Which of these drugs in the poll do you use regularly. By regularly I mean everything from once daily, to once a year at christmas - to differentiate between using a drug, and just trying it once.

You may (and please do if necessary) check more than one option

If you have not voted yet, please consider the cocaine option to be CNS stimulants Amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, crack etc. I know this is a broad generalisation, but Speed was missed out originally and it only really fits in here.

Although its early days with the poll, its interestiung to see Cannabis and Cocaine are on equal footings. Coke is much more accessable these days and appears to be coming much more acceptable in a lot of circles.

I wonder whether that is simply a function of its falling price point, or a societal shift.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I wonder whether that is simply a function of its falling price point, or a societal shift.

I think its a combination of the 2. I still wouldnt touch it myself no matter what the price is, but I guess there are a lot of people that would buy it if it was cheaper.

Stick to the weed i say :thumbsup:

What about tranquilisers?

Vallium etc.

Originally posted by spyro2000
I still wouldnt touch it myself no matter what the price is, but I guess there are a lot of people that would buy it if it was cheaper.

I never tried any of the "hard" drugs (coke, heroin etc), I was too scared they might kill me, the price wasn't an issue.

Love to contribute but don't know if I am comfortable admitting what I do or don't do on a public forum.

But good idea for the poll Phan :thumbsup:

Originally posted by TimmyR
What about tranquilisers?

Vallium etc.

Maybe the mods could replace "Salvia Divinorum" with "Benzodiazepenes and other tranquilisers/sedatives" as there were only 10 slots (max) in the poll.

Good point though.

Saifa, the poll is anonymous. Not even the mods can see who voted for what.

Originally posted by nick2
I never tried any of the "hard" drugs (coke, heroin etc), I was too scared they might kill me, the price wasn't an issue.

Caffeine is 'harder' than coke, you just 'do' less of it. It's certainly a stronger drug.

[edit]
no, it's not, It's about the same, just more toxic to the body

Speed needs to be on there.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Maybe the mods could replace "Salvia Divinorum" with "Benzodiazepenes and other tranquilisers/sedatives" as there were only 10 slots (max) in the poll..

Too Late! It seems we have a salvia user on board.

Originally posted by carcrash
Speed needs to be on there.
do people still take speed? :P

I reckon, as a CNS stimulant etc, it goes in the same slot as coke and crack.

Coffee & Alcohol Daily, Smoke weekly, and Cannabis every few months when I'm back home :thumbsup:

As for the coke question, it's getting more and more acceptable in society. I wouldn't have a problem with a friend who did coke on an occasional basis, but I suppose I would with somebody who got addicted to it and started wasting money... I don't know never really thought about it.

Not ever done owt harder than weed....and even that has never really rocked my boat.
Think i'll stick to the beer.......yawn.

i'm surprised that coke & crack have been lumped into the same category :confused:

i appreciate that they are just different forms of essentially the same chemical, but they have completely different routes of administration, and completely different moral/social stigmas!

Consumption of magic mushrooms is supposedly a fantastic remedy for those who suffer from the horrific condition of Cluster Headaches. Unfortunately shrooms have just been made illegal.
Read more here (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1540653,00.html )

And yes, it works (and I should know) :D The ban is a disgrace!

Caffine - drink cola occasionally, coffee on cold winter mornings to warm up my belly... thats about it...

Alcohol - quite often, once a week ish?

Cannibis - not so often, festivals, odd times at a club or at party's...

after having just finished reading Anthony Kiedis's biography "Scar Tissue" I dont think I'd ever consider anything heavier, not so nice reading about someones drug addiction :? but it was a fairly interesting read to see what runs through the mind of an addict

No harm, in my humble opinion, of everything in moderation. Life is most certainly for living and doing what makes you as a person feel happy.

If what you do makes you feel happy and not harm others then what they hey !!

Interesting poll Phan ! :thumbsup:

Intersting that as many people smoke draw as they do fags...

Wonder if it's the same 20?

Originally posted by Saifa
Intersting that as many people smoke draw as they do fags...

Wonder if it's the same 20?
It can't be because I smoke tobacco but not weed.

Originally posted by Saifa
Intersting that as many people smoke draw as they do fags...

