it on the streets because the market would be gone. It would also be cheaper to purchase marijuana from 7-11 than any drug dealer.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 07:13 PM
Yea I guess but the US gov won't ever sell it because the "effects" it causes could make people become violent and commit crimes while their high or just swerve and hit someone. Cigs don't do this. And yes alchohol does this to and I think that the US gov should keep an closer eye on tha tproblem since it would take millions of dollars out of the market if they made alchohol illegal.

Bob Gnarly
01-11-2003, 07:20 PM
well its funny you say that because in canada they just legalized small amounts of marijuana, and i was gonna start a thread like this but i dont really mind if people do drugs but they shouldnt go out in public while there on them or anywhere near people.

ET Warrior
01-11-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Yea I guess but the US gov won't ever sell it because the "effects" it causes could make people become violent and commit crimes while their high or just swerve and hit someone. Cigs don't do this. And yes alchohol does this to and I think that the US gov should keep an closer eye on tha tproblem since it would take millions of dollars out of the market if they made alchohol illegal.

I've never seen anyone high on pot that gets violent. It calms them more than excites them. And people who drive while high are actually drivers than people drunk because while their reactions aren't as good as sober people, they're very very cautious because they don't want to get caught, and they still have enough control over their mind that they realize that they are driving impaired.

griff38
01-11-2003, 08:49 PM
I don't think western culture will fail or falter if most illegal substances were made available to adults.

If you are over 21 and have not experimented with illegal drugs, you won't start if it becomes legal.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by griff38
If you are over 21 and have not experimented with illegal drugs, you won't start if it becomes legal.

If I am over 21 and I have never had a cig or drank alchohol am I never gonna try one or drink some?

ET Warrior
01-12-2003, 01:31 PM
Well I'm not gonna start drinking when i'm over 21....and i'm NEVER going to smoke tobacco........

Reborn Outcast
01-12-2003, 01:33 PM
Neither will I but thats just 2 out of millions and billions of people who havn't and will do that.

ET Warrior
01-12-2003, 01:40 PM
But most people who will drink and smoke after they've achieved legal age have been doing it for years before it was legal for them.

Reborn Outcast
01-12-2003, 02:14 PM
Thats only partially true. If I go out to celebrate or to a party one day after I'm 21 and I try beer or a cig, then most likely i'll get hooked if I drink 2 bottles and smoke only 1 cig.

munik
01-20-2003, 02:04 PM
While it would be nice if drugs were legalized, it's probaly not gonna happen for a long time, if ever. Drugs have been "bad" for so long, that regardless of the facts, people will always believe they are bad. Also, there are so many anti-drug institutions now that it would be damn criminal to legalize drugs. What happens to the DEA, and other such orginizations? There would be thousands of unemployed families. Countless dollars have been put toward the "War on Drugs", and now the government would reverse its stance on the situation? Very doubtful.

But oh, wouldn't it be nice if they were legal? To smoke a joint with some friends after work, and not have to worry about losing your job. To take some amphetimines so you can pull that all nighter to study, and still be fresh for the test in the morning? To enjoy a nature day trip, with a little tripping of your own?

The positive effects greatly outweigh the negative.

Breton
01-20-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by munik
Drugs have been "bad" for so long, that regardless of the facts, people will always believe they are bad.

Regardless the facts?? The facts are that drugs kill you. You may try to debate this to all eternity, but it won't become less true. And who here will not agree that all that kill you is bad? Drugs aren't "bad", they're BAD!

But oh, wouldn't it be nice if they were legal? To smoke a joint with some friends after work, and not have to worry about losing your job. To take some amphetimines so you can pull that all nighter to study, and still be fresh for the test in the morning? To enjoy a nature day trip, with a little tripping of your own?

Please, please, tell me you are kidding!

Reborn Outcast
01-20-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by munik
But oh, wouldn't it be nice if they were legal? To smoke a joint with some friends after work, and not have to worry about losing your job. To take some amphetimines so you can pull that all nighter to study, and still be fresh for the test in the morning? To enjoy a nature day trip, with a little tripping of your own?

The positive effects greatly outweigh the negative.

Oh yea and to accidentally put to much acid on your skin and die within seconds or minutes. SOUNDS GREAT!!!... Tell me you're not serious.

munik
01-20-2003, 05:28 PM
No, I'm not kidding. I guess we just have different tastes.

Lots of things will kill you, that doesn't make them bad. And not all drugs will kill you, legal or illegal. Many Schedule II and III drugs can kill you if used improperly, just as some Schedule I drugs can kill you if used improperly.

