http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/bad-science-cocaine-study

At the point where mild cocaine use was described in positive tones the Americans presumably blew some kind of outrage fuse. This report was never published because the US representative to the WHO threatened to withdraw US funding for all its research projects and interventions unless the organisation "dissociated itself from the study" and cancelled publication.

Its amazing in this day and age research is still being surpressed because the results rub people the wrong way.

At the point where mild cocaine use was described in positive tones

Same thing goes for the cannabis thread.. people aren't capable of 'mild use' (note im not saying all people... just people in general).. til there is a way (apart from... oh i dunno, death?) to ensure that people control themselves and don't f*** everything up i'm happy for this information to be set aside

the results don't reflect the cause nor are they in any way beneficial...

people aren't capable of 'mild use' (note im not saying all people... just people in general)

I think it's the other way round.. Most people ARE capable of using drugs like coke 'mildly' there's just a few people who arn't, that 'f*** everything up'...

If you ever needed a reason to wonder why cocaine is such a touchy subject for Americans (Floridians?) go and find the doco Cocaine Cowboys.

It highlights the massive destructive forces the trade of the drug had on Florida (human casualty wise by gangland killings because cheeko did no pay consweela for bags of dope) during the 70's and 80's. It dives into the economics that the trade of the drug enabled and the false economies it created that were made all the more obvious when the authorities stepped in and started pwning the drug running (similar to hyperinflation of currencies maybe) and banks that had massive moves of currency ($600 million dollar turnovers when federal reserves are seeing $10 million hrm that's an outlier from the std deviation) and the general lawlessness and chaos that you can imagine goes on when cheeko pay consweela in monopoly money as a joke.

Also watch Blow, it's a west coast story of the same plot for very lucrative mad loot.

this thread title tries so hard.

Wasn't this research conducted in the early 90's?

It highlights the massive destructive forces the trade of the drug had on Florida (human casualty wise by gangland killings because cheeko did no pay consweela for bags of dope) during the 70's and 80's.

Which only adds to the case for government control of supply and distribution to prevent the criminal element getting to be such a destructive force in the first place.

The momemtum of anti govt drug propoganda seems to be swelling up, enough people have taken these supposedly deadly drugs to realise that its a load of s*** false information.

marijuana you dont know what it will do to you.... yes i do, ill get hungry and sleepy and maybe laugh a bit

this thread title tries so hard.

redhat, you comic genius!

I just copied it from the title of the news article!

I think what we can all get out of this report is that casual drug use is fine!

hooray!

Yeah I love those anti-marijuana ad's, they are so riduculous its funny.

^ not for you spook
Not for you

i <3 coke

Coke > Pepsi

Pepsi's still pretty good though.

yeah it is. but is pepsi max better than pepsi?

Its amazing in this day and age research is still being surpressed because the results rub people the wrong way.

It's amazing in this day and age we still have governments that try to stop people from doing retarded s*** when its clear that they're going to do it anyway

BBC report on drug use in portugal (where it is ALL decriminalised) - bink. I haven't watched it yet.

Its amazing in this day and age research is still being surpressed because the results rub people the wrong way.

Scientists are, in general, a bunch of left-wing hippies, so one report doesn't prove much. The bloke was probably sick of his coke parties in the lab being busted up by the feds. Whoever did the report has talked up the scale of the problems caused by legal drugs, and talked up the problems of making certain drugs illegal but hasn't managed to put two and two together. You might remove the crime element of the illegal drugs (by legalising them), but you'll amplify the health problems when availability, efficacy, affordability and so forth are raised. Its one-sided nonsense really.

The same thing goes with studies into global warming, specifically man-made. It's generally accepted as fact by just about anyone these days, but none of the climate models are actually capable of modelling what is happening now, let alone 50 years into the future. Theres a lot of talk about the urgency of action and linking climatic events to global warming, and suggesting its only going to get worse (Hurricane Katrina times 1000 or whatever). However, these links are pretty tenuous and I think it just weakens the argument. Any studies which go against the grain are regarded with hysteria by a lot of the scientific community, and theres a lot of character assasination that occurs when someone asks the tough questions.