Wonder if it's the same 20?

well I ticked cannibis but not smoking... I dont smoke cigerretes ever, but obviously mix a bit of tobacco in with some cannibis... i wouldn't do either on a regular daily basis though... same as I wouldn't drink every day either... everything in moderation... and I've turned into a bit of a health freak lately lol

Originally posted by xafier

after having just finished reading Anthony Kiedis's biography "Scar Tissue" I dont think I'd ever consider anything heavier, not so nice reading about someones drug addiction :? but it was a fairly interesting read to see what runs through the mind of an addict


would you stop drinking after reading about an alcoholic? or smoking after reading about someone who died of lung cancer ? just curious because i suspect most people who have voted they have taken 'harder' drugs are recreational users and not at all addicted.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
i'm surprised that coke & crack have been lumped into the same category :confused:

i appreciate that they are just different forms of essentially the same chemical, but they have completely different routes of administration, and completely different moral/social stigmas!

There were only 10 options maximum, And I've tried to group them by susbtance, rather than by effect, or appearance.

EVERY drug

:suspect:

I'd imagine there's a lot of lesser known drugs not included, but this pole is a good indicator of usage nontheless.

I thought speed came under the classification of amphetamine? Or is that just another name for it?

One significant ommission however is "None of the above".

anything after the first two is a total waste of money IMO.
in general users should be dealt with harshly.

Originally posted by willman

in general users should be dealt with harshly.

Why?

Originally posted by xafier
Cannibis - not so often, festivals, odd times at a club or at party's...

I hope your mum is reading this :hihi:

Originally posted by boyface
Why?

old wives saying " one thing leads to another" not all users can control themselves.
& I've never heard of anyone commiting burglary to buy a cup of tea.

Originally posted by Lee1979
would you stop drinking after reading about an alcoholic? or smoking after reading about someone who died of lung cancer ? just curious because i suspect most people who have voted they have taken 'harder' drugs are recreational users and not at all addicted.

I dont need to read about an alcoholic, I've already heard plenty enough from my gran and mum about what my grandad was like when he was an alcoholic... but its a lot easier to go out and have a binge drinking session and never do it again, smoke some coke or shoot up some heroin and its a totally different ball game (apperently)... and to be honest it doesnt appeal to me anyways, if you cant enjoy life without shooting something into your veins or snorting or swallowing or smoking something then why are you bothering?

i can give or take drinking alcohol, i could probably go the rest of my life without drinking another drop if i wanted... its all about choice and some people choose to do stronger things and some don't... but i love my life and having self control, and I would really hate myself if i ever did anything like coke or heroin and got addicted... same as i would if i became an alcoholic...

addiction... its a terrible thing

Originally posted by D2J
I hope your mum is reading this :hihi:

its ok, she already knows I've smoked it :P I tell my mum everything... almost :suspect:

Originally posted by willman
old wives saying " one thing leads to another" not all users can control themselves.
& I've never heard of anyone commiting burglary to buy a cup of tea.

As you say...its an old wives saying.

Have you ever heard of anyone committing burglary to specifically buy cannabis or ecstasy?

I know lots of people who use different drugs. They all have jobs and none of them steal to buy them. Your argument is ignorant.

Originally posted by willman
anything after the first two is a total waste of money IMO.

because "it's a waste of money" or for some other reason?

Originally posted by boyface
As you say...its an old wives saying.

Have you ever heard of anyone committing burglary to specifically buy cannabis or ecstasy?

I know lots of people who use different drugs. They all have jobs and none of them steal to buy them. Your argument is ignorant.

why is it ignorant- never accused u or your friends of stealing - so why so agressive.
IMO-soft drugs lead to hard drugs in too many cases to be acceptable. drug addiction increases crime rates (fact)

just 'cos your not an addict don't make it a clever thing to do.

Originally posted by willman
old wives saying " one thing leads to another" not all users can control themselves.
& I've never heard of anyone commiting burglary to buy a cup of tea.

That would be because tea, and the price of tea, is not controlled by the black market, and it is freely available everywhere.

I once stole a teabag from next door at uni.

don't get me wrong, xafier, i was just asking because as i said i suspect most people who have voted they have taken coke, ecstasy etc are not addicted and do it recreationally.

IMO, caffine and nicotine are far more addictive than coke and ecstasy.


*awaits the arguement* :P

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That would be because tea, and the price of tea, is not controlled by the black market, and it is freely available everywhere. #

spot on - however consider how much tea one would have to drink to be encouraged to commit acts of burglary & theft.

