Regulation of Drugs

[Aaron]

Highly likely to have been discussed previously however I've been thinking about the nature of drug society and more specifically about how, realistically, the government both condones the consumption of and takes tax from things like cigarette and alchohol sale. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs for the fact that, due to them being produced, sold and distributed illegally there is no way to know what's been added along the way; two lines of cocaine is realisically a half a line plus a buttload of caster sugar and other lovelies. My point is, if recreational drugs were legalised, and their production and distribution regulated like cigarettes et al, society would be a better place. Organised crime would be lower as there'd be less cost in the purchase of drugs, violence would be less and drug dealers and producers would have to find meaningful employment... Discuss.

[siva_chair]

Highly likely to have been discussed previously however I've been thinking about the nature of drug society and more specifically about how, realistically, the government both condones the consumption of and takes tax from things like cigarette and alchohol sale. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs for the fact that, due to them being produced, sold and distributed illegally there is no way to know what's been added along the way; two lines of cocaine is realisically a half a line plus a buttload of caster sugar and other lovelies. My point is, if recreational drugs were legalised, and their production and distribution regulated like cigarettes et al, society would be a better place. Organised crime would be lower as there'd be less cost in the purchase of drugs, violence would be less and drug dealers and producers would have to find meaningful employment... Discuss.

I tend to agree.

Though, I can certainly see how some drugs would still be problematic and have a overall negative impact on society. Like heroin, for instance. A junkie is a junkie regardless of whether the state says it's ok.

[Against Miik!]

Yeah basically the drug war is a failure and will never work. So I see no other option than legalization and regulation.

Basically, we have two options. In both cases, the same amount of people are out there doing drugs, but in one case, their is an opportunity for a heavy cash flow for the government. In the other case, like the one right now, there is a heavy loss of money and resources.

[Aaron]

I should make the distinction;
grass, extacsy, cocaine = recreational.
heroin, meth = does not.

[Against Miik!]

Well those definitions mean nothing they are just things that have been shoved into our brains over time, like heroin equals the grand daddy of all things bad for you.

I'm not saying its good for you, obviously, but it is neither as addictive as tobacco nor as life ruining as alcohol.

[Aaron]

Yeah that's true. But I'm looking at those being used in a recreational context.

[siva_chair]

Well those definitions mean nothing they are just things that have been shoved into our brains over time, like heroin equals the grand daddy of all things bad for you.

I'm not saying its good for you, obviously, but it is neither as addictive as tobacco nor as life ruining as alcohol.

I'd say heroin is far worse than tobacco or alcohol.

[Against Miik!]

http://health.propeller.com/story/2007/02/21/top-18-most-addictive-drugs-on-earth/
(click "view story")

Well this is just one site I pulled up and is obviously not the authority, but is at least one viewpoint. I consider a drugs true danger to be in its addictive properties. Thats where all the problems come from. Little known fact, A LOT of people who try heroin do not become addicting, whereas most tobacco users do.

Beyond that, look at all the deaths contributed to cigarette smoking every year, and then look at the number of heroin related deaths. One will be slightly higher than the other, to say the least.

So maybe heroin can mess you up quicker in the short term, but I think possibility of addiction, and likelihood of this drug killing you are two pretty good indicators of its danger. In both those cases, alcohol and tobacco are worse than heroin.

I my logical fallacy, in that there are far more cigarette smokers and drinkers than there are heroin users, so of course there will be more, deaths, but my points still stand.

I'm sorry this isnt even the point of this thread.

[siva_chair]

http://health.propeller.com/story/2007/02/21/top-18-most-addictive-drugs-on-earth/
(click "view story")

Well this is just one site I pulled up and is obviously not the authority, but is at least one viewpoint. I consider a drugs true danger to be in its addictive properties. Thats where all the problems come from. Little known fact, A LOT of people who try heroin do not become addicting, whereas most tobacco users do.

Beyond that, look at all the deaths contributed to cigarette smoking every year, and then look at the number of heroin related deaths. One will be slightly higher than the other, to say the least.

So maybe heroin can mess you up quicker in the short term, but I think possibility of addiction, and likelihood of this drug killing you are two pretty good indicators of its danger. In both those cases, alcohol and tobacco are worse than heroin.

I my logical fallacy, in that there are far more cigarette smokers and drinkers than there are heroin users, so of course there will be more, deaths, but my points still stand.

I'm sorry this isnt even the point of this thread.

The social repurcussions of heroin are far worse than that of smoking, tbh. It is far easier to overdose on heroin, not to mention those that are addicted to heroin tend to become social cripples whereas most smokers are usually fully functional and generally productive members of society.

Look at the state of Harlem and the heroin epidemic of the 60's-70's that took place there for a good example of what I am talking about. I've never seen cigarette smoking cause that kind of generally destructive environment to come to be.

I'd also venture to say that a higher percentage of frequent heroin users are more likely to die of their addiction than smokers and drinkers. In other words, a higher percentage of junkies are probably going to die from their drug of choice than heavy smokers and serious alcoholics.

[Aaron]

Ahem, thread concept, *cough*

[Otherside]

ahem, you will never get laced weed unless someone has it out for you

[Light Fantastic]

we should legalise and tax them all and have retail outlets for them like we have for any other consumer item

[Against Miik!]

The social repurcussions of heroin are far worse than that of smoking, tbh. It is far easier to overdose on heroin, not to mention those that are addicted to heroin tend to become social cripples whereas most smokers are usually fully functional and generally productive members of society.

Look at the state of Harlem and the heroin epidemic of the 60's-70's that took place there for a good example of what I am talking about. I've never seen cigarette smoking cause that kind of generally destructive environment to come to be.

I'd also venture to say that a higher percentage of frequent heroin users are more likely to die of their addiction than smokers and drinkers. In other words, a higher percentage of junkies are probably going to die from their drug of choice than heavy smokers and serious alcoholics.