I figure that there are a lot of climate scientists who actually have doubts, but they believe that global warming is a bit like pascal's wager. I think a healthy dose of scepticism is a bloody good idea though. (In regards to any scientific study, especially once its been through the news media filters.)

last edited by nF at 23:22:18 17/Jun/09

You might remove the crime element of the illegal drugs (by legalising them), but you'll amplify the health problems when availability, efficacy, affordability and so forth are raised.

Does that even matter? As far as I'm concerned, people that use drugs should be entitled to the same health care that people who use cigarettes and alcohol get (which, again as far as I'm concerned, should be less than what abstainers get).

I need to do some more research into the Portugal thing (I only read about it like yesterday), but:

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

It sounds good so far!

You aren't asking the question that you should be asking though. And thats who did the study you are reading.

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

I'm not saying they are necessarily being underhanded, and not saying its wrong, but I wouldn't take their word for it that's for sure.

http://www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/BFDPP_BP_14_EffectsOfDecriminalisation_EN.pdf.pdf

This report is supposedly a bit less enthusiastic about it, but I haven't read either.

you'll amplify the health problems when availability, efficacy, affordability and so forth are raised.

There's very little evidence to support this.

Like many other people on this forum, I know a number of people who have used illicit drugs and they all lead perfectly normal lives.

Is the new drug ice really dangerous? I dont know - government ads say it is but when they say the same thing about marijuana they immediately lose almost all credibility with me. And I say that as someone whose not a pot smoker.

Hence, I find the current regime incredibly dangerous. If the government came out and said, occasional pot use is fine but ice will mess you up then perhaps people would listen*

I agree with trog though, letting people smoke cigarettes but banning marijuana or MDMA or whatever is a bizarre double standard.

* I have no idea if ice is actually bad or not.

just mix a little bit of coke into coke like they use too! mmm refrushing

Its amazing in this day and age research is still being suppressed because the results rub people the wrong way.

what do you think happens to research into global warming as a cycle and not the result of carbon emissions?

it gets suppressed and all funding withdrawn... because it rubs people's rhubarb.

Is the new drug ice really dangerous? I dont know

Ice is just another form of methamphetamine.

Ice is to speed what crack is to cocaine. (this is my legitimate scientific understanding of it) Ice and crack are freebase versions of the drug.

There's very little evidence to support this.

If you mean if more higher efficacy does more harm, probably not. But availability and affordability definitely would. This is the way smoking as been attacked, by higher taxes and limiting where cigarettes can be sold (no more vending machines). I'm refering to health related harm more than social harm, although the two are linked.

On a slightly related note, in a lot of countries where alcohol is illegal, illicit drugs are the major substance problem not the illicit alcohol. Alcohol is still available but the problems caused by it are overshadowed by the problems of the harder drugs. This is common sense though.

Like many other people on this forum, I know a number of people who have used illicit drugs and they all lead perfectly normal lives.

And plenty of us know people who have abused illicit drugs and lead f***ed up lives. As with alcohol. I don't think alcohol should be banned for the harm its used but on the other hand I don't think legalising drugs is the answer either.

I think the real danger with legalising is that it may increase availability or increase the potential for someone to be exposed to the drugs. I also think that something being illegal is a great deterrent. Also, having trafficing illegal and using legal is some messed up logic.

Ice isn't a new drug.

As usual its a few bad apples fking it up for the rest of us humans that can hold down jobs.

Are all students that play FPS psycos that are going to shoot up their schools?
Are all GTA players people that fk hookers then shoot and rob them?
Are all people that get drunk on the weekend getting into fights?
Are all people that watch pr0n going to turn into sexual offenders?

It's a pity it cost so much over here. In the UK it was more dangerous as the prices were so low.

redhat, ice is nasty, to say it isn't a bit naive.

From wiki

Many users report having become an addict from their first "shot", or just one intravenous injection of crystal methamphetamine, marking its high affinity for a spiral of debilitating addiction.

watch the doco Worlds Most Dangerous Drug



last edited by ara at 10:57:35 19/Jun/09

Ice is just another form of methamphetamine.

It's not another form, it's simply methamphetamine, no different to your sloppy homecooked "wizz/gear/base" besides the purity.

Ice is to speed what crack is to cocaine. (this is my legitimate scientific understanding of it) Ice and crack are freebase versions of the drug.