Instead of education by "Just Say No", there could be more education about using drugs, such as dose limits, effects, quality, etc. Maybe there would be less dying from drugs.

munik
01-20-2003, 05:31 PM
Acid will not kill you. Good point on why we could use more education for drugs, and not against.

Reborn Outcast
01-20-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by munik
Instead of education by "Just Say No", there could be more education about using drugs, such as dose limits, effects, quality, etc. Maybe there would be less dying from drugs.

No because people will get hooked and their body will end un having a dependence on the drug which will cause them to use more and more per day and eventually they will die.

munik
01-20-2003, 05:37 PM
Reborn Outcast, that is not entirely true. Yes, it can happen, but that doesn't mean it will. People do not automatically become addicted to narcotics. Yes it can happen, because they are physically addictive, but that doesn't mean it will.

There are more legal narcotics then illegal ones. So by your reasoning, everyone who has taken legal narcotics are addicted, and will soon die because of them.

So, how does adding a handful of illegal narcotics into the dumptruck full of legal ones change anything?

Reborn Outcast
01-20-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by munik
Acid will not kill you. Good point on why we could use more education for drugs, and not against.

This is one funny comment. Why do you think that only a tiny drop of acid is used and pressed aginst the skin. BECAUSE MORE THAN THAT WILL KILL YOU. Acid goes straight to your blood stream. I can prove this because my health teacher, whom I learned this from, has studied the effects of drugs for over 15 years AND has had experience with people dying from overdose on acid.

munik
01-20-2003, 05:44 PM
I don't believe what your health teacher says. Sounds more like scare tactics then anything else. I myself have taken anywhere between 5-10 drops of acid at a time, and am still here to type this out. Now, I admit that quality and quantity vary per hit, but I doubt that one drop could be so pure that two of the same dose would kill you. Because acid doesn't kill people. Maybe with an extremely large dose, you could go into some psychotic episode, but acid itself will never kill you.

Breton
01-20-2003, 05:45 PM
Munik, are you trying to deny the fact that drugs harm you (and eventually kills you)? WHY do you want people to be educated into using drugs, instead of educated into not using them? To be honest, you sounds like you want people to use drugs.

Ok, a few drugs already are legalized, but that is no reason to make it worse!

But oh, wouldn't it be nice if they were legal? To smoke a joint with some friends after work, and not have to worry about losing your job. To take some amphetimines so you can pull that all nighter to study, and still be fresh for the test in the morning? To enjoy a nature day trip, with a little tripping of your own?

And BTW, who would be crazy enough to ruin their life like that? Have you any idea what drugs do to people?

munik
01-20-2003, 06:08 PM
I whole heartedly believe that people should try drugs sometime in their life. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying the use of mind altering drugs.

There are more then a few drugs legalized now. There are hundreds and hundreds of drugs that legal now. Hence the common sight of drug stores.

Illegal drugs are not bad, they are just illegal. Those two words are not synonymous. People ruin their lifes on their own accord, it is not because of drugs. You are assigning the blame to something other then the person.

ET Warrior
01-20-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by munik
Reborn Outcast, that is not entirely true. Yes, it can happen, but that doesn't mean it will. People do not automatically become addicted to narcotics. Yes it can happen, because they are physically addictive, but that doesn't mean it will.

There are more legal narcotics then illegal ones. So by your reasoning, everyone who has taken legal narcotics are addicted, and will soon die because of them.

So, how does adding a handful of illegal narcotics into the dumptruck full of legal ones change anything?

Yes, we have legal narcotics....but you can't just go and buy them. You have to have a legitimate medical reason with a doctors prescription to get them, and the doses that doctors put you on are designed to prevent addiction. Even then, people abuse legal narcotics and end up addicted to them......i work in a doctors office, i've seen it.

ET Warrior
01-20-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by munik
Lots of things will kill you, that doesn't make them bad.

Ummmm.......what is something that will kill me the way that drugs will...that ISNT bad?

munik
01-20-2003, 06:30 PM
Some drugs will kill you if you take them in excess.

Too much Sunlight will kill you.
Heat will kill you in excess.
Water will kill you in excess.
Mis-use of Power Tools can kill you.
Irresponsible use of Motor Vehicles can kill you.

Those are just some things off the top of my head. Those things are not bad. Now replace the bold words with the word Drugs. Those sentences are still true. Now, with proper use, drugs will not kill you.


ET Warrior, what you said about narcotics is the same thing I said.