Its just different. We've been socialized to see cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol as normal things. Maybe not so much with cigarettes, at all, but alcohol is a crazy crazy drug, and if it was something you injected or snorted, people would be in awe of how it is still legal. Very few other drugs change your perception of reality as much as alcohol. I mean, obviously there are hallucinogens, but except for the very strongest of them, no other drug completely completely makes you lose grasp of what is going on around you.

But again, we are used to it. The reason it doesn't cause as many problems as heroin or other drugs is because its legal. There is no crime connected to it, no black market, none of that. Its a tired example, but look what happened with prohibition. I have a feeling the same thing would happen with other drugs. Take the crime part out of it, and you get rid of a lot of the issues associate with it.

And its not like if you legalize something like heroin you will suddenly have a major influx in the number of users. I mean, I highly doubt the only thing stopping everybody from dabbling in heroin is the fact that it is illegal.

[totah]

I tend to agree.

Though, I can certainly see how some drugs would still be problematic and have a overall negative impact on society. Like heroin, for instance. A junkie is a junkie regardless of whether the state says it's ok.

Well, nicotine, alcohol and valium junkies these days aren't as bad (aesthetically-speaking) as smack and crack junkies. I guess though that the difference there is that smack and crack junkies tend to be poorer and dark-skinneder, whereas white people get all the classy prescription addictions.

But my actual opinion is: Nobody has a right to tell me what to put into my body, ever, as long as I don't physically hurt or endanger those around me. So whether I'm smoking crack on the couch or shrooms in the park, it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to anybody what I do with my body.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think more should be done to help addicts as opposed to punish them, but for the most part, I don't think they should legalize most drugs. The line between using those drugs "responsibly" and letting your life spiral out of control is so fine that I really don't think it should be any easier to get access to them.

In my opinion the penalties for dealing should be harsh, but possession without intent to distribute (the first time, anyway) should be a fine and a ticket to rehab. I don't believe in ruining people's lives because they got busted with smack once.

[GreyHam]

career dealers tend not to lace their stuff with anything dangerous

its bad for business if your customers are all dying with gravy clogged in their veins. they dont usually come back and give you more money that way

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

It depends on their chance of a resale. If you meet them through a friend of a friend and seem like a potential regular they'll give you good stuff, but if you're buying from a career dealer on a street corner downtown you better believe he's lacing it with rat poison to save a buck.

(sources: my stoner friends and a bunch of ghetto kids who come to my pool all the time. they could be lying i guess)

[mph4ever]

Highly likely to have been discussed previously however I've been thinking about the nature of drug society and more specifically about how, realistically, the government both condones the consumption of and takes tax from things like cigarette and alchohol sale. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs for the fact that, due to them being produced, sold and distributed illegally there is no way to know what's been added along the way; two lines of cocaine is realisically a half a line plus a buttload of caster sugar and other lovelies. My point is, if recreational drugs were legalised, and their production and distribution regulated like cigarettes et al, society would be a better place. Organised crime would be lower as there'd be less cost in the purchase of drugs, violence would be less and drug dealers and producers would have to find meaningful employment... Discuss.

there is no such thing as a recreational drug, every one of them has a negative impact on your life or your body.

sure if you get something 100 % organic then it might not be as bad on your liver and kidneys etc but its still going to have some negative effect on your brain or life.

at the same time, it should not be up to the governments to pick and choose what they make taxes from to suit themselves when, for example, half the toilets in the house of commons had traces of cocaine on the backs of them

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

there is no such thing as a recreational drug, every one of them has a negative impact on your life or your body.


Certain drugs used infrequently in small or moderate amounts don't have a significant impact your health. This is what makes them recreational. Someon who smokes a small joint every 6 months is clearly recreational, and is probably not increasing their risk of disease any more than someone who eats a little bit too much or enjoys sunbathing.

The same can't be said of, say crystal meth, but to deny that any drug can be considered "recreational" is to say nobody can stop themself after one beer.

[Against Miik!]

I honestly don't think drugs, even the stronger ones, are inherently life ruining. There is always something else going on the persons life that causes them to use drugs as a crutch, and eventually get them addicted. I can't say for certain when it comes to drugs like meth and heroin, but it is very possible for people to use things like cocaine, ecstasy, and various painkillers without ruining their lives.

Targeting drugs in this way is not fixing the problem, tbh. Its like trying to kill a bear by punching it in the face.

[GreyHam]

i dont think anyone can really say that controlled substances have health benefits. the distinction has to come between what drugs can be used recreationally (infrequently or without regularity, doesnt majorly affect everyday life) and those that cant. anything that takes away an individuals control over themselves can have serious negative effects (the stereotype being a heroin addict turning to crime to fund their habit)

i think schools need to have a major overhaul on drug education. when i was in secondary it was pitiful at best. there may be something immoral about telling a kid that weed isnt going to turn them into a kurt cobain esque ****up overnight, but thats the truth of it. teenagers should be informed about what effect drugs have, and the effects they will have on their bodies, behaviour, and attitudes. then they can make the decisions for themselves, with proper education and a deal of common sense

i know very few people who havent tried a bit of spliff, and a lot who still like a cheeky toke every now and then. a few of my mates like to go to DnB nights after dropping an E - the only side effect being the hangover from hell the next day. these things dont liquify peoples innards, but imho people need to have an informed opinion, and it needs to be done at a set standard nationwide

[Against Miik!]

i dont think anyone can really say that controlled substances have health benefits. the distinction has to come between what drugs can be used recreationally (infrequently or without regularity, doesnt majorly affect everyday life) and those that cant. anything that takes away an individuals control over themselves can have serious negative effects (the stereotype being a heroin addict turning to crime to fund their habit)

i think schools need to have a major overhaul on drug education. when i was in secondary it was pitiful at best. there may be something immoral about telling a kid that weed isnt going to turn them into a kurt cobain esque ****up overnight, but thats the truth of it. teenagers should be informed about what effect drugs have, and the effects they will have on their bodies, behaviour, and attitudes. then they can make the decisions for themselves, with proper education and a deal of common sense

i know very few people who havent tried a bit of spliff, and a lot who still like a cheeky toke every now and then. a few of my mates like to go to DnB nights after dropping an E - the only side effect being the hangover from hell the next day. these things dont liquify peoples innards, but imho people need to have an informed opinion, and it needs to be done at a set standard nationwide

Actually I think you said it very well. Kids don't need to be taught that all drugs will ruin their lives the first time they do them and such. They need to be taught facts.

