Drugs Are Bad Yes?

[stranded247]

 

 

I understand you're only 17 so it'll be awhile before you'll get the whole politics thing, but any person in charge who proposed an idea like that would lose their job overnight. Not only is that unconstitutional but such an incredibly ridiculous idea that it pretty much defeats the purpose of health care altogether. Go to an ER room when its busy, good chance most of the people in their played at least some role in how they ended up in the hospital in the first place.

 

Firstly the condescending comment was not necessary, I understand enough politics to know what I am saying. They wouldn't lose their job overnight. I've been to hospital at 1am on a friday night, the majority were drunks and you know what? The people who needed help like the small children with whooping cough or people who had actual health problems and wern't just selfish drug abusers had to wait hours whilst these people lay around using all the resources we pay for with our taxes, whilst the genuinly ill wait last. My youngest cousin died of menigitus because she was made to wait by the NHS whilst all these people who were drug abusers got attention first.

Sure someone took an overdose and they were about to die, well so what, it was self induced and selfish and someone who has an actual health problem deserves medical treatment over them.

[15 Storeys High]

Firstly the condescending comment was not necessary, I understand enough politics to know what I am saying. They wouldn't lose their job overnight. I've been to hospital at 1am on a friday night, the majority were drunks and you know what? The people who needed help like the small children with whooping cough or people who had actual health problems and wern't just selfish drug abusers had to wait hours whilst these people lay around using all the resources we pay for with our taxes, whilst the genuinly ill wait last. My youngest cousin died of menigitus because she was made to wait by the NHS whilst all these people who were drug abusers got attention first.

Sure someone took an overdose and they were about to die, well so what, it was self induced and selfish and someone who has an actual health problem deserves medical treatment over them.

 

I'm sorry about your cousin, but that last statement is pretty offensive. People who take deliberate overdoses may have a mental health problem and deserve treatment as much as the next person.

[JadedStar]

I agree that someone who took an overdose is not really in the same category as a recreational drug user who took one too many hits. This is someone who probably has a serious psychological problem that does indeed need treatment...maybe the ER is not the best place but once the overdose has occurred it is the only place that can really help.

[melrich]

Why not?

 

Because to say alcohol and cigarretes are bad for you but are legal does not logically extend to making other substances that are bad for you legal.

 

I have no doubt that alcohol and cigarretes cause far more deaths and illness that recreational drugs. Why? Because they are widely used and available. Why? Because they are legal. That is the precedent alcohol and tobacco set.

[pryda]

I'm talking about a large body of proper, scientific, randomised controlled trials by reliable authors published in reliable, valid sources, not some two bit documentary.

Well, the trouble with that is that most scientific studies into the effects of recreational drugs made public are government-funded, so generally they're going to turn out negative regardless of the quality of the science.

 

The few independent studies that have been done into ecstasy (such as link removed and link removed) tend to dismiss most of the claims of toxicity.

 

I think it's going to be difficult to provide you with the kind of evidence you're after, because of political-scientific bias. There's not much for a scientist to gain by studying the effects of ecstasy, particularly if the study concludes that it's not a dangerous drug; they're unlikely to come out and boldly announce something like this when drug use is socially unacceptable and something the government is trying to discourage. I would ask that you at least treat the government-funded (and generally negative) studies more sceptically than the independently-funded (and generally neutral) studies - now, I'm sure you won't do that but at least attempt to understand why there might be some bias there.

 

I think a startling example of this is in the UK, where an expert drugs panel recently rearranged recreational drugs in order of harm and advised against the government reclassifying cannabis from class C to B. The government ignored this advice and reclassified it anyway.

 

You're going on about wanting science published in "reliable, valid sources", but really the valid science is all out there - people just choose to ignore it if it doesn't suit them.

[teknoise]

The ones i knew who habitually used these drugs are not in rehab, no, they are chasing their imaginary tails. no kidding. The few i've known who dropped a lot of acid or shrooms are seriously whack jobs today.

 

Correction: the few you know who used those drugs and had a considerable problem with them are whack jobs. Remember that a LOT of people in the 60s where doing acid. A LOT of people. Most of those people grew up, cleaned up, and turned out fine.