Incorrect, "Ice" is the regular salt - methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The freebase of methamphetamine is an oil, not a solid, this is referred to as "Ox's Blood" and virtually non-existent. Sometimes people will come across it (someone selling "Ox's Blood"), but it's not true freebase, rather just your regular impure meth salt with excess water and other junk making it sloppy s***... someone is pulling your leg and trying make an extra $$.

It's all the same s***, ice isn't anything new... someone has just taken the extra effort of purifying it and growing crystals.

Meth is bad kids.

last edited by CHUB at 11:16:09 19/Jun/09

Many users report having become an addict from their first "shot", or just one intravenous injection of crystal methamphetamine, marking its high affinity for a spiral of debilitating addiction.

Hard to believe...

you are in denial, now nice for you.

Take a shot and tell us the results.

I know people who have and that is not the case...

On a slightly related note, in a lot of countries where alcohol is illegal, illicit drugs are the major substance problem not the illicit alcohol. Alcohol is still available but the problems caused by it are overshadowed by the problems of the harder drugs. This is common sense though.

It's common sense - not for the reasons you're thinking though. The few countries who have outlawed alcohol and seen a rise in drug use (Afghanistan/Pakistan) are states in close proximity to the region that produces 90%+ of the world's opium. Heroin is cheap, abundant and available. Alcohol is not.

I don't think alcohol should be banned for the harm its used but on the other hand I don't think legalising drugs is the answer either.

So you don't think legalising drugs is the answer because...the harm it causes? Even though the "harm" caused by cannabis abuse is laughably overshadowed by the demonstrated and life-threatening effects of alcohol abuse?

Drug use is endemic. There will always exist a demand for drugs, and in turn, a supply of drugs (whether legal/illegal).

In honesty, who would you prefer to operate the market? Ordinary corporations working in line with strict regulations to create and distribute products to adults (who must provide ID), offsetting the cost of drug programs and services by enormous tax revenues and a massive reduction in law enforcement/judicial/prison industry spending? Or, organised crime syndicates (who settle disputes by violence/intimidation) earning tax-free incomes selling products of indiscernible quality or purity to any buyer (kids/teens)?

If the government could issue heroin to registered patients at $0.01 a hit (it doesn't cost much to produce), at an exact dosage so people didn't overdose, what would be the flow on effects? Would the heavy users needing to come up with $400 per day stop commiting crime to pay for their habits? Would people interested in trying heroin be swayed by needing to see a doctor for permission, given that the retail market for heroin would disappear?

People arguing to maintain the status quo often focus solely on the negative repercussions that legalisation would bring. What's needed is a look at the big picture; a fair view must properly address some of the negative externalities (directly resulting from prohibition) that would disappear with legalisation.

If the government could issue heroin to registered patients at $0.01 a hit (it doesn't cost much to produce), at an exact dosage so people didn't overdose, what would be the flow on effects? Would the heavy users needing to come up with $400 per day stop commiting crime to pay for their habits? Would people interested in trying heroin be swayed by needing to see a doctor for permission, given that the retail market for heroin would disappear?

You should have a look at UK (I believe it's UK?) prescription heroin for long term users.

Guys that have been on heroin long term (10+ years, never going to quit) can get on a program where they get clean pharm grade diamorphine for like 20 pounds a week.

Lots of conditions though, you need to be employed for one.

If the government could issue heroin to registered patients at $0.01 a hit (it doesn't cost much to produce), at an exact dosage so people didn't overdose, what would be the flow on effects?

A society systematically stupefied on a highly addictive substance.

You are an idiot ara and have once again displayed your complete cluelessness on anything that isn't telecommunications.

A society systematically stupefied on a highly addictive substance.

Yes, and interracial marriage killed the white man's culture and home taping killed music.

So government sponsorship of flooding the population with highly addictive drugs will be a good thing...

Just like how everyone owning highly lethal weapons is a good thing in your opinion infi.

We should totally legalise coke, hell, lets get even more out there and make crack legal, it did wonders for the US.

So government sponsorship of flooding the population with highly addictive drugs will be a good thing...

What's alcohol?

What's alcohol?

I can binge on alcohol for 6 months then just go without for another 6. Hardly highly addictive.