Yes, the truth of the matter is this, drugs like marijuana and ecstasy do not have a high occurrence of physical addiction. They just don't.

But could schools really do this? Of course not. It's a liability issue. Say some kid gives one of these drugs a try because he heard from a health teacher that they aren't that addictive and all that. Could you imagine? Schools preach a zero tolerance policy for a reason, and that one and only reason is liability.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

Well those definitions mean nothing they are just things that have been shoved into our brains over time, like heroin equals the grand daddy of all things bad for you.

I'm not saying its good for you, obviously, but it is neither as addictive as tobacco nor as life ruining as alcohol.


Heroin grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go. I've had friends try it once and seen their lives turn to absolute ****.

tis bad stuff

[GreyHam]

i know thats the way it is, but it really shouldnt. schools are a place of learning, some things are facts, some things are opinions. english and philosophy are about opinion. science is about fact. an individuals feelings about drugs are unnecesery. the facts about them are.

addictive or not, drugs can be dangerous. but they are far more so to a misinformed person. some people die of dehydration from too much dancing when on E. some people have gone the complete other way, known this, and done nothing but drink. i remember hearing that one girl managed to drown by drinking too much water because she thought that would keep her nice and safe from the evil E (although im not sure wether thats even possible...in which case theres a misinformed horror story that went around our school)

people are responsible for their own actions. hearing about drugs from school wont make you do them. your own curiosity will be doing that. and people so inclined will more than likely dabble anyway. best to have the facts i reckons

[Against Miik!]

You do have a point there. Clearly, the way schools teach it now isn't working, as kids still try drugs. Like teaching about condom use instead of abstinence, it would be way safer to teach kids about things, like as you said dehydration when using E, instead of just saying don't do it will kill you.

Again though, its all about liability.

Heroin grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go. I've had friends try it once and seen their lives turn to absolute ****.

tis bad stuff

Yeah, I'm not saying that its not. But I think it can be argued that alcohol and tobacco, when combined, can be equally as dangerous.

Heroin can kill you at the same rate as alcohol. The majority of heroin overdoses occur when the user doesn't know what they are getting. They get a hold of something that is way stronger than it is supposed to be, so they use the same amount, unaware of this, and end up dead. There are functioning heroin users just as there are functioning alcoholics, but there are also people who let both take a hold of their lives.

I'm simply saying that anybody who argues that heavy narcotics are EXPONENTIALLY worse for you than alcohol are talking out of their ***.

[mph4ever]

Certain drugs used infrequently in small or moderate amounts don't have a significant impact your health. This is what makes them recreational. Someon who smokes a small joint every 6 months is clearly recreational, and is probably not increasing their risk of disease any more than someone who eats a little bit too much or enjoys sunbathing.

someone who smokes a small joint once very six months is not recreational, thats not even noticeable. every six months is not recreational. recreational is when you are free to do what you want. recreational drugs are used when peole are socialising, maybe once a week, maybe once a month, but there is some need there to take that drug, otherwise they would not take it. they either need it physically or mentally to help them during their recreational time.

The same can't be said of, say crystal meth, but to deny that any drug can be considered "recreational" is to say nobody can stop themself after one beer.
hashish, cocaine, alcohol, ecstacy are romanticised by applying words like recreational, legalisation, quality control, benefit to the government tax take, reduction in crime. they are addictive substances, some may fall into addiction, others may not, but with enough exposure and use, everyone will become addicted, dependent, either physically or mentally.

and for everybody. cocaine is the worst drug of all because it creeps up on you. its a social drug, a sex drug, its popular because it allows you to continue to function in public but then bang, and that sh'it has got you. stay clear of it, its worse than ecstacy, its worse than alcohol, its worse than hash, it is so addictive

on the heavier scale, there is no difference, in my mind, between a smack addict, a crack addict, a coke addict and an alcoholic. they are suffering the same dependency and carrying out the same abuse.

still love some of them though:naughty:

[Against Miik!]

Mental addiction is bullshit. I mean, it exists. But people have a mental addiction to fast food (hell, maybe even a physical one), and it hinders their lives just as much as some drugs.

So you can't say drugs are banned because the government is worried about the people. Junk food is the worst epidemic their is, the most widespread, certainly addictive, and it hurts people in a similar way drugs do.

Whats with that?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

someone who smokes a small joint once very six months is not recreational, thats not even noticeable. every six months is not recreational. recreational is when you are free to do what you want. recreational drugs are used when peole are socialising, maybe once a week, maybe once a month, but there is some need there to take that drug, otherwise they would not take it. they either need it physically or mentally to help them during their recreational time.

I disagree. Recreational means for fun; that can be anything from daily to once a year. It doesn't carry any insinuation that you need it, although you may indeed have a drug problem

hashish, cocaine, alcohol, ecstacy are romanticised by applying words like recreational, legalisation, quality control, benefit to the government tax take, reduction in crime. they are addictive substances, some may fall into addiction, others may not, but with enough exposure and use, everyone will become addicted, dependent, either physically or mentally.