 

Lets use E as an example as it was used heavily in the US before being Scheduled in 1984. It was also used again incredibly in the early 90s in the rave culture. We are not seeing a wave of mental patients or people dropping like flies from doing E 15 to 25 years ago. In fact, we hear nothing about them. Why? Because they all work 9-5, pay their mortgage, and take their kids to the park just like everybody else.

 

I'm talking about a large body of proper, scientific, randomised controlled trials by reliable authors published in reliable, valid sources, not some two bit documentary.

 

Lol, where did I say that Peter Jennings did his own scientific research?

 

He's a journalist, his documentary was .. documenting .. the history of the drug and the controversial govn't research on the drug and its later debunking by the science community. Journalists don't generally do scientific studies, they just report on it. Watch the documentary you might learn something. Its on Google Video. Its called Ecstasy Rising. I'm not going to link to it as I'm not sure if that breaks forum rules or not, but its a two second search. The video is about an hour long.

 

I just mentioned the documentary as a guide to get more knowledge on the subject.

 

Anyway, the research supported by the govn't was peer reviewed and found to NOT be "proper, scientific, randomised controlled trials by reliable authors published in reliable, valid sources". So new research was conducted, not a lot of research so far, but what has been conducted has also been published and peer reviewed and has yet to be discredited.

 

Look up some of the studies and see if you can find newer studies that debunk them.

 

Firstly the condescending comment was not necessary, I understand enough politics to know what I am saying. They wouldn't lose their job overnight. I've been to hospital at 1am on a friday night, the majority were drunks and you know what? The people who needed help like the small children with whooping cough or people who had actual health problems and wern't just selfish drug abusers had to wait hours whilst these people lay around using all the resources we pay for with our taxes, whilst the genuinly ill wait last. My youngest cousin died of menigitus because she was made to wait by the NHS whilst all these people who were drug abusers got attention first.

Sure someone took an overdose and they were about to die, well so what, it was self induced and selfish and someone who has an actual health problem deserves medical treatment over them.

 

Apologies for the condescending tone, I guess that was a little rude. I said it mostly because that comment was the same comment I would have made at your age. I too felt that those who damage themselves should be in a lower place in the waiting room then those who didn't hurt themselves.

 

Anyway, there is a whole massive discussion behind one's responsibility over themselves and the whole ethical argument of whether one who didn't hurt themselves has a higher valued life and deserves preferential treatment.

 

Once you dive into the topic it become pretty apparent that there are way too many variables at play for some dr to be able to essentially play god and decide who goes first. The easiest, and most ethical decisions is to help those that are hurt the most and ask ethical questions later.

 

Perhaps the drug overdoser just lost a wife to cancer last summer and has two kids in dire need of some help at home. Maybe giving this man a second chance at life will shake him from his addiction and he'll look after his kids and get off the coke. Letting him die because he's just another addict is a horrible thing to do, and thankfully the World Health Organization would condemn a country for doing something like that.

 

Because to say alcohol and cigarretes are bad for you but are legal does not logically extend to making other substances that are bad for you legal.

 

I have no doubt that alcohol and cigarretes cause far more deaths and illness that recreational drugs. Why? Because they are widely used and available. Why? Because they are legal. That is the precedent alcohol and tobacco set.

 

Thats a common fallacious argument that there would be more deaths than tobacco and alcohol users, as drug users would increase.

 

You must look at deaths per capita. What that means is you take the population of users of that particular drug, and find out the deaths per 100,000. In other words, for every 100,000 users of a particular drug, there are x amount of deaths.

 

 

image removed

Source: link removed (All sources used in this article are listed at the bottom - most are references to the center for disease control)

 

To find out the real danger of a drug you must look at the deaths per 100,000 so that you are looking at an equal number of users and comparing the amount of deaths you would have for that set amount of people.

 

Accoring to the Center For Disease control, there were 60 deaths in 2000 attributed to E. That works out to being 2 deaths for every 100,000 users. Compare that to 400 deaths for every 100,000 tobacco user, or 50 deaths for every 100,000 alcohol user.

 

And then theres pot: ZERO DEATHS!!