Originally posted by willman
why is it ignorant- never accused u or your friends of stealing - so why so agressive.
IMO-soft drugs lead to hard drugs in too many cases to be acceptable. drug addiction increases crime rates (fact)

just 'cos your not an addict don't make it a clever thing to do.

I never claimed it was a clever thing to do. Nor is it a stupid thing. Intellect doesn't come into it.

Alcoholism leads to an increase in crime and a high level of poor health and in extreme cases homelessness. But that's ok in your opinion? All alcoholics started with a pint, so should we ban that?

Why the difference? Could it be purely because of the legality of it?

Thoroughly dependant on caffeine (several cups of coffee a day)
Alcohol, none at the moment, though enough in the past for several lifetimes.
Cannabis, a few times a year maybe
Opiates never
Everything else on the list at least once in the past (one thing from each group at least).

On the whole, a well spent youth.

Originally posted by boyface
I never claimed it was a clever thing to do. Nor is it a stupid thing. Intellect doesn't come into it.

Alcoholism leads to an increase in crime and a high level of poor health and in extreme cases homelessness. But that's ok in your opinion? All alcoholics started with a pint, so should we ban that?

Why the difference? Could it be purely because of the legality of it?

alcoholism & addiction, IMO could be classed as medical conditions, so no different really.
however the type of crime varies with the dependency.
drunks fight after they've paid for their stuff, alco's may shoplift.
addicts steal to finance their dependency.

i would prefer to have methadone on the NHs if it reduced the types of crime committed by addicts, until then i think its morally wrong.

Ok,

I wrote a right higgeldy piggeldy message before so I'm going to edit it now!

I 'do' caffeine but only through coca cola as I don't drink coffee or tea and I don't eat choccie!

I 'do' methadone regularly - ie. twice a day, but it's only 5ml-10ml at a time and it's prescribed for pain relief because paracetamol, codeine nor morphine work for pain! No, I'm not a recovering heroine addict :suspect:

I don't smoke so don't even touch nicotine or tobacco, too scared of what it'll do to me, and I don't even drink because of a problem with my liver.
I stick to the schloer! ;)

Originally posted by willman
spot on - however consider how much tea one would have to drink to be encouraged to commit acts of burglary & theft.
Many's the time I've heard somebody say "I'd kill for a cuppa". At least most heroin addicts would stop short of such serious measures.

I have to agree with the poster who mentioned the new law to ban magic mushrooms - I fairly recently "re-discovered" mushrooms and I have to say that mushrooms have a hugely positive motivating intellectual effect which contrasts strongly with the mental fug you get from taking something like speed, cocaine, cannabis, alcohol or ecstacy. Mushrooms are great for having a "mental workout", which gives me a similar but much deeper beneficial effect to meditation or walking in the countryside.

Originally posted by Lotti
I 'do' methadone regularly - ie. twice a day, but it's only 5ml-10ml at a time and it's prescribed for pain relief because paracetamol, codeine nor morphine work for pain! No, I'm not a recovering heroine addict :suspect:


do you mind if i ask why this is? i have to admit that, although i consider myself well informed on drugs (prescribed or otherwise) i too associated methadone with smack 'eads.. educate me!

Wow, I didn't realise DF118's were classed as a hard drug!

I was prescribed them a few years ago as pain relief (though I only took them when I really had to because I always got a migraine the next day). I've still got some somewhere in the back of a drawer :gag:

Originally posted by dirtybobby
do you mind if i ask why this is? i have to admit that, although i consider myself well informed on drugs (prescribed or otherwise) i too associated methadone with smack 'eads.. educate me!

I too take methadone for pain (along with amitriptyline, carbamazepine, NSAIDs and paracetamol).

Briefly, standard opiates use a receptor in the body that for some stimulates tripping, nausea, vomiting and intense headaches, even at very low dose. I am one of those people, so when I needed pain relief for my cancer (the tumour and the surgery damaged nerves) the 'normal' painkillers were out of the question. My palliative care physician asked me to try methadone (I was rather skeptical to start with) but it works very well on background pain.

For addicts it mimics other opiates but works by a different receptor, which is why it gets rid of the withdrawal symptoms but doesn't produce the same sort of high as other opiates.

I can go into much greater detail if you would like, but don't ask unless you will understand the anwer- I have a degree in biochemistry and the research papers lost me in places!

Strangely, over the rest of Europe methadone is used as a mainstream painkiller, it's only here that you get the funny looks when people know what you take.