That first part makes you sound like a paranoid conservative whacko. I agree with the second part, and I think that the whole issue of legalization essentially boils down to two things: whether or not the government can entrust the majority of its population to use addictive substances in such a manner that they will not become addicted, and whether or not addicted people affect the rest of society negatively enough for it to be grounds to make or keep a substance illegal.

and for everybody. cocaine is the worst drug of all because it creeps up on you. its a social drug, a sex drug, its popular because it allows you to continue to function in public but then bang, and that sh'it has got you. stay clear of it, its worse than ecstacy, its worse than alcohol, its worse than hash, it is so addictive

i lol'd that you're lecturing me about cocaine, but ok. fyi i've never tried anything heavier than weed and have no intention of ever doing so, legal or not.

on the heavier scale, there is no difference, in my mind, between a smack addict, a crack addict, a coke addict and an alcoholic. they are suffering the same dependency and carrying out the same abuse.

I see what you mean, but I would say that it depends more on the degree of addiction. A lot of people (I think it's estimated at up to 1 in 5 men?) have what's considered a "drinking problem" in that they need to knock a few back to unwind, but these people aren't in the same ballpark as alcoholics who need to put vodka in their cereal to get out of bed. Similarly, someone who takes a tab of speed a few times a year when they go to raves is definitely looking at health risks, but in all likelihood doesn't have much of a "drug problem" and is making a conscious decision to consume or not to.

Depending on the drug, it may or may not be possible to stay at this level of relatively harmless use; that's one of the main factors I think should be looked at. Even though you can live for many years using heroin regularly without too many short-term effects, the fact that it's almost impossible to cut back is why I think it should stay illegal. If it had the exact same long-term effects but you could shoot up ten times a month for a year and stop cold turkey I wouldn't be as opposed to it being legalized.

[mph4ever]

I disagree. Recreational means for fun; that can be anything from daily to once a year. It doesn't carry any insinuation that you need it, although you may indeed have a drug problem

ok, then for fun. when you want to have fun, some people its a couple of times a week, some peoples its weeks, months, etc. and sure it means you need it, why else do it, if you didn't need the hit.


That first part makes you sound like a paranoid conservative whacko.

not at all, the words i use are not those of a paranoid conservative. they are just the words of someone who knows drugs, who had and still does indulge, how the pushers and the dealers and certain sections of the media de-stygmatise drug abuse. don't get me wrong, i like my little hits, but i do think that people eyes are not wide open to what they are letting themselves in for. even if they understand the buzz that they get off it, that they can control it, they have little or no education in how to deal with the come down, the paranoia, the stress of it all. there is a big difference flushing amphetimine and cocaine or ecstacy out of your body compared with drinking three pints and having a p!ss. to get speed whizz out of your system usually takes two days and a dump.

I agree with the second part, and I think that the whole issue of legalization essentially boils down to two things: whether or not the government can entrust the majority of its population to use addictive substances in such a manner that they will not become addicted, and whether or not addicted people affect the rest of society negatively enough for it to be grounds to make or keep a substance illegal.

locks are put on doors to keep honest people out. at this stage in societies development i doubt if there is any safe level of drug legalisation. if they allowed the drug companies to create recreational drugs where quality, impact, duration and anti-drug were available then perhaps we could introduce controlled indulgence. the drugs on the streets today are meant for this, they are meant to ruin lives and make vast amounts of money out of peoples addictions.


i lol'd that you're lecturing me about cocaine, but ok. fyi i've never tried anything heavier than weed and have no intention of ever doing so, legal or not.

lol all you like, i spent 5 years addicted and still managed to drag myself out of it. i doubt there are many who can. i have seen people fall apart, i have also known people lose their relationships, their money, their lives. these were not down and out junkies, these were rich junkies, addicts with endless money, the worst type. i applaud your control. what are your reasons for abstaining?


I see what you mean, but I would say that it depends more on the degree of addiction. A lot of people (I think it's estimated at up to 1 in 5 men?) have what's considered a "drinking problem" in that they need to knock a few back to unwind, but these people aren't in the same ballpark as alcoholics who need to put vodka in their cereal to get out of bed. Similarly, someone who takes a tab of speed a few times a year when they go to raves is definitely looking at health risks, but in all likelihood doesn't have much of a "drug problem" and is making a conscious decision to consume or not to.

no such thing as degree of addiction, you either need or you don't

Depending on the drug, it may or may not be possible to stay at this level of relatively harmless use; that's one of the main factors I think should be looked at. Even though you can live for many years using heroin regularly without too many short-term effects, the fact that it's almost impossible to cut back is why I think it should stay illegal. If it had the exact same long-term effects but you could shoot up ten times a month for a year and stop cold turkey I wouldn't be as opposed to it being legalized.
back to the corporations making something that works. you can be sure the governments will legalise it as quick as possible, the tax take would be massive. thing is though, the liver and brain are highly sensitive organs and making something in the area of drugs that doesn't carry a serious health warning is a real challenge for them.

[thedeadwalk!]

Recreational Drug Use = Taking a substance for the purpose of achieving its effects for their own sake, that is, for pleasure, for the purpose of getting high.

But that's just coming from my Drugs in American Society textbook.

[Give me Beer]

ahem, you will never get laced weed unless someone has it out for you

Maybe not laced, but I know for a fact that some assholes put glass in weed to make it heavier, and it will f'ck up your lungs seriously. Which is why I don't like buying from people I do not know and trust.

[stevensonmat2]

These black fellas came to a hotel party I was at and rolled a blunt. Whatever was in it ****ed me up big time.