Edit: Unless you have issues that is. It takes years and years of alcoholism to develop an addiction in normal people. Cocaine, crack, heroin is habit forming a lotttt quicker.

last edited by Syco at 13:37:20 19/Jun/09

and cigarettes

I'm on Gruddy's side; at the moment we just have billions of government dollars getting pissed away on a bulls*** war on drugs that will pretty much always go nowhere (although it does make for awesome TV, god I love Border Security).

Criminalising behaviour that hurts noone but people who choose to do it is just a bad idea - especially when the government is hypocritically 'sponsoring' other drugs that are just as bad, if not worse

Criminalising behaviour that hurts noone but people who choose to do it is just a bad idea - especially when the government is hypocritically 'sponsoring' other drugs that are just as bad, if not worse

I reckon dealing should still be criminal, maybe make possession a pretty minor offence, few hundred dollars so they can't afford their next hit. It is silly spending all the money when it doesn't seem to work anyway.

Edit: Oh and Cigarettes also take a lot longer to be habit forming heh.

Double edit: Also, there's an infinitely lower chance of just randomly losing your life from your first drink/smoke.

last edited by Syco at 13:41:54 19/Jun/09

I can binge on alcohol for 6 months then just go without for another 6. Hardly highly addictive.

Edit: Unless you have issues that is. It takes years and years of alcoholism to develop an addiction in normal people. Cocaine, crack, heroin is habit forming a lotttt quicker.

Seriously, go do some research.

It doesn't take years, it takes weeks just like other physically addictive substances.

Alcohol withdrawals can be fatal, they are much worse then heroin.

Hardly highly addictive? Pull your head out of the sand and look at the stats for alcohol addiction/detox/rehab etc., it's f***ing massive, much larger then illegal drugs.

few hundred dollars so they can't afford their next hit.

Then throw them in jail when they have to steal for said hit? Right?

last edited by CHUB at 13:47:44 19/Jun/09

Seriously, go do some research.

It doesn't take years, it takes weeks just like other physically addictive substances.

Alcohol withdrawals can be fatal, they are much worse then heroin.

Hardly highly addictive? Pull your head out of the sand and look at the stats for alcohol addiction/detox/rehab etc., it's f***ing massive, much larger then illegal drugs.

Sure, like I said, if *you* have issues then you'll get easily addicted to anything. A group of 10 or so mates I grew up with binged pretty heavily in their teen years and now I'm pretty darn sure none of us are alcoholic.

Are you really telling me to compare rates of a legal and easily obtainable substance to an illegal one? Mind if I stick my head in your sand lot?

Then throw them in jail when they have to steal for said hit? Right?

Oh come on, it's not really habit forming right? right? Why would they need a next hit?

Are you really telling me to compare rates of a legal and easily obtainable substance to an illegal one?

If only there was a time when alcohol was illegal, we could clearly compare and contrast.

OH RIGHT... there was... and it was a major f***up for everyone involved.

Double edit: Also, there's an infinitely lower chance of just randomly losing your life from your first drink/smoke.

Not when alcohol was illegal, people died quite often from bathtub booze.

Not when alcohol was illegal, people died quite often from bathtub booze.

Sorry, was there a period of time in recent memory that hardened drugs where freely available and socially acceptable then suddenly made illegal to make it a proper comparison?

Argh, another edit: Also, most of todays coke and heroin are made in pretty factory like conditions, it's hardly the same as the majority being made in dirty bathtubs and hidden stills in the woods.

last edited by Syco at 14:12:24 19/Jun/09

Sorry, was there a period of time in recent memory that hardened drugs where freely available and socially acceptable then suddenly made illegal to make it a proper comparison?

Of course there was.

Yes heroin was legal, it could be purchased at supermarkets and chemists.
Yes cocaine was legal, it could be purchased at supermarkets and chemists (not to mention it came in wine, Coca-Cola and various other food/beverages).

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/Bayer-heroin.jpg


last edited by CHUB at 14:25:34 19/Jun/09

So government sponsorship of flooding the population with highly addictive drugs will be a good thing...

I didn't mean to be flippant with my earlier post, I thought you may have been joking. I agree that this is an important point that needs to be addressed.

Heroin is an insidious drug. Don't get me wrong, if there was a method to completely eliminate its supply then I would be adamantly in favour of its prohibition. However, despite the government's best efforts and the global 'war on drugs', we've proven that blocking heroin distribution in its entirety is nothing short of a pipe dream.