Originally posted by Hels
Wow, I didn't realise DF118's were classed as a hard drug!


it's not, really.. dihydrocodeine (df118) is class B, so it doesn't fall under the same "harm" category as heroin.. it is from the same family of drugs, though..

Originally posted by medusa666
stuff

thanks :)

I can go into much greater detail if you would like, but don't ask unless you will understand the anwer- I have a degree in biochemistry and the research papers lost me in places!

lol nah, not to worry.. i don't claim to be an expert on these matters, i just like to expand my knowledge given the opportunity :)

ta.

Originally posted by willman

drunks fight after they've paid for their stuff, alco's may shoplift.
addicts steal to finance their dependency.



so is a drunk beating seven colours of crap out of somebody better than somebody stealing something, because they've paid for the alcohol they have had?

I don't see your argument.

I did once sniff trichloroethylene1:1:1 (solvent) & got a phenominal high off that.

But that was years ago, and only once.
I felt i'll & out of it for days after.

Stick to filter coffees & wine nowadays. :thumbsup:

Yes, missing from this list were several important categories

Barbiturates
Amphetamine CNS stimulants
dissociatives - Ketamine/PCP
also
theobromine - Chocolate
Solvents (petrol, tippex thinners, glue)

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
I did once sniff trichloroethylene1:1:1 (solvent) & got a phenominal high off that.



Trichloroethylene's definitely not good for you - it's pretty carcinogenic for a start. What's the 1,1,1 bit about though - did you really mean trichloroethylene or did you mean 1,1,1-trichloroethane (not that that's much better).

To answer the question though... just coffee and the occasional bit of alcohol for me. I've never really seen the need to augment my already overactive imagination with anything else!

i take paracetamol... when im suffering from a hangover

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yes, missing from this list were several important categories


Add amphetamines to my folly of youth list then.

Originally posted by metalman
Trichloroethylene's definitely not good for you - it's pretty carcinogenic for a start. What's the 1,1,1 bit about though - did you really mean trichloroethylene or did you mean 1,1,1-trichloroethane (not that that's much better).
ah that's it - the second one.

It was a bottle of plaster remover I happened accross.

Tchoh! thefolly of youth indeed :roll:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
ah that's it - the second one.

It was a bottle of plaster remover I happened accross.

Tchoh! thefolly of youth indeed :roll:

As a kid we always snuck into the cupboard of the cdt room and sniffed this kinda liquid plastic stuff that was means to harden,....no idea what it was. We always said we were making a cricket helmet for some reason...

The teacher either wanted an easy life or was naive. It was ace for a bout 3 mins then a banging headache all afternoon.

Ah, fun times.

Amyl/Butyl Nitrate, anyone?

no thanks DanSumption, I'm trying to quit... :hihi:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yes, missing from this list were several important categories

Barbiturates
Amphetamine CNS stimulants
dissociatives - Ketamine/PCP
also
theobromine - Chocolate
Solvents (petrol, tippex thinners, glue)

Actually, I think that the list would be impossible to fit in the 'maximum 10 slots' category, bearing in mind that although Ketamine fits in the 'Dissociatives' category, it is really very similar to methadone in that it works on the same NMDA receptor (as do dextropropoxyphene and dextromethorphan, which is the stuff in Night Nurse that makes it so interesting). Methadone is actually an opioid rather than an opiate and works in a different way, so that should be separate to the heroin bunch, but is really not very dissociative etc etc etc.

The easiest way to simplify the list would be to ask:

Do you use any drugs ever?

to which everybody would answer 'yes' as virtually everything acts as a sort of drug on the body in one sense or another (with the possible exception of pure water).

Hope that makes the poll easier for everyone.

well on the list i think these apply to me


alcohol-- not no more gave it up.but i did drink a lot

caffeine -- addicted now stop alcohol

nicotine -- smoke more now stop alcohol

cannabis -- use to smoke it every day.now i have it now and then to chill or when im at a rallie.but i can take it or leave it


sedatives-- have used these

whiz ( dont think this is on -billy) -- use to get my weight down only.

if you mean illegal drugs then no apart from caffine, if you mean legal medication then the list goes on and on....... lol

Phan, would you put antidepressants in your list of mind altering drugs? ;)

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Phan, would you put antidepressants in your list of mind altering drugs? ;)

I would certainly group prozac with MDMA based on effects, except the prozac is like low dose MDMA without the enjoyment/comedown.