[mph4ever]

we have not got a clue what they are putting about. we had some in manhatten recently and it blew us away for 3 hours, the skunk is getting skunkier

[wartomods]

I dont usually take **** on addiction properties, because it is ****ing tricky, see for example how most of us are mildy addicted to this site...
but i believe new politics must be taken towards drugs, and maybe people arent prepared for them nowadays...
http://www.ashvattha.org/html/Salvia_divinorum_files/200px-StandardizedSalviaD.jpg

[:amaze:]

... it means you need it, why else do it, if you didn't need the hit.


you take a hit because you WANT to, not because you need to. there's no addiction (except maybe psychological, but that can happen with literally anything). i hate when people are like "oh you smoke pot, why do you NEED to smoke to have a good time?" and i'm all like "no screw you i don't need to, i have fun without being high all the time, but sometimes i just want to be high."




:amaze:

[mph4ever]

you take a hit because you WANT to, not because you need to. there's no addiction (except maybe psychological, but that can happen with literally anything). i hate when people are like "oh you smoke pot, why do you NEED to smoke to have a good time?" and i'm all like "no screw you i don't need to, i have fun without being high all the time, but sometimes i just want to be high."

:amaze:

i certainly did not suggest that you shouldn't need to smoke pot tohave a good time man.

dude, the reason you do it is to get high, right? you want to be high, right? at that point in time you need to be high. doesn't mean you are a junkie, but it does mean there is something you want to indulge in. its an out, its relaxing, it accentuates certain emotions, it feels good, its just like having a few beers to unwind, thats all.

and there is addiction, why do you think there are so many hash fiends and stoners all over the place? loads of people can take it in moderation, loads can take it or leave, loads get hooked immediately, loads get hooked over time. you might fall into the take it or leave it category of drug users.

[Volumnius Flush]

ahem, you will never get laced weed unless someone has it out for you

I was getting laced weed but that wasn't because they were out to get me. It was because the guy was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing and I was an idiot who knew it was tainted, and smoked it anyway.

I agree. Weed should be legal but hard drugs should not be. By hard I mean coke, smack, and crack. They are too dangerous and to disastrous for the environment and the individual to allow them to be legal.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

umm weed isn't addicting at all

[Volumnius Flush]

umm weed isn't addicting at all

My brain chemistry is completely different than most people's. You can't make this vague assertion that it isn't addictive when I know it is. I was to the point of breaking out in sweats and shaking accompanied by stomach pain after I hadn't smoked for 7 days.

[mph4ever]

umm weed isn't addicting at all


then i just can't explain the amount of people i know that act like they are addicted to weed, that stop for a day or two and get messed up because their system is reacting to its absence, how they are ok when they start again, mentally and physically

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

im not trying to be a dick but i don't believe you

stomach pain could have been something else too

[Volumnius Flush]

then i just can't explain the amount of people i know that act like they are addicted to weed, that stop for a day or two and get messed up because their system is reacting to its absence, how they are ok when they start again, mentally and physically

Exactly. It may not be as painful withdrawal as heroin or other hard drugs but it is definitely not any fun.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

then i just can't explain the amount of people i know that act like they are addicted to weed, that stop for a day or two and get messed up because their system is reacting to its absence, how they are ok when they start again, mentally and physically

or they could be on some other drug other than weed, because i've never heard of weed doing this, or hearing anything like this

[mph4ever]

im not trying to be a dick but i don't believe you

stomach pain could have been something else too

i'm sure you are not, i wouldn't expect you to, we are just shooting the breeze here. but i have seen what i have seen and talked to these guys and watched them and they show all the signs of dependency, which to me is an addiction

[Volumnius Flush]

im not trying to be a dick but i don't believe you

stomach pain could have been something else too

No, I was sweating and shaking. It took seven days for my body to start having those symptoms to. I went to my friend and said I desperately needed
some help. So we went and smoked and I felt soooooo much better.

or they could be on some other drug other than weed, because i've never heard of weed doing this, or hearing anything like this

and there's always the potential that the weed is laced with some hard drug and they have taken in such a great amount of this hard drug over time that when there is an absence, withdrawal comes into play.

i'm sure you are not, i wouldn't expect you to, we are just shooting the breeze here. but i have seen what i have seen and talked to these guys and watched them and they show all the signs of dependency, which to me is an addiction

There are weed dependencies. Not so much on the withdrawal but then you have tolerance which for some people becomes a great factor and in my case, tolerance never became a factor for me!

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

No, I was sweating and shaking. It took seven days for my body to start having those symptoms to. I went to my friend and said I desperately needed
some help. So we went and smoked and I felt soooooo much better.



and there's always the potential that the weed is laced with some hard drug and they have taken in such a great amount of this hard drug over time that when there is an absence, withdrawal comes into play.

You said this earlier

"I was getting laced weed but that wasn't because they were out to get me. It was because the guy was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing and I was an idiot who knew it was tainted, and smoked it anyway."

i think it speaks for itself

[Volumnius Flush]

You said this earlier

"I was getting laced weed but that wasn't because they were out to get me. It was because the guy was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing and I was an idiot who knew it was tainted, and smoked it anyway."

i think it speaks for itself

But you don't think I was having withdrawals from the tainted marijuana do you? I mean, what are the chances of that...

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

no, i was getting at you claiming to have withdrawal symptoms (shaking, sweating) and then saying that there is a risk that weed could be laced with something harder and more addictive (which when stopped would lead to a worse withdrawal than just smoking weed) and then you claimed that you smoked laced weed

putting 2 and 2 together

[Volumnius Flush]

no, i was getting at you claiming to have withdrawal symptoms (shaking, sweating) and then saying that there is a risk that weed could be laced with something harder and more addictive (which when stopped would lead to a worse withdrawal than just smoking weed) and then you claimed that you smoked laced weed

putting 2 and 2 together

Yeah. I had to quit. I had a series of experiences, including getting saved, getting caught by the police, and getting some wet, which culminated in me having to quit.

[:amaze:]

dude, the reason you do it is to get high, right? you want to be high, right? at that point in time you need to be high.

no, i don't ever NEED to be high. i WANT to get high. big difference.