 

Even ignoring the lack of deaths from pot, you can look at its complete lack of societal problems it causes compared to alcohol. When's the last time you heard about someone getting stoned and beating their wife and kids? When's the last time someone got into a fist fight at the bar because they were baked? How many pot related car accidents do you hear about compared to booze related accidents?

 

Also, just because something becomes legal doesn't mean everyone is going to start doing it. Look at the pot user statistics for Amsterdam. Since its been decriminalized, not everyone is doing it now.

 

 

 

May 5th 2009...drugs legal:

 

16 year old kid distracts store cleric while a friend doesn't grab the beer...rather a pack of pot and a few ounces of meth as they both run out of the mini mart.

 

I prefer that $#@t stays out of the stores. (rant over)

 

Jesus people. Stop with this, nobody in their right mind on this forum, or anywhere for that matter is saying we should legalize meth, coke, crack, heroin, ghb, or anything of that nature.

 

I explained a few times now that there is a huge difference between certain drugs, they cannot all be classified as having the same health and societal risks.

 

Tumbling into this thread going, ZOMG!!! WEEZ CAN"T HVE METH LEGAL WEEZ ALL JUST DIE!! makes you look ignorant to those of us actually having a discussion. Please re-read the thread and quote where myself or anyone else said meth should be legal.

 

The few independent studies that have been done into ecstasy (such as link removed and link removed) tend to dismiss most of the claims of toxicity.

 

Thanks for that.

 

I think it's going to be difficult to provide you with the kind of evidence you're after, because of political-scientific bias. There's not much for a scientist to gain by studying the effects of ecstasy, particularly if the study concludes that it's not a dangerous drug; they're unlikely to come out and boldly announce something like this when drug use is socially unacceptable and something the government is trying to discourage. I would ask that you at least treat the government-funded (and generally negative) studies more sceptically than the independently-funded (and generally neutral) studies - now, I'm sure you won't do that but at least attempt to understand why there might be some bias there.

 

Thankfully there are scientists out there with an interest in one of humanity's most fascinating phenomenons: the desire to step outside one's psyche and into another world. This desire has been going on since the dawn of time, and is not limited to humans. We see animals willfully eating rotting fruit to get drunk for example. We can pretend that 1/3 of UK hasn't tried drugs, we can pretend they are all evil and bad, but that is simply not true. 1/3 has tried drugs, and of that 1/3, many do it on occasion and function in society.

 

Thankfully the scientists with an interest in this topic do not get swayed by political bias and put their efforts into researching the complex relationship between humans and chemicals.

[15 Storeys High]

I'm not swayed by government bias, not in the slightest. I know how to critically appraise research articles and most of what is out there can be discredited purely on reliability and study design flaws. When there's a larger amount of proper studies on each drug and their effects on HUMANS, long and short term, then maybe I'll get into this debate again. One or two studies mean zilch to me. I want more than that.

 

I can understand where you're coming from but until I'm satisfied with the research being done then I'm not going to agree that drugs should be legalised.

[melrich]

Once you dive into the topic it become pretty apparent that there are way too many variables at play for some dr to be able to essentially play god and decide who goes first. The easiest, and most ethical decisions is to help those that are hurt the most and ask ethical questions later.

 

This ignores that fact that they do this already. Smokers for example are given lower priority for organ transplants than non-smokers.

 

Thats a common fallacious argument that there would be more deaths than tobacco and alcohol users, as drug users would increase.

 

You must look at deaths per capita. What that means is you take the population of users of that particular drug, and find out the deaths per 100,000. In other words, for every 100,000 users of a particular drug, there are x amount of deaths.

 

 

link removed

Source: link removed (All sources used in this article are listed at the bottom - most are references to the center for disease control)

 

To find out the real danger of a drug you must look at the deaths per 100,000 so that you are looking at an equal number of users and comparing the amount of deaths you would have for that set amount of people.

 

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I am saying and I am thinking maybe you did not even mean to quote me above this.

[Flux]

And then theres pot: ZERO DEATHS!!