In making the list, I tried to keep to relatively familiar substances, but missing out amphetamine and methamphetamine was an oversight. I would have put barbs and tranqs in one category by themselves too.

I've quit drugs and smoking this year so just booze

Just switched browsers and noticed the google ads for this thread
<--
Private Luxury Program
Special Detox/Treatment-Exclusive Newport Beach & Hollywood, CA

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Caffeine is 'harder' than coke, you just 'do' less of it. It's certainly a stronger drug.

[edit]
no, it's not, It's about the same, just more toxic to the body

peoples lives don't fall apart by drinking tea.

Originally posted by cloud
peoples lives don't fall apart by drinking tea.

That's not true, my mate goes all grey if I don't have any coffee.

What is the purpose of this poll by the way? Are you investigating which forum members need rehab?

Originally posted by cloud
peoples lives don't fall apart by drinking tea.

chronic caffeine abuse is a major cause of insomnia, tiredness, workplace accidents etc etc etc. You get the picture.

Just because the damage is not blindingly obvious, does not mean it is not there.

Agent_G -
The purpose of this poll is to satisfy my curiosity/

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The purpose of this poll is to satisfy my curiosity/

Also the purpose of life. Rehab for me.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The purpose of this poll is to satisfy my curiosity/

it's invoked my curiosity, I'm quite surprised of the percentage of people who regulally take ecstacy and coke :? to my knowledge I dont know anyone that takes either regulally, i know enough that take cannibis, as this poll has shown its a highly used drug, know a few who do shrooms... guess i probably know E and coke takers too but just dont realise it

Originally posted by xafier
it's invoked my curiosity, I'm quite surprised of the percentage of people who regulally take ecstacy and coke :? to my knowledge I dont know anyone that takes either regulally...

i am genuinely surprised by this! i know hardly anyone who doesn't take them regularly.. and i'm fairly certain it's not a geographical thing, as it is the same case both here and back home..

although saying that, i think you are only aware of people's drug usage if you are involved in them yourself.. most people i work with take some form of drug, but the few who don't are blissfully unaware (it is obvious from some of the jokes or naïve comments they make)..

hmmm..

Oh god... my G.P perscribes me DF118's for my back pain.. are they a really iffy painkiller then phan?

Great poll.

voted for 3 myself.

Originally posted by honeyplanet
Oh god... my G.P perscribes me DF118's for my back pain.. are they a really iffy painkiller then phan?

no they are just an opiate.

I'm not trying to see who is one what side of the law here, just who is experiencing what in their head at the moment.

DF118s are to codeine what Heroin is to morphine. They are a very effective painkiller, but you should have been told that a physical dependency may be an issue for long term use.

Originally posted by venger
Great poll.

voted for 3 myself.

I've seen you use at least 4

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I've seen you use at least 4

O alright then :suspect:

Caffeine is my major one..

Although I dont mind alcohol - I detest cigs and I'm absolutely anti-drugs of any other kind.

Originally posted by t020
Because it's against the law is another good reason.

To quote someone far more eloquent than I; "there are unjust laws"

Alcohol and nicotine are far more damaging than many illegal drugs.

And there are drugs that are more harmful than their classification suggests.

And there are drugs that are less harmful than their classification suggests.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
To quote someone far more eloquent than I; "there are unjust laws"

Alcohol and nicotine are far more damaging than many illegal drugs.

And there are drugs that are more harmful than their classification suggests.

And there are drugs that are less harmful than their classification suggests.

I think 50mph on Parkway is unjust. At 3am I think 100mph would be safe - does that mean I can just go for it then?

Just a couple of beers at the weekend for me (usually white wine).

I gave up smoking four years ago, don't touch tea/coffee/fizzy drinks, grew out of illegal drug taking about 10 years ago.

Alcohol is not damaging in moderation, unlike chemical drugs which can really mess with your head.

A friend of a friend went completely mad after taking a so called safe drug, cannabis. He started hearing and seeing things that wasn't there, very scary.

Originally posted by t020
I think 50mph on Parkway is unjust. At 3am I think 100mph would be safe - does that mean I can just go for it then?

I don't drive, so I think it would be unfair of me to comment on that one.

Though if I'm not mistaken, road traffic accidents cause a considerably higher number of casualties than A' class drugs.... Perhaps their should be tougher legislation for dangerous drivers, and tougher driving examinations.

* Time-Expired *

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
Tough one!

I think he probably meant alcohol and niccotine though!