:amaze:

[ringworm]

My point is, if recreational drugs were legalised, and their production and distribution regulated like cigarettes et al, society would be a better place.

i agree

i cant understand why at a time with a need for increased taxpayer money, legalization of minor drugs hasnt been pounced on by lawmakers

[Volumnius Flush]

i agree

i cant understand why at a time with a need for increased taxpayer money, legalization of minor drugs hasnt been pounced on by lawmakers

The sale of marijuana would bring in untold billions. Perhaps in the hundred of billions.

[Iceman-rocker]

i think something that hasnt been talked about much is the ratio of dependency on a drug due to the ease in getting a hold of it, costs, and legality.

even if the health issues of cocaine, weed, and other recreational drugs are considered low, or nonexistent now, if they were legalized, the health issues may be brought into the spotlight as they are analyzed more closely.

[mph4ever]

no, i don't ever NEED to be high. i WANT to get high. big difference.

:amaze:


ok, i suppose you know best. you don't ever NEED to get high, you just WANT to get high. big difference.


even if the health issues of cocaine, weed, and other recreational drugs are considered low, or nonexistent


there is no one in the medical world that will tell you the health issues of cocaine or other recreational drugs are low. no one. smoking weed raises the possbility of lung cancer.

don't get me wrong, i still enjoy the indulgence but its important that we do not trivialise the risks

[interviewer02]

no, i don't ever NEED to be high. i WANT to get high. big difference.




:amaze:

Actually, there is a pretty high percentage of people that say EXACTLY what you're saying that can't tell the difference between the two.

Yeah sure, you can live without it. Its not like food, water, or oxygen, three things in which you need to survive. But for many people they don't remember how to function well without weed, and that is a problem. When being high is almost like a second reality for you, that's when it starts to take over your life.

I'm not saying this is you, I'm just speaking in generalizations. I have a lot of friends that smoke weed way too much, and might not "need" it, but have a huge dependency of it that is sucking their life out.

But hey, you're hearing this from the person with the least addictive personality you'll probably ever meet. I've been smoking cigarettes for going on 8 years now, I started with probably about 5-10 cigarettes a week, now I do 1-5 cigarettes a week, or less, sometimes I go a month without a cigarette, just because I forget about them.

[mph4ever]

But hey, you're hearing this from the person with the least addictive personality you'll probably ever meet. I've been smoking cigarettes for going on 8 years now, I started with probably about 5-10 cigarettes a week, now I do 1-5 cigarettes a week, or less, sometimes I go a month without a cigarette, just because I forget about them.

snap, i can go without a ciggy for weeks and then walk into a pub or a party, have a drink in a social surrounding, smoke ten and end up giving the packet away when i am leaving because they will go stale by the time i need them again

[gregulus]

Where's ol' IrishSlapPop when you need him?

[:amaze:]

Where's ol' IrishSlapPop when you need him?

:lol: he got his account permabanned. got fed up with the bass forum, i believe.




:amaze:

[Volumnius Flush]

snap, i can go without a ciggy for weeks and then walk into a pub or a party, have a drink in a social surrounding, smoke ten and end up giving the packet away when i am leaving because they will go stale by the time i need them again

I was hooked after like my third cigarette ever. It is a far worse addiction than anything I have previously experienced.

[ringworm]

wouldnt the benefits of quality regulated drugs also be a pro?

less od's
maybe even less addicting (thats prob not possible?)

[Volumnius Flush]

wouldnt the benefits of quality regulated drugs also be a pro?

less od's
maybe even less addicting (thats prob not possible?)

Narcotics have a chemical composition that is conducive to the inducement of building tolerance.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

wouldnt the benefits of quality regulated drugs also be a pro?

less od's

There would only be less OD's if the number of users stays the same or barely increases. If all of a sudden people are going out and trying things for the first time because they picked it up at the pharmacy under the impression it was in any way "safe", the number of OD's would skyrocket.


maybe even less addicting (thats prob not possible?)

Probably depends on whether you're getting addicted to the drug itself or the things added to it. I think in most cases it's the drug that gets you hooked.

[1338 h4x0r]

Narcotics have a chemical composition that is conducive to the inducement of building tolerance.

Snob for: "Narcotics are conducive to (building) tolerance."

[Against Miik!]

the smart guy at that party for: dat **** gets you hooked?

[siva_chair]

Its just different. We've been socialized to see cigarette smoking and drinking alcohol as normal things. Maybe not so much with cigarettes, at all, but alcohol is a crazy crazy drug, and if it was something you injected or snorted, people would be in awe of how it is still legal. Very few other drugs change your perception of reality as much as alcohol. I mean, obviously there are hallucinogens, but except for the very strongest of them, no other drug completely completely makes you lose grasp of what is going on around you.

I'm not denying that alcohol can be very dangerous, but it certainly can be used in moderation (and therefore much more responsibly) much easier than heroin can. Besides, I was kind of alluding to the other problems that widespread heroin use can cause. Particularly the social impacts. It's pretty hard to get AIDs from drinking or smoking cigarettes, for example.

But again, we are used to it. The reason it doesn't cause as many problems as heroin or other drugs is because its legal. There is no crime connected to it, no black market, none of that. Its a tired example, but look what happened with prohibition. I have a feeling the same thing would happen with other drugs. Take the crime part out of it, and you get rid of a lot of the issues associate with it.

And I tend to agree with that line of thinking, but I do think there would be very negative consequences with widespread heroin use that stem from the nature of the drug itself.

For example, while people addicted to cigarettes (and even alcohol to a degree) can be very productive individuals, heroin junkies don't tend to be that way. For one, it is hard to do any sort of manual or mental labor while under the effects of heroin. Now, one could say the same thing about alcohol, but I don't think the addiction level and subsequent withdrawl effects are as devestating as they are with heroin.