ET Warrior
01-20-2003, 08:48 PM
Use of Drugs is bad for your health. PERIOD. Not overuse, even just small amounts of drugs will cause harm, eventually leading to death. And then of course just using extremely small amounts of drugs will eventually stop getting you high because your body developes a resistance to it.

Reborn Outcast
01-20-2003, 08:52 PM
Yes, exactly ET Warrior!!!

munik, your body will soon develop a tolerance or resistance to the drug and you will need more and more to get your high which will lead to death.

munik
01-20-2003, 11:17 PM
What drug exactly are you talking about?

You're making broad, sweeping generalizations that might only apply to one or two drugs.

ET and Reborn, do you two work for the D.A.R.E. program? 'Cause those are some of the lamest, most untrue scare tactics I have heard since school.

Cite me some examples of drugs that cause irreversable health problems from moderate use. Then cite some examples of drugs that directly cause death from moderate use. Oh, and after you've compiled that list of nothing, maybe you could tell me again that drugs are bad.

C'jais
01-21-2003, 06:05 AM
As Munik said, anything in excess will be bad for you. Too much vitamin is harmful. Too much excercise is bad for you. Too much drug abuse is bad for you.

Now, alcohol is a narcotic and the same goes for nicotine. Smoking a joint is no more bad than smoking a cigarette. And the cigarette will get you addicted at least 20 times faster. In fact, I read somewhere that heroin is actually less adictive than the people's favoured drug - nicotine.

Humans have used drugs for as long as we can recall. It's always been accepted, except the last 200 years. Queen Victoria reportedly liked to smoke a joint now and then. It's been discovered Jesus "cured" people with cannabis. The reason hashis was outlawed and cast into social stigma is due to the fact that you grow hemp from the plants. Nylon was competing with hemp as a clothing material, and sadly, hemp lost the battle.

Now I'm not trying to blatantly troll here, but I truly do believe if people got a healthier relationship with drugs, they could actually learn to take them responsibly. A lot of the misuse and misunderstanding comes from a need to rebel and do naughty, illegal stuff. Not healthy, and will only lead to self-destruction regardless of it consisting of wild car races, binge drinking, drug abuse or extreme excercising. Out of those, drugs happen to be the least understood if them all.

Reborn Outcast
01-21-2003, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by munik
Cite me some examples of drugs that cause irreversable health problems from moderate use. Then cite some examples of drugs that directly cause death from moderate use.

Cocaine can cuase death after 1 use... I have to go to school now so I'll post more later.

C'jais
01-21-2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cocaine can cuase death after 1 use... I have to go to school now so I'll post more later.

So can eating fried chicken, driving your car and strolling for a walk.

In very rare cases, if applied completely incorrectly, if taken in extreme excess - yes.

Breton
01-21-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by munik

Illegal drugs are not bad, they are just illegal. Those two words are not synonymous.

If you would just take some time to get some medical knowledge about drugs, then you would not make ridicoulus statements about "drugs aren't dangerous" and such stuff. This is a fact: Drugs are poison. I couldn't care less if you belive me or not, but it is true still.

What drug exactly are you talking about?

He doesn't talk about one specific drug, he is talking about all drugs.

And BTW, please tell me where you have gotten your false informations about drugs aren't bad for you. Because I kind of belive it is just a product of your own imagination.

Cite me some examples of drugs that cause irreversable health problems from moderate use. Then cite some examples of drugs that directly cause death from moderate use. Oh, and after you've compiled that list of nothing, maybe you could tell me again that drugs are bad.

http://www.rusdir.no/fakta_om/narkotika/

And you should also read this:
http://www.narcotics.ru/text/argument2.htm

ET Warrior
01-21-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Now, alcohol is a narcotic and the same goes for nicotine. Smoking a joint is no more bad than smoking a cigarette. And the cigarette will get you addicted at least 20 times faster. In fact, I read somewhere that heroin is actually less adictive than the people's favoured drug - nicotine.


For the Record, i am very much against smoking AND drinking. Especially smoking.

And recent studies have shown that marijuana may have a higher instance of causing cancer than tobacco...

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/cancer/06/21/marijuana.lung.cancer/index.html)

And in there it mentions that marijuana deposits four times as much tar in the respiratory tract as tobacco.

munik
01-21-2003, 01:20 PM
My information about "drugs not being bad" is my opinion. I give some examples from my personal experience to reinforce this. I try and explain my opinion as well. I assumed that this discussion allowed opinions, correct me if I am wrong.

