This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Legalise some drugs, outlaw others?

Jump to new
c-unit said:
Prawn,

I don't agree with those economic arguments against legalisation that you mentioned:
Click to expand...

I dont necessairly either, it was just a program i saw a while ago (cant remember when you where) mentioning reasons why it didnt make sense to legalise. Shame i dont know what one it was.

PS - to set the record straight for some other members who may have misunderstood:

I am not saying that every illicit drug is not physically addictive. Ones such as MDMA and cocaine are not, yet others such as heroin and ice can cause devastating physical addictions.
 
Logique said:
Making everything illegal just subsidizes the lifestyles of crooks. People have always used drugs and always will. In the US, the Prohibition years were an enormous stimulus to organized crime.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Where there is demand, there's going to be someone trying to make money on the supply.

Demand will never dry up, no matter what. All the professionals and lobbyists can harp on about the pro's and con's forever, make all the laws against it as they see fit, but in the end people will do it regardless of what anyone says or does to stop it.

Right or wrong, people do have the choice to take drugs. Just like they have the choice to steal, rape children or kill people. Just like they have the choice to work or pursue dreams all their life.

My wife is an emergency medicine doc and (quite to my surprise) she is all for the supply of clean substances. I've heard some pretty nasty stories, most of which involved a "bad batch". Imagine what it would be like shafting Ajax or some other nasty chemical up your veins thinking it was smack. That's when they get to hospital and Narcan does squat, then the poor medical professionals are in for a sh*t fight all night trying to work out what the hell else was in the gear. If it were clean, they can deal with the critical issue swiftly and move on to the next person.

Sure there's the social and mental issues, but what about the friggen social and mental issues of life itself. Life can kill your body and mind just as much as drugs do. Most of these naysayers are people with issues themselves and are certainly not perfect advocates of "health". As the WHO defines it:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
Click to expand...

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

A complete state of physical, mental and social well-being? Think about it, there ain't a healthy person on this planet! I know a few dope smokers who would say they feel like they're in a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being after a toke. They are very happy, successful and highly intelligent people too. Not the stigmatised "pot head's" you hear about.

I feel like I'm in a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being when I'm sitting down sipping a beer or a dimple after a hard day's work and the kids are in bed. I don't go overboard because I know I have to get up tomorrow and do it all again. I'm usually asleep by the end of my first one anyway lol. I don't do it every night either, most of time I'm way too tired anyway. I don't care what long term effects (if any) it has, it makes me feel good and is my way of coping with the stresses of every day living. I know its effect is reduced if I abuse it anyway.

Who in the world is stupid enough to say you can't do the above with anything to get you over the constant stresses life places you under. I see no harm for moderate use of whatever floats your boat. Abuse it and your life will be tested on the recovery.

Who's to say that the lobbyists against certain things don't have issues themselves, and feel the need to unjustly pursue the integrity of others just to satisfy their own twisted needs.

Always a little more to the picture than one may think.

Do what you want, but don't do it around me - Brett Gurewitz
 
prawn_86 said:
...I am not saying that every illicit drug is not physically addictive. Ones such as MDMA and cocaine are not, yet others such as heroin and ice can cause devastating physical addictions.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is correct, Prawn...

I googled and found this:

Cocaine effects are extremely detrimental on the body and the consequences related to cocaine effects can eventually lead to permanent damage, addiction and death.
Click to expand...

More here: http://www.cocaine-effects.com/

Sounds very risky to me. I found other sites that also indicated brain damage with the use of cocaine.
 
sails said:
Not sure that is correct, Prawn...

I googled and found this:

Sounds very risky to me. I found other sites that also indicated brain damage with the use of cocaine.
Click to expand...

Yes but as i have said it is an addiction to the high not to the drug itself. The drug itself simply causes the high to which people get addicted.
 
Terrific post WaveSurfer. Real world solutions are what we need. Please excuse my bolding of your words.

 
Logique said:
Terrific post WaveSurfer. Real world solutions are what we need. Please excuse my bolding of your words.
Click to expand...

If people are passionate about this i suggest helping to fund MDMA and other studies in order to help build a scientific case showing how harmless some drugs can be if pure
 
prawn_86 said:
If people are passionate about this i suggest helping to fund MDMA and other studies in order to help build a scientific case showing how harmless some drugs can be if pure
Click to expand...

Excellent idea. How would you design such a study? e.g. how would you select respondents? How long would the study be? Etc.

Would you also advise similar be applied to other substances, e.g the various stimulants (amphetamine et al), cocaine, heroin?
 
You seem to be very close minded about the situation and seem to be taking out frustration/agression on me personally.

And you still haven't answered if you drink alcohol? What about tea or coffee? What about eating high fat processed foods?


Im not a researcher, i dont design studies. If you are so interested then there are human trials being conducted in Canada, Israel and Switzerland. I suggest you contact those conducting the trials and ask about their methodology. Please post their replies as i too would be keen to know.