We both concur on the pitfalls of using heroin; we simply disagree on the way it should be distributed. Government circulation would eliminate the black market, mitigate the cost (users would not need to resort to crime to pay for their habit) and drastically lower the rate of overdoses that burden our hospital system. Alternatively, can we continue to spend record amounts of money fighting a losing battle whilst traffickers are lining their pockets with billions in revenue.

I reckon dealing should still be criminal, maybe make possession a pretty minor offence, few hundred dollars so they can't afford their next hit. It is silly spending all the money when it doesn't seem to work anyway.

I think our system works along those lines anyway, convictions for simple possession are rare for first-time offenders (generally a fine is issued instead).

Sure, like I said, if *you* have issues then you'll get easily addicted to anything.

You’re confusing me Syco. First you’re saying that drugs are bad because they are addictive. You then follow up by saying that alcohol isn’t bad because only people with “issues” end up addicted. Don’t try to contend that alcohol isn’t nearly as addictive as other illicit drugs; you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Also, most of todays coke and heroin are made in pretty factory like conditions, it's hardly the same as the majority being made in dirty bathtubs and hidden stills in the woods.

How do you know this? Regardless, every time the product is passed between middle-men the quality is reduced as cutting agents are added. The average purity is 20-50% in Australia.

Yes heroin was legal, it could be purchased at supermarkets and chemists.
Yes cocaine was legal, it could be purchased at supermarkets and chemists.

You know that's not what I meant. Unless you think it's totally fine comparing a medicinal drug to a social one. If that's the case then there's no point continuing to post in reply to you so ... take it easy.

Just go ahead and legalise the lot, we can have awesome ghetto's like the US with (TOTALLY NOT ADDICTED) crackheads (OH AND LIKE, TOTALLY IMMUNE TO DEATH) braking in every other day.


last edited by Syco at 14:28:21 19/Jun/09

You know that's not what I meant.

Honestly, what did you mean?

Heroin and cocaine were legal.

There was a stack of health problems/addiction/abuse etc. just like any other widely avaliable legal substance (alcohol), but there was very little criminal problems.

Now the drug is more dangerous (unknown purity, dangerous chemicals) then when it was legal, along with the massive network of organized crime it has created all the way down to your street junkie committing crime to get a fix for something that costs a few cents.

braking in every other day.

Why would they break in or commit crime?

Heroin and cocaine were legal.

And used in a public setting while having a good time in a social way? Used to the extent of alcohol? Oh wait, it was a pharmaceutical, used to treat peoples illnesses that's obviously totally comparable.

Why would they break in or commit crime?

Have you seen a crackhead? Do you think they can function in normal every day life and hold down a job? Or are your proposing the government just hands it out free along with the legalisation?

last edited by Syco at 14:34:19 19/Jun/09

Just go ahead and legalise the lot, we can have awesome ghetto's like the US with (TOTALLY NOT ADDICTED) crackheads (OH AND LIKE, TOTALLY IMMUNE TO DEATH) braking in every other day.

You are describing by-products of the drug policy you are advocating.

And used in a public setting while having a good time in a social way? Used to the extent of alcohol? Oh wait, it was a pharmaceutical, used to treat peoples illnesses that's obviously totally comparable.

Perhaps instead of spouting off s*** you should go research the topic.

You could buy "gift baskets" from chemists, small vial of cocaine, small vial of heroin and a pack of syringes.

It was like giving someone a bottle of rum for fixing your car.

It was socially acceptable to recreationally use these "hard drugs".

I'm done with you Syco, you got no knowledge and a bunch of beliefs you're not going to let go of.

The fact that keep referring to "crackheads" is enough to make this debate pointless.

I'm the one sprouting out nonsense? You're the one who keep making outlandish comparisons. Go and do a little research yourself. Go see how cocane and crack totally ruined huge sections of the US's citys. Of course the drug is totally innocent and it's only the damn laws 'the man' impose on people that cause them to commit all the crime, they'd totally do it with or without the drug.

OK then:

-Smoking cocaine (injecting sees a much much higher number) sees upto a 20% addiction rate inside of two years (aggregated figure).

15–19% of recently active cocaine users are cocaine dependent this is over a study group of many different users, those who snort, those who inject, those who smoke from heavy users to more social.