 

One actually, some guy smoke like 10,000 joints over a small ammount of time and it killed him, please read!

link removed (the only article I could find about it)

 

Generally, I think drugs are bad. But i'm a hypocrite because I like my party drugs. I will never smoke crack or heroin. I used to date a crack/heroin dealer and I saw the people he sold the stuff too, and it put me right off.

 

I do smoke a lot of cannabis, it keeps me chilled and relaxed (I'd rather take it for my ADHD than take ritolin or some other shiz!) I occasionally take E pills when with my friends, and have taken cocaine twice, and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it!

 

But weed is all I make a habit of taking. With the exception of alcohol and tobacco of course SoF likes her spirits and her pizzups

[CaptainNapalm]

I was and still am occasionally a recreatioinal user of pretty much anything and never had a problem with it. Done it through school and beyond and it never negatively affected my life. I have a degree and a great job as a civil engineer so to say that drugs can ruin your life is not true. They only do so if abused, not used, but abused. Unfortunately, there are a lot of weak willed people out there who end up abusing them hence the unfortunate consequences.

[CaptainNapalm]

"One actually, some guy smoke like 10,000 joints over a small ammount of time and it killed him, please read!

link removed (the only article I could find about it)"

 

LOL 10,000 joints in a small amount of time, is this a joke of a link? Ofcourse it killed him, just as drinking 20 litres of water in one sitting would or taking 500 Advils. This guy must have been a complete degenerate so bad example to use as overdosing on anything even baby food can kill you.

[Mythical_Suicide]

I was and still am occasionally a recreatioinal user of pretty much anything and never had a problem with it. Done it through school and beyond and it never negatively affected my life. I have a degree and a great job as a civil engineer so to say that drugs can ruin your life is not true. They only do so if abused, not used, but abused. Unfortunately, there are a lot of weak willed people out there who end up abusing them hence the unfortunate consequences.

 

 

Of course you're going to be labeled as a loser with a problem who won't admit it. (as many of us have..)

[teknoise]

Ya, obviously you are a raging closet addict who doesn't know it yet, and you are probably going to die next time you smoke a joint or swallow a pill, because doncha know, ecstasy kills!! Kills way more people per day than booze does in a year. Plus, if you do ecstasy or smoke pot next thing you know you'll be beating your gf and stabbing people for money. God knows all I can think about while I roll is how I want to go on a violent rampage. That's why I don't go to raves or clubs, because everyone does E and starts fights with each other. But I am a naturally horrible mean and sociopathic person that drugs turn me into a fluffy teddy bear, so its all good.

 

 

[Mavh25]

The majority of my friends take drugs, nothing super hardcore, cocaine, weed and sometimes ecstasy.

 

I used to honestly look at them and get angry about it, and sort of disapointed and I'd voice that to them, but now I just accept it, moaning at them wont' change it.

 

My friends don't push it onto me and don't ask me to do it because they know what I'll say. I don't feel the need to look down on them, I just go and do something else while they do it. I don't think that choice makes them bad people atall, just makes us different.

 

I do totally agree though that it really does not matter anymore it seems, my friends cannot have fun on a night out unless they take it. However they ONLY take it on nights out....

[Mythical_Suicide]

The majority of my friends take drugs, nothing super hardcore, cocaine, weed and sometimes ecstasy.

 

 

 

Cocaine and Ecstasy are "hardcore" drugs.. and before you say anything.. I used to do cocaine and ecstasy both so i'm not "attacking" just curious what you consider "super hardcore drugs"?

[Mavh25]

I don't know, I suppose they are but I meant I have'nt seen any sort of alteration to my friends with them.

 

I saw my brother react bad and a whole different personality so I guess I just would consider a hardcore drug, personally, to be something that affects a person as much as it affected my brother.

 

My friends say that when they do cocaine on a night out it just makes them enjoy things more nothing changes with them even slightly on the outside, ecstasy is'nt taken as much as they do coke but still there is no obvious change.

 

Thats all I meant, not technically.

 

I know that it CAN be very bad, just is'nt with them, maybe they build up a tolerance? I did have a friend afew years ago who had to take way more than 1 for it to actually do anything for him..

[Mythical_Suicide]

Like I said I wasn't attacking was just curious.. that's all..