JM Qui-Gon Jinn, I checked your links, and the first I could not read, as I am only fluent in English, and the second link said nothing pertaining to my question. Unless I missed something, maybe you could point me to the relevant part instead of an entire page.

Now Qui-Gon, I must admit that it's hard to alter someones ideas to the opposite, especially with such a straight-edger such as yourself. But the difference between good and bad is such a personal thing. Apperently, our definitions of "bad" are much different.

Now, here's a scenario for you. What if dextromethorphan, the main ingredient in cough suppressants, was illegal? The public would lose the only effective cough suppressant available without a prescription. All other drugs that suppress coughing are either outright illegal, or prescription only. Now, dextromethorphan will get you higher then a kite, and induce some strange dissociative trips, which in large doses could possibly lead to psychosis. So, in effect, a drug that can be used for recreational purposes also has a legitimate medicinal property. Now, what are the alternatives to this drug that are illegal now? Opiates, and and other dissociative anesthetics. These drugs have recreational uses, but are either Schedule I or II drugs. So why is one legal, and the others not? There are other drugs that are illegal, but also alleviate symptoms similiar to their legal counter parts. What's the difference? Why is the illegal one bad, and the legal one not?

Are all drugs bad, regardless of legal status, as you purport Qui-Gon? Or is there in fact a grey area, a place where everything isn't so clear cut, a place where those who offer different ideas then yours aren't brow beaten for it?

Breton
01-21-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by munik

and the second link said nothing pertaining to my question. Unless I missed something, maybe you could point me to the relevant part instead of an entire page.


Here are some things that was in that site:

"The most serious injuries, deaths by poisoning and addiction leading to suicide, illness and accidents, are a consequence of the drugs themselves not of their prohibition. See the answer to Question 3. To this one can add psychological damage and illness, genetic damage, damage to the immune and reproductive systems, personality changes, damage to internal organs, etc., none of which have anything whatsoever to do with any possible impurities.
All of this is documented in the scientific literature and in medical practice the world over."

"∑ Hasch and marijuana are narcotics. The concept 'soft' is not recognized either in the field of medicine or in international legislation. Since 1961 cannabis has been included in the UN's Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, according to which all non-medicinal use of the listed substances is banned. The convention has been ratified by 148 countries. At governmental level it is only Holland and Switzerland which are exerting pressure on the UN to relax its regulations.
∑ The mere fact that hasch causes a different type of intoxication than, for example, alcohol, heroin or amphetamines, does not mean that it is less harmful but rather harmful in a different way. Cannabis affects primarily the psyche and not the body. This is particularly devastating for young people. The natural pubertal maturing process is arrested , so that 25-30-year-olds who regularly smoke hasch behave like teenagers when it comes to such things as taking responsibility for their own future, coping with their studies, punctuality, working or being a parent themselves. However, just as there are precociously mature 14-year-olds, there are also hasch smokers who appear to function tolerably well in society. There are also alcoholics who go to work every day and chain-smokers who live to a ripe old age. The problem with hasch is nevertheless that the abuser's mental powers are continuously worsening. He or she becomes quite simply more stupid than before. No one is immune to this effect.
∑ Smoking hasch also damages, among other things, the heart and lungs, the immune defence system, foetal development and reproductive health.
∑ A dramatic condition which affects a small percentage of smokers is hasch psychosis - a highly distressing total confusion and distortion of reality. A large proportion of those who suffer an acute psychosis of this type never recover.
∑ The intoxicating substance in cannabis, THC, is fat soluble rather than water soluble like other drugs and therefore remains in the body much longer. You only have to smoke once every other week always to have traces of this poison in the body.
∑ Like all narcotics, hasch is addictive, and can easily, if not inevitably, lead to other kinds of abuse.
∑ 7-10% of all those who seek help for narcotics problems in Holland and Germany report problems with hasch.
In Germany, over half of all those who seek help for their hasch addiction are also excess consumers of alcohol. Over 60% of them take heroin and 40% cocaine.
∑ Hasch smokers can behave very violently both towards themselves and others. A study of 658 narcotics-related deaths in Stockholm 1986-1993 revealed that 52 of the deceased had no other narcotic than hasch in the body. The manner of death was noticeably dramatic in this group: murder, suicide (in several cases by jumping from a height while in a state of confusion), and traffic accidents. It has been proved that several murders have been committed while under the influence of hasch."