I think you need to put down the crack pipe and have a think before telling people cocaine is fine and safe and is much better then alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs. Hard drugs are called hard drugs for a reason. I don't really care of pot is made legal but society ruining s*** like Cocaine (and it's derivatives such as crack) should never be made into an OK thing to take.

Are you a user of Cocaine? Why do you want it to be made legal?

Edit:

You are describing by-products of the drug policy you are advocating.

Like I said before, I wouldn't mind the end users having lowered penalties, even de-criminalised. But the dealers, producers and distributors should still see heavy jail time. People on drugs are going to do stupid s*** no matter what, don't try and pretend that all crime done by drug users is only to purchase more drugs and feed their habit. My main issue is the s*** (hard drugs) f***s you up and provides yet another addiction and drain on society.

last edited by Syco at 15:13:07 19/Jun/09

it's only the damn laws 'the man' impose on people that cause them to commit all the crime, they'd totally do it with or without the drug.

People on drugs are going to do stupid s*** no matter what, don't try and pretend that all crime done by drug users is only to purchase more drugs and feed their habit.

Yes, I am going to tell you that the vast majority of crime committed by drug users is to pay for their addiction. Drugs don't make people break into their neighbour's house, it's their addiction that drives them to it.

Ever heard of a drug with a side effect that sees people commit petty theft? I haven't, and I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find one.

If drugs were legalised and made affordable the users wouldn't need to steal from others.

I think you need to put down the crack pipe and have a think before telling people cocaine is fine and safe

You are missing the point entirely. Its not about saying that 'this drug is OK', its about demonstrating that the side effects resulting from prohibition are far more costly to society than legalisation.

gruddy, i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Yes, I am going to tell you that the vast majority of crime committed by drug users is to pay for their addiction. Drugs don't make people break into their neighbour's house, it's their addiction that drives them to it.

Ever heard of a drug with a side effect that sees people commit petty theft? I haven't, and I'm pretty sure you won't be able to find one.

If drugs were legalised and made affordable the users wouldn't need to steal from others.

I personally know a few people that have been locked up for doing stupid s*** on drugs for what seemed like fun at the time (generally speed but still..).

I'm not saying the majority of BnE's committed by them isn't going to drug money, but there's still a lot of crime committed just for the hell of it while high. Even if drugs where made available legally what makes you think these people will go out and get work to pay for the probable still hefty (like the Marijuana in that other thread, still street value prices) prices and not just sit back in a life of crime?

You are missing the point entirely. Its not about saying that 'this drug is OK', its about demonstrating that the side effects resulting from prohibition are far more costly to society than legalisation.

Like I've said a few times I'm fine with taking out the criminal prosecutions for end users. Do you *really* think that all in all if drugs where made available through the government in this day and age it wouldn't cause just another mass amount of issues.

There's gotta be a better way to do it then to basically say hard drugs are OK kids, come on in.

I'd be cool with it all being legal if they signed a waver saying if they're taking hard drugs anything they do criminally winds them up in jail for a considerable amount of time and if the drug taking caused any kind of addiction or anything society is left to pick up the bill for then they're out in the cold.

I personally know a few people that have been locked up for doing stupid s*** on drugs for what seemed like fun at the time (generally speed but still..).

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh

You're killing me Syco.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh

You're killing me Syco.

Why's that? I have one mate who went (to jail) for a joyride, as soon as he got out of jail he was on the hunt. Is off it now finally though (but is on the life-long methadone replacement because all methadone does is replace one thing with a lesser thing then they sit on that for the rest of their life).

Have another mate who went for thinking he was cool as s*** and got in a fight with a cop (went looking for it, wasn't them harassing him and him lashing out).

I guess I'm just some interwebs nerd/pussy or something and sitting at home in my pleat button up shirt browsing QGL while my anime is downloading though, probs don't know anyone that would do anything harder then sneak a cigarette behind their mothers back.

last edited by Syco at 16:21:41 19/Jun/09

I don't want to get back into this debate.

...but when it comes to substances making you do stupid/dangerous/illegal s***, alcohol takes the cake in all categories, hands down, no arguement.

There's many topics to choose from when pointing out the negatives of illegal drugs, but doing "stupid s***" shouldn't be one of them.