Indeed, they are the main culprits, but chocolate and coffee too, but in a more historical sense; and along with them, refined sugar.

All of these mind altering substances now have large industries devoted to them, that were once rooted in slavery and exploitation. Coffee still has some way to go.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Indeed, they are the main culprits, but chocolate and coffee too, but in a more historical sense; and along with them, refined sugar.

All of these mind altering substances now have large industries devoted to them, that were once rooted in slavery and exploitation. Coffee still has some way to go.

You could say the same about any goods that were made/grown/harvested/imported by exploiting the local population: cotton and crops of all types spring to mind.

It's got nothing to do with drugs.

Originally posted by mojoworking
You could say the same about any goods that were made/grown/harvested/imported by exploiting the local population: cotton and crops of all types spring to mind.

It's got nothing to do with drugs.


Except that hunger for these products was a function of the addiction potential they had.

But you're right, I think we can leave nebulous historical asides, er, aside.

I believe it is still a fair comment to say that alcohol and tobacco are, in this country, a larger cause of death, cost and misery than all the others combined.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I believe it is still a fair comment to say that alcohol and tobacco are, in this country, a larger cause of death, cost and misery than all the others combined.

That's one thing we can agree on.

Although, because tobacco doesn't cause a marked change in behaviour like all the other drugs in the list (except caffeine), its negative effects are usually seen solely in the form of smoking related health problems.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Although, because tobacco doesn't cause a marked change in behaviour like all the other drugs

you sure about that? you haven't seen the severe moods swings I've seen and aggressive snapping I've seen from both my parents and my brother when they've repeatidly tried to stop smoking... 0 to killer in 0.5 seconds!

doesn't nicotine have one of the most powerful addictive powers out of all the drugs? I'm sure I read somewhere its more addictive than heroin :?

Originally posted by mojoworking
Although, because tobacco doesn't cause a marked change in behaviour like all the other drugs in the list (except caffeine), its negative effects are usually seen solely in the form of smoking related health problems.

I think you're wrong to suggest caffeine doesn't cause a marked change in behaviour. It may not have the extreme effects of some drugs, but it is still a powerful stimulant in its own right.

Why do people drink coffee? Generally to give themselves an energy boost. If they drink enough of it, coffee drinking can cause sleeplessness, irritability, hyperactivity - generally cause drinkers to feel and act 'wired'.

Personally, if I drink more than 1 cup a day, I know I get really jittery and wound up. I foolishly drank an espresso after dinner once on holiday in Italy, and was 'wired' for the rest of the night - I had to be metaphorically 'pulled down off the ceiling'!

StarSparkle

For me personally, caffeine has very little, or even ZERO effect. I like my coffee strong as well.

Originally posted by t020
For me personally, caffeine has very little, or even ZERO effect. I like my coffee strong as well.
The two are most likely related. The same thing happens to heavy users of most, if not all, drugs.

I believed for years that coffee had little or zero effect on me. Then I gave up drinking tea and coffee for about a month. When I next drank a coffee, I felt very strange, certainly it was a stronger (though different) effect than that of smoking a joint. I later had a second cup of coffee, and it gave me a splitting headache that was as bad as any you'd get from a couple of hits of solvents.

Originally posted by xafier
you sure about that? you haven't seen the severe moods swings I've seen and aggressive snapping I've seen from both my parents and my brother when they've repeatidly tried to stop smoking... 0 to killer in 0.5 seconds!

doesn't nicotine have one of the most powerful addictive powers out of all the drugs? I'm sure I read somewhere its more addictive than heroin :?

Yes, I'm sure about that. You simply can't compare the mild and temporary effects of smoking cigarettes, or drinking any number of cups of coffee with the obvious and often traumatic effects of alcohol, ecstasy, LSD, speed, heroin etc.

It's true that mood changes can appear in smokers if they go without a nicotine fix for a while, but that's a withdrawal symptom, which is different entirely.

As for coffee, you'd need a very strange metabolism to be climbing the walls after one cup! Sounds more like HDD to me.

I'm not defending tobacco here, BTW, I'm all for a total ban on smoking in public places.

Originally posted by DanSumption
The two are most likely related. The same thing happens to heavy users of most, if not all, drugs.

I believed for years that coffee had little or zero effect on me. Then I gave up drinking tea and coffee for about a month. When I next drank a coffee, I felt very strange, certainly it was a stronger (though different) effect than that of smoking a joint. I later had a second cup of coffee, and it gave me a splitting headache that was as bad as any you'd get from a couple of hits of solvents.