"∑ Narcotics-related deaths have very little to do with what the user knows about the strength of the drug. The most common cause of death among drug addicts is acute poisoning, often called an overdose, by heroin, which has a strong inhibitive effect on respiration. But in only half or a third of all heroin overdoses is this one drug alone found in the blood of the deceased.
The heroin has often been taken in combination with both alcohol and tablets of known content, which have contributed to the poisoning.
When seven drug addicts died in quick succession in Stockholm in the autumn of 1993, the deaths were first believed to have been caused by unusually high-strength heroin. However, forensic chemical investigations showed that the deceased had low levels of the drug in the body. The unexpectedly serious effect of the drug was rather caused by infections, reduced general state of health and lower tolerance after a period of abstinence.
Other common causes of death among drug addicts, such as murder, suicide and accidents, are of course not affected by the purity of the drugs but rather their effects.
∑ Apart from acute deaths, addiction is the most serious health hazard associated with narcotics, and addiction arises equally from legal and illegal drugs.
∑ The argument that certain minor infections - abscesses and boils - can be avoided with pure drugs and clean needles is presumably correct. However, where HIV is concerned, Sweden can demonstrate that it is possible to reduce the spread of infection without providing abusers with pharmaceutically manufactured narcotics or free needles and syringes.
∑ The most common narcotic substance in Sweden and in the world generally, cannabis, is already a pure, natural product. It is rather the consumer who, by mixing the hasch or marijuana with tobacco, affects its purity and strength."

"This is why narcotics are banned

We turn the arguments round and summarize why narcotics are banned.

∑ Narcotics cause deaths
∑ Narcotics are addictive
∑ Narcotics cause mental and physical damage
∑ Narcotics lead to social passivity
∑ Narcotics generate violence and other types of criminality
∑ Narcotics harm children and young people
∑ Narcotics affect the addict's immediate surroundings
∑ Narcotics pose a serious danger in traffic and in working life
∑ Narcotics enslave, repress and demean the individual
∑ Narcotics can be fought"


Now, here's a scenario for you. What if dextromethorphan, the main ingredient in cough suppressants, was illegal? The public would lose the only effective cough suppressant available without a prescription.

But I really don't see why people can't get a prescription. If they cough really badly, then they should.

Now, what are the alternatives to this drug that are illegal now? Opiates, and and other dissociative anesthetics. These drugs have recreational uses, but are either Schedule I or II drugs. So why is one legal, and the others not? There are other drugs that are illegal, but also alleviate symptoms similiar to their legal counter parts. What's the difference? Why is the illegal one bad, and the legal one not?

I would never take medicine that I know might kill me. And there is nearly always another much safer medicine. There is no reason for making the harmful drugs legal, it would cause more harm than good.

Are all drugs bad, regardless of legal status, as you purport Qui-Gon? Or is there in fact a grey area, a place where everything isn't so clear cut, a place where those who offer different ideas then yours aren't brow beaten for it?

All free usage of drugs is bad, IMO. There is certain drugs that might help you, and still aren't too dangerous in controlled doses, but these should only be given by prescription. But remember that it can still be abused, unfortunatly.

munik
01-21-2003, 04:52 PM
That article claims marijuana to be a narcotic, which I disagree with. Marijuana is the main topic of it, with claims of equal proportions to the propoganda of the early 20th century in the U.S. "Reefer Madness" and the like were all instituted to make marijuana illegal in the U.S., not because any of it was actually true. It was just used as a political tool, just as wars are used as a political tool.

The other claim was with heroin, and that taking too much will cause respiratory failure. Yep, that's true. So don't OD. All the other incidental facts can be attributed to the individual, not to the drug the individual takes. There are great leaps of logic in the entire article, and that can be attributed to the article's attempt not to show the facts, but to twist the facts towards one ultimate opinion.


People can't always get a prescription for medicine because people don't always have money falling out of their asses. If you need a prescription cough suppressant, first you must visit and pay the doctors fee, $40-$50. Then take that prescription slip to a pharmacist and pay maybe $20, maybe more. So, in total, about $60 spent and maybe 2-4 hours of time spent. Or, you could go to any store that supplies OTC drugs, pay $4 for a bottle of Robotussin, and spend maybe 10 minutes total. That's the big difference. There are many other prescription drugs that would be better off as OTC drugs, just as long as those who purchased them were informed of the correct uses.


Not all drugs will kill you. Not all drugs have a "safer" alternative. Sometimes, the thing that can kill you is the thing that you take the drug for in the first place. It just happens to kill you at a high dose.