Close to home, Amy Pennay is a PHD student who is researching the matter (mainly focusing around usage) her details are her if you wish to contact her:
http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/student.asp?persid=906&typeid=1
And her main project:
http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/research.asp?resprtyid=16&typeid=1&projid=290

Various other worldwide studies/stories for you to peruse:
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821572-overview

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked

http://media.enlighten.org.au/literature/pre.post.loading.pdf

Thompson, MR, Callaghan, PD, Hunt, GE & McGregor IS, Reduced sensitivity to MDMA-induced facilitation of social behaviour in MDMA pre exposed rats Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry (2008) in press


I would advocate as many trials and tests as possible on all drugs so we can then have an open debate (not a "drugs are bad. Fullstop." deabte) about the pros and cons. If morphine can get FDA approval i dont see why other drugs couldnt.
 
prawn_86 said:
You seem to be very close minded about the situation and seem to be taking out frustration/agression on me personally.
Click to expand...
If I seem to be targeting you personally, I apologise. I'd not intended to do so.
Probably you have been the most specific in terms of what you think should happen with what drugs.
I have no intention of explaining why I feel as strongly as I do, except to say that I've seen at very first hand the long term health and social outcomes in several people who have used various drugs over decades.

You are young and you feel bulletproof, invincible. Understandable. You are presumably healthy and the body and mind are capable of withstanding sustained abuse before showing any appreciable adverse effects.

You don't have to be a designer of clinical trials to answer the very basic question of how long you would expect a study to continue for it to deliver statistically valid results.

The reason I ask you this is because you and others are banging on about how there is no adverse effect from taking the drugs you do. My response is simply "how do you know"?

You are surely aware that the health outcomes from smoking cigarettes and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol are not apparent in the first few years of use, probably not even in the first 20 years. But take a second look in middle age and it's a whole other story. This is my objection to your careless discarding of any suggestion that using drugs is likely deleterious to your health in the long term.

You also don't have to be a researcher to offer a view about how many people you would consider would need to participate in a trial to offer a valid outcome. 100?
20,000?

And finally, would you yourself, with your advocacy of drug use, be happy to participate in a longitudinal trial over, say 30 years, this being the only valid way to demonstrate actual health outcomes, both physiological and psychological.



And you still haven't answered if you drink alcohol? What about tea or coffee? What about eating high fat processed foods?
Click to expand...
It's none of your business. My eating and drinking habits are not the issue here.
The issue is whether drugs that are presently illegal should be decriminalised or legalised.

If morphine can get FDA approval i dont see why other drugs couldnt.
Click to expand...
Oh, for heaven's sake, prawn, I thought you were brighter than to say something so stupid.
Morphine does not have FDA (or PBS in Australia) approval for recreational use!
It is strictly and stringently regulated in terms of being used for severe pain in a medical setting.
 
I understand why people would do illegal drugs, and I think there may be a case for restricted and supervised use in certain situations such as:

- severe pain, end stage cancer
- spiritual growth (hallucinogens), only if supervised
- severe depression (hallucinogens currently being studied)
- Parkinson's disease, dementia (MDMA supposed to be very effective short term)

But only once more studies are completed to properly understand the downside risks.

If you are reading this thread and don't understand the risks, first go and visit the poor sods at a rehab centre and see how you might end up. The people on this thread, including me, are not doctors or drug researchers. Listening to unsolicited advice could really **** you up.
 
Why worry about it, they may as well be illegal even if you make it legal.

I can tell you that within the next 20 years every single work place will have drug and alcohol testing on a daily multiple basis. So in other words if the vast majority of people want a job then they will have to ensure there is no trace of any drug in their system when they turn up for, during or leave work. All vehicle will have mandatory drug/drink testing before they will be allowed to be driven etc.

Remember the government is ultimatley only concerned with finances andlimiting their liability, as indeed are every one. Essentially that is why we have insurance.

So you can imagine what the implications will be for eg. if your laywer is caught for drugs and the previous month he lost you a court case. How do you think that might impact upon civil claims for people not happy with his performance.

The reailty is that any mind altering substance in future will seriously jeaporadise your finances.

Look at speed cameras, They will eventually have them every few kilometers to ensure you can't speed anywhere.

The reality is that people tend to modify drugs to achieve a better outcome.

Lok at Cannabis. They know that there are anti psychotic chemicals in Cannabis which reduce the psychotic effect that Cannabis can have on an individual, but guess what, the number of such chemicals are in proportion to the tetra hydracannibinol (THC) which is the active high ingredient. In other words as people have attempted to increase the quantity of THC in Cannabis they have in fact made the drug substantially more likely to cause psychotic behaviour because the chemicals that can reduce the psychotic effect are reduced/eliminated as you increase the amount of THC in the system.
 
lol

if i wasnt so stoned i,d point out how many hypocritical jewels there are in this thread.
 
Havent we had this debate before?

I say leave it as it is, we have enough problems with the cigarettes and alcohol, we dont need more on the list.

If people decide to go down that road, well its their choice, and its not up to the government to make it all easier for them.
 