And its not like if you legalize something like heroin you will suddenly have a major influx in the number of users. I mean, I highly doubt the only thing stopping everybody from dabbling in heroin is the fact that it is illegal.

Oh no doubt, but I think it must be acknowleged that there are many negative social effects not tied to the legality of some of these drugs. Many of these "heavier" drugs are very difficult, if not impossible to use responsibly, particularly once an addiction sets in.

Also, remember, I am for the legalization of drugs as well, but I thought it was important to point out that legalization won't eliminate all the problems. Education is probably the best bet.

[Volumnius Flush]

Snob for: "Narcotics are conducive to (building) tolerance."

Yeah I thought the language in that post was kind of strange too.

[mph4ever]

long post, sorry, but couldn't make all my points simply :confused:

i'm not against some drugs being legal. like i have been to amsterdam many times and smoked weed in cafes and on the street. and there is a responsible attitude to its sale and use on the streets. people do not get whacked out of it, they might get more stoned than they want to and i have helped people deal with being stoned when they haven't experienced it so much before. its almost like dealing with someone that had consumed too much alcohol except the effects wear off quicker. and that brings up a point.

beer is swallowed, it is processed in the stomach and uppper intestine, you can get very drunk in your sleep and not realise it since it takes a while to enter the blood stream. this is why you can start drinking at 8pm and still be drinking at 4am or later. depending on how you have prepared, like eating substantially etc then you can take beer in your stride. i've never even had a hangover, honestly. its ok for social environments. thing about alcohol is that it tends to dehydrate you and you can have high levels of bac for some time afterwards i.e. you might still be drunk the next morning!

weed is something where you get the hit in the first blunt if you like. it might last for a half hour or it might last for 2 hours but from the outset the hit is ever so slightly decreasing until you top up with another joint. mix it with beer and it is accentuated, even cigarettes are nicer with beer. but if you stop smoking and have not been drinking then you will be pretty much ok in a couple of hours. so it could be ok socially

coke is absorbed through the tiny blood vessels in the top of your nose. hit is instant and will last a max of 45 mins unless it is cut with dirt like speed. this is where some psychosis is possible since you will continue to want the hit off coke but the more you take then the more amphetamine you take and you end up in a vicious cycle getting more and more fu'cked up. quality might be improved by legalising it but in reality we can do nothing to end the craving once we are hooked. it takes rehab to get off that sh'it properly. also, its a chemical, straight into the blood stream, it clogs arteries, it causes palpitations, rapid heart beat, heart attacks, liver and kidney damage etc etc etc. i know alcohol does this also, but alcohol is much more "watered" down so your system has time to deal with it unless you go out a drink a 40oz of everclear in one go, i.e. you overdose on alcohol!

heroin is smoked or injected, straight in there, get wasted immediately and you have the social skills of a goldfish in a bowl with too little oxygen, slip and your dead. my mate died in a toilet in new york last november, hadn't touched the stuff for a year or more, celebrating his 28th birthday, got some stuff, bad stuff, made a mistake and died. nick, roadie for well known band, any of those guys will tell ya, stay the fu'ck clear of smack, crack, coke, whizz, crystal meth, they aint for public consumption. they are for people who want to get fu'cked up and more importantly, for people who don't give a fu'ck about you and want you hooked and want to make money out of ruining your life, its for dealers. government should not be dealers.

we have enough social disorder issues from alcohol, i have never heard of anyone killing someone from cigarettes, half the planet, if you haven't noticed, is getting wasted on prescription drugs (legalised forms of drugs we take illegally!!!), we do not need the harder forms of drugs legalised, genuinley. its better that its kept out of the maintstream.

its like there is an entrance exam.

you try, you don't like it then you don't try it again.

you try, you like, its difficult to get(for the vast majority - and don't think you represent the majority because you don't, the majority would have a spliff in a million years, all ages), you don't get it too often, you're ok

you try, you like it, you can control it and your fine,

or you try it, you like it, you can't control it and your fu'cked i.e. junkie.

[joshmay]

they should make acid and herb legal and make them free also.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

im just gonna say, we shouldnt ban any substances, we should just have a system of "do as you will", cause seriously, these days, anybody who does meth or crack or whatever deserves the dangerous side effects, what with all the warnings we have against said things from the day you set foot in public schooling

[Danger Bird]

drug dealers and producers would have to find meaningful employment
:lol:

im just gonna say, we shouldnt ban any substances, we should just have a system of "do as you will", cause seriously, these days, anybody who does meth or crack or whatever deserves the dangerous side effects, what with all the warnings we have against said things from the day you set foot in public schooling

because it's not like people on meth and crack will hurt anyone but themselves

[Sammy_L_D]

long post, sorry, but couldn't make all my points simply :confused:

i'm not against some drugs being legal. like i have been to amsterdam many times and smoked weed in cafes and on the street. and there is a responsible attitude to its sale and use on the streets. people do not get whacked out of it, they might get more stoned than they want to and i have helped people deal with being stoned when they haven't experienced it so much before. its almost like dealing with someone that had consumed too much alcohol except the effects wear off quicker. and that brings up a point.

beer is swallowed, it is processed in the stomach and uppper intestine, you can get very drunk in your sleep and not realise it since it takes a while to enter the blood stream. this is why you can start drinking at 8pm and still be drinking at 4am or later. depending on how you have prepared, like eating substantially etc then you can take beer in your stride. i've never even had a hangover, honestly. its ok for social environments. thing about alcohol is that it tends to dehydrate you and you can have high levels of bac for some time afterwards i.e. you might still be drunk the next morning!