So you don't like drugs, and opt to stay pure of any substance. But the distinction of what can and cannot be consumed into your body is a decision only you make. You may shun the man who ingests illegal narcotics because you believe he puts bad things in his body, and the same man may shun you for ingesting iodine laced salts and flouride flavored water. It's all a matter of perspective, and what you believe is right. But, in the U.S., what is believed to be right is forced upon you in the form of drug laws. Laws against drugs that in the worst case scenario can only harm the user. So, who cares if someone hurts himself? There are many self destructive things that can be found, why take drugs away from everyone else because of that?

Breton
01-21-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by munik
That article claims marijuana to be a narcotic, which I disagree with. Marijuana is the main topic of it, with claims of equal proportions to the propoganda of the early 20th century in the U.S. "Reefer Madness" and the like were all instituted to make marijuana illegal in the U.S., not because any of it was actually true. It was just used as a political tool, just as wars are used as a political tool.


If marijuana is a narcotic or not, is not a matter of opinions. It's just the same as discussing whether 2+2=4 or not. The definition of drugs includes things like marijuana, not because some people thinks it's fun to call marijuana a narcotic, but because of the effects it has on your body.

The statements on that site is proven. They aren't there because some people thinks it is true, it is there because people who have researched on the subject knows it is true.

The other claim was with heroin, and that taking too much will cause respiratory failure. Yep, that's true. So don't OD. All the other incidental facts can be attributed to the individual, not to the drug the individual takes.

"When seven drug addicts died in quick succession in Stockholm in the autumn of 1993, the deaths were first believed to have been caused by unusually high-strength heroin. However, forensic chemical investigations showed that the deceased had low levels of the drug in the body. The unexpectedly serious effect of the drug was rather caused by infections, reduced general state of health and lower tolerance after a period of abstinence.
Other common causes of death among drug addicts, such as murder, suicide and accidents, are of course not affected by the purity of the drugs but rather their effects."

There are great leaps of logic in the entire article, and that can be attributed to the article's attempt not to show the facts, but to twist the facts towards one ultimate opinion.

That is, IMO, nonsense. Please quote these "great leaps of logic".

Have you seen many doctors running around trying to legalize drugs lately? Thought not. This is because they know about all the damages narcotics do to your body. I tell you, it's poison.

People can't always get a prescription for medicine because people don't always have money falling out of their asses. If you need a prescription cough suppressant, first you must visit and pay the doctors fee, $40-$50. Then take that prescription slip to a pharmacist and pay maybe $20, maybe more. So, in total, about $60 spent and maybe 2-4 hours of time spent. Or, you could go to any store that supplies OTC drugs, pay $4 for a bottle of Robotussin, and spend maybe 10 minutes total. That's the big difference. There are many other prescription drugs that would be better off as OTC drugs, just as long as those who purchased them were informed of the correct uses.

If the medicine is very important, then you won't need to pay for it. And I am one of those who belive paying $60 is better than to risk your life. Because that is precicely what you are doing when using drugs: risking your life.

Not all drugs will kill you.

If you use them regulary, all drugs will permanently damage your body, and eventually kill you.

So you don't like drugs, and opt to stay pure of any substance. But the distinction of what can and cannot be consumed into your body is a decision only you make. You may shun the man who ingests illegal narcotics because you believe he puts bad things in his body, and the same man may shun you for ingesting iodine laced salts and flouride flavored water. It's all a matter of perspective, and what you believe is right. But, in the U.S., what is believed to be right is forced upon you in the form of drug laws. Laws against drugs that in the worst case scenario can only harm the user. So, who cares if someone hurts himself? There are many self destructive things that can be found, why take drugs away from everyone else because of that?

You want to know why I hate that people are comitting suicide with drugs? I care. About other people. If 100 000 people die of hunger in Africa, that's really horrible IMO. So let's not let everyone kill themselves here at home, alright?

But the distinction of what can and cannot be consumed into your body is a decision only you make.

No. That is not your choice, but the choice of your body. If people enjoy stabbing themselves in the stomach with a knife, it will seriously damage your body (so will drugs). The reason we feel pain, is to make sure no one will walk around stabbing themselves. Using drugs is just the same as walking around stabbing yourself, except you don't feel pain.

Reborn Outcast
01-21-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by munik
Cite me some examples of drugs that cause irreversable health problems from moderate use. Then cite some examples of drugs that directly cause death from moderate use. Oh, and after you've compiled that list of nothing, maybe you could tell me again that drugs are bad.

Ok here we go...

HEALTH PROBLEMS FROM MODERATE USE:

Alcohol = Scars on liver tissue causing liver to be less functional, liver, heart, brain, AND ALL OTHER ORGANS IN YOUR BODY can get cancer/permenant damage. ADDICTION WHICH IS A DISEASE!!!.