Alcohol will forever reign as king of "stupid s***"... anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves.

Just so you know, methadone isn't "lesser"... it's very potent with a very long duration. Methadone addiction is far stronger then heroin addiction and has significantly longer and more painful withdrawal. The only reason these addicts do well on it is because they never "run out" and it's cheap (few $$ a month).

last edited by CHUB at 16:38:01 19/Jun/09

To me it almost doesn't matter what drug is worse for you - you either make all drugs legal, or all drugs illegal. If people want to take drugs, they'll do it regardless of whether or not its legal - that's unarguable. It's impossible to stop the trade, because the harder it is to get, the more money there is in it, so the more will get invested in trying to do it.

...but when it comes to substances making you do stupid/dangerous/illegal s***, alcohol takes the cake in all categories, hands down, no arguement.

Well, I've never stolen a car or even got into a fight while drunk (I'm not a little fella though so I think fights avoid me heh). Though I have gotten close drinking rum I suppose (I have vague recollections of walking through the city telling guys in pink shirts with styled hair they're ... gay) so I try not to drink it when I go out now heh. Just going off personal experience that the druggie mates f*** up and the piss head ones hunker down and get through life.

The way I look at it is sure alcohol, tobacco and whatnot is bad but instead of saying "s*** man those are bad, why can't we have other bad stuff" we should be looking at alternative options. Not just blanket decriminalisation for things that are proven addictive and proven to have detrimental effects to peoples lives.

Legislation hurts, locking people up in endless jail sentences hurts, surely there's another way rather then the polar opposite of what we have now.

Yeah, the methadone thing is silly, he just goes in there once a week and gets his s***, takes it then goes home. Most of the time he's asleep now days too. He's on a plethora of other drugs to control schizophrenia and other things that supposedly arose from the long term drug use.

I personally know a few people that have been locked up for doing stupid s*** on drugs for what seemed like fun at the time (generally speed but still..).

I know someone that took speed and had a great time. I guess that means that speed is safe for everyone.

Not convinced? You should be, it has as much validity as your argument.

How about this one - I heard that Martin Bryant ate Coco Pops every morning before school. I am petitioning my local senator to ban the evil cereal as it creates mass murderers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

there's still a lot of crime committed just for the hell of it while high.

What are you basing this on? I doubt this has any credibility outside your own mind.

Regardless, I’m sure there’s a lot of crime committed for the hell of it while wearing clothes. Does this mean we ban clothes? The onus is on you to demonstrate clearly that drug taking _makes_ people commit crime. I can demonstrate that addicts commit crimes to pay for their drug habit, however this is a completely different phenomenon. Once again, correlation does not imply causation.

Even if drugs where made available legally what makes you think these people will go out and get work to pay for the probable still hefty (like the Marijuana in that other thread, still street value prices) prices and not just sit back in a life of crime?

This is an excellent point, I’d like to go into detail but I don’t have much time. I’ll come back and do a proper reply later tonight, however I’d like to point out that there is a colossal difference between Marijuana and Heroin and different strategies would apply. Just because Cannabis falls under the collective term ‘illicit drugs’ doesn’t mean it should be legislated in the same way as the others.

A hard drugs free-for-all. Let's have everyone shooting up and getting high. Sounds like heaven for junkies.

Meanwhile mums and dads are trying to teach their kids this stuff is bad for you. But it is now legalised. Talk about mixed messages for kids.

This is patented rewarding bad behaviour straight from the best social worker text book.

Gee gruddy, lucky I qualified in one of my posts with "from my own personal experience", probably should quote that part if you're going to go off on a different tangent. I notice you didn't reply to the part where I quoted and linked a study though :(

If you'd read my other posts, I wasn't implying marijuana was a hard drug nor was I implying well .. anything about it other then "sure legalise it" it's probably the lesser evil of most drugs.

I think people need to stop using the "but but but alcohol is bad for you!!! so other s*** should be legal too" argument. There's no real point comparing the two. Saying something is worse then another thing is still implying that the thing you are arguing for is bad. Bad generally isn't good and probably shouldn't flow freely.

In a perfect world everything would be available and everything would be used in moderation and if someone had adverse effects from it society wouldn't be left to pick up the pieces. We're just not very perfect..