weed is something where you get the hit in the first blunt if you like. it might last for a half hour or it might last for 2 hours but from the outset the hit is ever so slightly decreasing until you top up with another joint. mix it with beer and it is accentuated, even cigarettes are nicer with beer. but if you stop smoking and have not been drinking then you will be pretty much ok in a couple of hours. so it could be ok socially

coke is absorbed through the tiny blood vessels in the top of your nose. hit is instant and will last a max of 45 mins unless it is cut with dirt like speed. this is where some psychosis is possible since you will continue to want the hit off coke but the more you take then the more amphetamine you take and you end up in a vicious cycle getting more and more fu'cked up. quality might be improved by legalising it but in reality we can do nothing to end the craving once we are hooked. it takes rehab to get off that sh'it properly. also, its a chemical, straight into the blood stream, it clogs arteries, it causes palpitations, rapid heart beat, heart attacks, liver and kidney damage etc etc etc. i know alcohol does this also, but alcohol is much more "watered" down so your system has time to deal with it unless you go out a drink a 40oz of everclear in one go, i.e. you overdose on alcohol!

heroin is smoked or injected, straight in there, get wasted immediately and you have the social skills of a goldfish in a bowl with too little oxygen, slip and your dead. my mate died in a toilet in new york last november, hadn't touched the stuff for a year or more, celebrating his 28th birthday, got some stuff, bad stuff, made a mistake and died. nick, roadie for well known band, any of those guys will tell ya, stay the fu'ck clear of smack, crack, coke, whizz, crystal meth, they aint for public consumption. they are for people who want to get fu'cked up and more importantly, for people who don't give a fu'ck about you and want you hooked and want to make money out of ruining your life, its for dealers. government should not be dealers.

we have enough social disorder issues from alcohol, i have never heard of anyone killing someone from cigarettes, half the planet, if you haven't noticed, is getting wasted on prescription drugs (legalised forms of drugs we take illegally!!!), we do not need the harder forms of drugs legalised, genuinley. its better that its kept out of the maintstream.

its like there is an entrance exam.

you try, you don't like it then you don't try it again.

you try, you like, its difficult to get(for the vast majority - and don't think you represent the majority because you don't, the majority would have a spliff in a million years, all ages), you don't get it too often, you're ok

you try, you like it, you can control it and your fine,

or you try it, you like it, you can't control it and your fu'cked i.e. junkie.

Thank you.

mph4ever is clearly the only person who has posted who has any authority on the subject of highly addictive substances. I can't believe some people are trying to argue with him on this subject.

I also laugh at the person who was trying to argue how drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or speed and coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc. are on the same level. I'm afraid to ask how you've come to these conclusions.

I'm practically bigoted when it comes to alcohol/drug consumption. Don't support either, period. I am also not experienced in the least other than observations (my neighborhood's good for that). Never have used drugs, never drank more than a spoonful of alcohol, and never intend to do either.

Despite this, you have no idea how ridiculous that sounds. I'm pretty sure there is a fine line between smoking cigarettes, having a few drinks at a bar, or drinking a coffee in the morning, and being a crack/cocaine junkie.

[r1mbaud]

Thank you.

mph4ever is clearly the only person who has posted who has any authority on the subject of highly addictive substances. I can't believe some people are trying to argue with him on this subject.

I also laugh at the person who was trying to argue how drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or speed and coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc. are on the same level. I'm afraid to ask how you've come to these conclusions.

I'm practically bigoted when it comes to alcohol/drug consumption. Don't support either, period. I am also not experienced in the least other than observations (my neighborhood's good for that). Never have used drugs, never drank more than a spoonful of alcohol, and never intend to do either.

Despite this, you have no idea how ridiculous that sounds. I'm pretty sure there is a fine line between smoking cigarettes, having a few drinks at a bar, or drinking a coffee in the morning, and being a crack/cocaine junkie.

why would it need coffee, subject a=crack addict.. you put junkie but thats usually only reference to heroin abusers

[UmphreysHead]

I'm also pretty sure there is a big difference between someone smoking 5 packs a day, and somebody using heroin once every year.

Both can be used in extreme excess and both can be used in moderation.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

because it's not like people on meth and crack will hurt anyone but themselves

if someone on meth hurts somebody, stone them, its pretty simple

[pooble]

we should consider the historical aspects here. would generally more devastating drugs like meth be around today, or if we completely legalized all other drugs?

the reason people started using meth and crack and abusing cough syrup and all other kinds of nasty stuff like that is because drugs like heroine and coke and in some places even marijuana and lsd were either outlawed or too expensive due to the legal policies of governments in those areas.

if these more "natural" or "down to earth" drugs were made legal again their prices would fall by a huge amount. i suspect that the amount of people choosing to get high off meth and other chemicals like that would shrink by a huge amount, and we would have a large proportion of people shift to less dirty drugs. this would shrink the amount of addiction and health problems.

[defrabbi3000]

Personally i reckon the so called harder drugs are pretty messed up to be fair, used to do a fair amount of pills, speed, coke and shrooms. but i stopped all that chemical chicanery a couple years back, just as all my friends discovered ketamine. Im surprised noones mentioned ket really because where i live in england [near Reading] ketamine is big business, is only class C whilst cannabis is class B again, yet is quite clearly one of the worst things you can shove up your nose. i know 2 people younger than me [im 19] who have had heart attacks and one guy who is 24 has a piss bag because of that drug. that stuff should never be legal in my opinion. I am strongly in favour of decriminalisation and regulation of weed primarily because of the weed situation in england. anyone who thinks you dont get tainted weed is a fool. plastic, diesel and similar things have been found in solids for bloody years and all you need to do is type "contaminated cannabis" into google and you'll understand why your skunk now comes crispy and with your own private beach in a baggy. this is gona seriously **** with peoples health within a few years and is the best argument for the legalisation of weed ive come across. you dont see the dutch smoking glass beads do you.

[UmphreysHead]

I think we should stop taking "what happened to our friends" as reason to keep something illegal. It sucks that happened, but the vast number of people who use ketamine don't become junkies. I think if a drug has proven medicinal qualities then it should be legal, and if it doesn't then it shouldn't be legal.