Julia said:
The reason I ask you this is because you and others are banging on about how there is no adverse effect from taking the drugs you do. My response is simply "how do you know"?
Click to expand...

Based on trials in lab rats the long term damage is no more so than smoking or drinking. Of course there are effects, what i have said is there are fairly minimal effect in the context of other currently legal drugs. Even over the counter and prescribed drugs have side effects

You also don't have to be a researcher to offer a view about how many people you would consider would need to participate in a trial to offer a valid outcome. 100?
20,000?
Click to expand...

From my understanding about 3000 participants can build a survey very representative of a population, statistically speaking.

And finally, would you yourself, with your advocacy of drug use, be happy to participate in a longitudinal trial over, say 30 years, this being the only valid way to demonstrate actual health outcomes, both physiological and psychological.
Click to expand...

Yes definitely i would love the chance to do so, providing i dint have to change my current usage patterns


My point is, it was researched enough to get it to this stage, yet with current laws in place it is very very difficult to do large human trials with illicit drugs. Perhaps they will/could have a medical purpose also, such as treating depression, yet because they are illegal people automatically think they must be bad in all circumstances.

As i understand it, MDMA and its derivatives were made illegal because it was a synthesied drug (first made in 1912) made in labs, whereas alot of other drugs at the time were derived from plants etc. Since it was made illegal researchers and medical professionals focused elsewhere on other drugs. We now live in an era where a huge number of medical drugs are synthesised in labs, so just because MDMA is illegal due to historic purposes means we shouldnt look at possible benefits?
 
prawn_86 said:
I am not saying that every illicit drug is not physically addictive. Ones such as MDMA and cocaine are not, yet others such as heroin and ice can cause devastating physical addictions.
Click to expand...
From eMedicineHealth:

prawn_86 said:
Yes but as i have said it is an addiction to the high not to the drug itself. The drug itself simply causes the high to which people get addicted.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're trying to say here, e.g. it may not induce the physiological addiction that, say, nicotine and heroin do. But in the end, if someone becomes an addict it doesn't matter too much how that addiction was formed. To consider that the lack of the sort of physical withdrawal seen with heroin is an indication a drug is not addictive is very simplistic and unrealistic.


Gringotts Bank said:
I understand why people would do illegal drugs, and I think there may be a case for restricted and supervised use in certain situations such as:

- severe pain, end stage cancer
Click to expand...
Agree.

- severe depression (hallucinogens currently being studied)
Click to expand...
Would there be a risk that we'd suddenly see a lot more 'severe depression' if these were available? Perhaps not, as there seem to be far fewer people interested in hallucinogens than a few decades ago. Do you have any idea of by what mechanism such drugs would alleviate depression?

- Parkinson's disease, dementia (MDMA supposed to be very effective short term)
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Are you able to give a reference where we could find out more about this?


Agree absolutely. And just seeing the once functional people now at rehab centres doesn't take account of the families and careers destroyed, not to mention what's usually total financial loss.


You're right about pretty much all drugs having some side effects.
You cannot reasonably extrapolate effects on rats to human beings. The rats were not being assessed (as far as I know) for damage to relationships, financial status or careers. Read some of what I've quoted above also.

OK, that's a reasonable comment. Btw a version of heroin is used in the UK for treatment of severe pain.

Agree.
 

Humans by nature seem to have an addictive personality, some much more so than others (this is based on my observations, no particular science behind it). Plenty of people get addicted to food, dangerous sports, sex etc etc. Anything that releases endorphines and dopamines can create a phsychological addiction.

1. Fatty foods can dramatically reduce a persons lifespan.

2. Dangerous sports or driving can also reduce peoples lifespan (on average, and usually young males).

4. Sex addiction has ruined plenty of relationships.


So should we each be monitored X times per year to see if we are forming a damaging phsychological addiction to "something"??

Why are some things banned and others not? In a Western society which supposedly upholds 'freedom' in theory (not in reality of course), why are some (no more damaging) things repressed and others (more damaging or at least equally) allowed to flourish?

Obviously its a hypothetical question, but i hope that it shows illegal drugs are no more damaging than other alternatives, such as they are made out to be by government propaganda.
 

Only if someone can make a lot of money from it..
Even then you might well hear about it. But can you trust the information.
When lots of $$ are involved.

Vioxx ? Statins ?

Maybe there is more money to be made by the status quo..
regarding illegal drugs...

There are always vested interests somewhere when lots of $$$$ are involved.
But sometimes not where you expect...


Motorway
 
I can't believe they did a study using a rat as a human-analog in something so specific as the effects of drugs. There is quite a bit of physiological difference between a rat brain and a human brain, the researchers should be sacked. I remember there was once a study done that 'proved' (according to ban advocates) the controversial point that aspartame was dangerous, by showing it causing tumor formation in lab animals. Of course, they didn't mention that these animals (since they were not human), happened to have different digestive enzymes, which caused the aspartame to be broken down into different chemicals - which happened to be carcinogenic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Schoolies Week - why, why, why?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
10K
michael_t_f
M
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...