 

Some people would label weed as hardcore and swear to their deaths that cocaine or meth wasn't a hardcore drug.. To me a drug is a drug.

[teknoise]

Cocaine and Ecstasy are "hardcore" drugs.. and before you say anything.. I used to do cocaine and ecstasy both so i'm not "attacking" just curious what you consider "super hardcore drugs"?

 

I don't like classifying MDMA and Coke in the same category. One kills and is easy to overdose on, one has few deaths a year and is substantially harder to OD on. One has caused enormous amount of social problems, one has arguably helped many social situations. One is insanely addictive, the other not so much. One causes all sorts of long term health problems in regular users, the other there isn't enough research to confirm that much significant damage is being done.

 

Sure, I'll accept that both are 'hard' drugs in that the high is quite profound, but then couldn't magic mushrooms be hard drugs too? God knows they can have potentially disastrous side affects. What would be a soft drug? All I can think of would be pot if we classify it that way.

 

I like to classify 'hard' drugs as having a high risk for abuse and addiction, and though coke would easily be in there, I have a hard time sticking MDMA in there as well.

[Mavh25]

Like I said I wasn't attacking was just curious.. that's all..

 

Some people would label weed as hardcore and swear to their deaths that cocaine or meth wasn't a hardcore drug.. To me a drug is a drug.

 

Oh no I know you were'nt, was just clarifying =)

 

Yeah I know some people who class weed as heavy.

 

Some people would classify MM's as none hardcore, but I have seen someone react BADDDD to them bigtime, it totally depends on the person obviously.

 

People do and don't do drugs for different reasons, my boyfriend says he knows exactly what certain drugs are cut with, like rat poison and the like, so he does'nt touch them.

[teknoise]

my boyfriend says he knows exactly what certain drugs are cut with, like rat poison and the like, so he does'nt touch them.

 

Who cuts drugs with poisons? Isn't it bad for business if you kill off all your customers? lol..

Besides, isn't most rat poison, like Warfarin, simply an anticoagulant, a chemical that prevents blood from clotting? There just isn't going to be enough of the anticoagulant chemical in a drug for your blood to be thinned out enough that you'd even notice.

 

I see your point though, and I'm only being half serious, there are good quality drugs and bad quality drugs. The key is never be a guinea pig, always let a dealer's batch go around a bit first so that you can get some reports back on quality from others. Also, always make sure the dealer is someone you trust - and even better, know through a friend. Never buy off a random person.

 

Also, if you are really ambitious and want to be as safe as possible there are testing kits you can buy online anonymously that allow you to test for drug purity.

[Mythical_Suicide]

LOL @ the beginning of your post.. It's true though. Drugs aren't always cut with bad stuff. When I was doing drugs I only got from someone I completely trusted. Hell, with the argument of drugs being cut with bad stuff same can even be said for prescription drugs. How many people have you heard of that died because of a screw up in prescription drugs? .. Seriously..

[Blue Streak]

Fact is, drugs effect people differently. There are many factors, including the reasons for taking drugs in the first place, moderation, personality, attitude, etc. which should be taken into consideration.

 

Some people can handle it and still live very productive, fruitful lives. For myself, that was not the case as the weed turned out to be heavy for me. I started in my teenage years and by the time I was in college, smoking marijuana became a full time hobby outside of my schooling. I essentially became addicted to it mentally but I never would have admitted it at the time. The fact is I ultimately kept using it as an excuse to run from my fears. I have been clean for 7 years now but I am still paying for those decisions I made when I was maturing. On the other side of the coin, my friends father smokes marijuana, and has for many years. He runs multiple very successful small businesses, is very happily married with 3 bubbling kids in college.

 

Of course the harder drugs like meth and heroin are a whole other ballgame. I am not an advocate for drugs yet it is not my decision to tell others how to live their lives. (excluding when I have kids of course!! )

[Mavh25]

There are lots of different types of rat poison, my sister was put on Warfarin and Heprin when she had blood clots.

 

I'm fairly sure the amount of poison that is put into the drug is'nt enough to kill, apparently it is put into cocaine to make it more potent... I'll ask him names and things tonight.