Cigs and chewing tobacco (if you consider them a drug)= Lung cancer/damage, Cancer of the mouth, emphysima. ADDICTION WHICH IS A DISEASE!!!

Hallucinogins (all of them) = Learning impaired, brain damage... there are about 20 of these. and once again... ADDICTION WHICH IS A DISEASE. (both physical and mental)

Stimulants (all of them) = Brain damage, irregular heartbeat... and about 20 more things. ADDICTION WHICH IS A DISEASE. (both physically and mentally.)

Depressants (all of them) = Brain damage... and about 10 more. ADDICTION WHICH IS A DISEASE. (physically and mentally)

COCAINE AND ACID IN :MODERATE USE
COCAINE: An alkaloid extracted from the coca leaf, cocaine is a powerful stimulant. Acting directly on the limbic system, the brain's "pleasure center," cocaine creates a short-lived, but intense, state of euphoria and hyperactivity, followed by depression and anxiety. Imprinted on memory cells, the intense stimulation causes the brain to crave another euphoria jolt.
Cocaine causes the release of dopamine and adrenaline in the brain, unleashing impulsive and aggressive behavior. Any continuous use of cocaine can produce paranoia, hallucinations, violence and self destructiveness. Like any stimulant, cocaine may initially increase sexual energy and desire. However, studies show heavy use causes disinterest and impotence.

In addicts, cocaine craving can override family instincts of protection and affection, leading to child abuse and neglect. Cocaine constricts blood vessels, decreasing the blood flow to the brain. Computerized PET scans reveal that decreased blood flow persists 10 days after cocaine use is stopped. Tests show cocaine use also accelerates the heart beat, raises blood pressure and has resulted in heart attacks or stroke after only one small dose.

Other problems associated with cocaine use can include damage to the lungs and nerve system, as well as the human immune system.
Taken from This website (http://www.state.ok.us/~obndd/obncoke.html)

ACID (L.S.D.):L.S.D. is the shortened name for Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. Like other hallucinogenic drugs, L.S.D. causes profound alterations in sensation, mood, and consciousness that may involve the senses of hearing, touching, smelling or tasting. L.S.D. induces a state of excitation of the central nervous system, manifested by alterations of mood, usually a euphoria. However, the mood change may be marked by a deep depression.

Hallucinogens such as L.S.D. cause distortions of time and space. The user may report "seeing" sound, or "hearing" colors; occasionally the depression and/or depersonalization may be so pronounced that suicide becomes a danger. However, generally speaking, the greatest danger to the L.S.D. user is impaired judgment, which may lead to rash decision and accidents.

L.S.D. is produced in clandestine laboratories from lysergic acid, which in turn is derived either from the ergot fungus which grows on rye or from lysergic acid amide, a chemical found in morning glory seeds. It was first synthesized in 1938, but abuse reached a peak in the 1960ís. The popularity of L.S.D. diminished considerably in the 1970ís but Drug Agents report a resurgence of the drugís abuse.

Sometimes found in a liquid form, tiny drops of the drug can be put on aspirin or other tablets or pills, or dissolved onto sugar cubes. The most common form of the drug in Oklahoma is on "blotter paper" which means tiny amounts of the drug are absorbed onto squares of paper about the size of a finger nail. These may be blank, or they may have pictures ranging form cartoon characters, to eye balls, sperms, eight balls, angels, etc. Postage stamps or lick-and-stick tattoos may also be impregnated with L.S.D. although this is very uncommon.

While the duration of the acid "trip" varies greatly, large doses can sustain a user for eight to twelve hours. No withdrawal symptoms have been observed, however, overdose can lead to convulsion, coma and death. Also, many users who have been off the drug for several years report having hallucinogenic "flashbacks".[/B][/COLOR] Many long-term problems from L.S.D. use are still unknown.

Info from this site. (http://www.state.ok.us/~obndd/obnlsd.html)

This is from my own knowledge...

Acid latches onto fat cells in your body that are not broken down until 5 years later (at max 20). When the fat that the acid is latched onto finally gets broken down, the acid is used and people get "flashbacks" from that acid. You see, if you don't die, ONE USE of Acid can effect you 5-20 YEARS LATER.

Reborn Outcast
01-21-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Smoking a joint is no more bad than smoking a cigarette.

Ah so do you not know what are in cigs? Cigs have in them (to name a few) fiber glass, rat poison, ammonia, and licorice and cocoa, (which sound innocent, except when you burn them they act as bronchodilators -- which makes you inhale more smoke so the nicotine gets further into your body),. Those are just to name a few... so yea smoking a joint is just as safe as a cig... which is dangerous. Have fun!!!

Originally posted by munik
What if dextromethorphan, the main ingredient in cough suppressants, was illegal? The public would lose the only effective cough suppressant available without a prescription. All other drugs that suppress coughing are either outright illegal, or prescription only. Now, dextromethorphan will get you higher then a kite, and induce some strange dissociative trips, which in large doses could possibly lead to psychosis.

And did you also know that when you get high as a kite from that you've OVERDOSED on the medicine? The reason these are legal and the others are not is because if you took the same amount on the back of the bottle of the illegal drug as you did the medicine, you would get tripped or something by the illegal drug but not by the legal one.







BTW sorry for the double post.

ET Warrior
01-21-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by munik
People can't always get a prescription for medicine because people don't always have money falling out of their asses. If you need a prescription cough suppressant, first you must visit and pay the doctors fee, $40-$50. Then take that prescription slip to a pharmacist and pay maybe $20, maybe more. So, in total, about $60 spent and maybe 2-4 hours of time spent. Or, you could go to any store that supplies OTC drugs, pay $4 for a bottle of Robotussin, and spend maybe 10 minutes total. That's the big difference. There are many other prescription drugs that would be better off as OTC drugs, just as long as those who purchased them were informed of the correct uses.

Hmmm......well if you have medical insurance, the doctors fee should be covered....if you DONT have medical insurance you'd best pray that you never have a serious medical problem because you will never be able to afford treatment.

munik
01-21-2003, 10:09 PM
First, medical insurance isn't free. I gave the cheaper of the two. If all you need is one prescription drug a few times a year, it would be cheaper to pay out of pocket. Being that you work in a doctors office, I would assume that you would know $60 is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of dollars that medical insurance costs.

The leaps of logic are there in the oft quoted material. Seven junkies die from a small doses of heroin because they were physically sick and there bodies weren't able to handle the heroin. Seven people who were sick already died after taking heroin. Hardly relevant, and one of the leaps of logic. The other is that the common deaths of those who use heroin are murder, suicide and accidents. That can be the common cause of death for any class of people. In no way does the article present a direct link between heroin and those types of deaths. There are facts there, but they are twisted, and other facts are omitted. That is why I do not post links to opinion articles, facts or no facts, to support my opinion. Because the facts can be twisted any way you want them to be.

Ok, our discussion seems to be spiraling out of control into a "no it's not!-yes it is!" argument. Let me tell you what drugs I think should be legalized. I believe that marijuana, LSD, MDMA, and other psychotropic drugs should be legalized. I do not believe that ALL opiates, just some of them, should be legalized. Give us opium, keep herion, and leave codeine and morphine where they are. Give us some dissociatives, like ketamine, and maybe PCP, but only with thorough education.

I see no harm in drugs that make you "trip", mentally. Some have negative side effects, but not most. And these drugs could not only be used at low doses for recreation, but at larger doses for introspective exploration. I can tell by your teetotaler replies that you have never experienced the opening of your third eye, to be able to see through and beyond normal social constructs. To look deep inside your own mind is like looking inside the mind of God. It's something that is quite hard to explain, and something I encourage you to try. Then, you can still keep your beliefs about drugs, but now you know what it's like. Now you would have your own experience to draw upon in a discussion, instead of linking to someone elses ideas.

I encourage everyone to try some drugs at least once, just as I would encourage someone to ride a roller coaster that I enjoyed, or eat a meal that I enjoyed. If it's a pleasurable experience for me, why not share it with everyone?

ET Warrior
01-22-2003, 12:00 AM
Ah, but most people have medical insurance not just for having a bad cough and needing cough suppresant. They already have it because almost everyone has medical insurance, as it's something of a necissary evil....especially for people with children.

Breton
01-24-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by munik

I see no harm in drugs that make you "trip", mentally. Some have negative side effects, but not most.


Well, they:

-Makes you dumber/slower

-Makes you act more like a child

-Damages your lungs

-Physically damages your body in other ways

-Mentally damages you, permanently

I encourage everyone to try some drugs at least once, just as I would encourage someone to ride a roller coaster that I enjoyed, or eat a meal that I enjoyed. If it's a pleasurable experience for me, why not share it with everyone?

Because drugs very often leads to early death, personal disaster, ruined life and so on. A good meal or a roller coaster won't do that. If you don't belive me, just view some statistics for people who has used any drug for serveral years.