I think a lot of people are ignorant of the effect caffeine has on them, simply because they're so used to that effect they think it's normal.

I've always drunk a huge amount of tea, but stopped totally for about 3 weeks on a detox diet. (For weight loss purposes, before you start!) Suffered the most vicious headache of my life the night I stopped. Then the first cup I drank 3 weeks later nearly took my head off!

T020 - if you left coffee alone for a few weeks, then drank your usual, it'd give you a more realistic view of the DRUG you're regularly putting in your body.

StarSparkle

Caffine is definitely strong stuff. I never drink tea, coffee or coke, so I find if I ever do have caffine it makes me quite irritable and gives me the shakes.

I try to avoid headache tablets that contain caffine, cause they usually make my headache worse!

Originally posted by mojoworking
As for coffee, you'd need a very strange metabolism to be climbing the walls after one cup! Sounds more like HDD to me.


Mojoworking - for the record, I don't normally drink coffee at all as it tends to give me a headache. On the one occasion, I went from that to drinking a particularly strong coffee quite late at night - it was obviously a big shock to my system, and I wouldn't do it again.

Thank you for your concern :rolleyes: - and kindly keep your ill-informed comments to yourself.

I was exaggerating slightly, in what is known as 'poetic licence' to make a valid point.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by mojoworking
As for coffee, you'd need a very strange metabolism to be climbing the walls after one cup! Sounds more like HDD to me.


Mojoworking... I would definitely be climbing the walls after a cup of coffee, because my body is not used to caffine.

I even have to avoid Red Bull, because it makes me shakey, snappish and on edge.

Yet my body can cope with copious ammount of alcohol. Odd that! :suspect:

You're body can only cope with what it's used to.

One of the most common drugs I use is resolve...:blush: hic.

Originally posted by DanSumption
The two are most likely related. The same thing happens to heavy users of most, if not all, drugs.

I believed for years that coffee had little or zero effect on me. Then I gave up drinking tea and coffee for about a month. When I next drank a coffee, I felt very strange, certainly it was a stronger (though different) effect than that of smoking a joint. I later had a second cup of coffee, and it gave me a splitting headache that was as bad as any you'd get from a couple of hits of solvents.

No.... I don't drink coffee that often. It just really doesn't affect me much. Sometimes I go a week or more without a single cup.

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's one thing we can agree on.

Although, because tobacco doesn't cause a marked change in behaviour like all the other drugs in the list (except caffeine), its negative effects are usually seen solely in the form of smoking related health problems.

You've never smoked Nicotiana Rustica have you?

It's a little different to the washed, freon injected, re-nicotinised almost tobacco product made from n. sylvestris currently masquerading as tobacco in cigarette packets everywhere. That product has just enough nicotine put back into it to make it addictive. No more, no less.

Tobacco is legal. It's ok for tens of thousands to die from it every year, but the best way to get it banned, forced underground and into the hands of profiteering criminal gangs is to illuminate everyone to the hallucinogenic properties of tobacco.

As soon as people started enjoying it, instead of just coughing up cash into the public purse and then getting on with dying, I reckon you would see a sea change in attitudes by the state.

Also, chewing a coca quid does not necessarily cause a marked change in behaviour, and in fact is both beneficial in the short term, and also beneficial to your health in the long term as well.
edit -- Drugs only produced a marked change in behaviour if the dosage is such. Many drugs are 'effective' at much smaller dosages. Effect is dose related , not drug related.

Much alcohol, particularly red wine. What is missing from government, and what is plain to see here, is an intelligent discussion about drugs, rather than the "think of the children" knee jerk reactionary neophobic attitudes that are the hallmark of ossified institutions everywhere.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I think a lot of people are ignorant of the effect caffeine has on them, simply because they're so used to that effect they think it's normal.


This is true - I was having trouble sleeping a while ago, and someone suggested that I cut down on the coffee I was drinking. Now I only drink coffee in the mornings, and I do feel better.

Originally posted by t020
I occasionally drink cola and sometimes have a bit of chocolate, but not often.

So its probable that you have a high natural tolerance for the effects of caffeine.

This sort of thing (unusually high or low tolerance for a substance) is exhibited for all drugs. For illicit recreational users it can be frustrating as they end up paying out double for a similar experience to their peers.

In some circles, being a 'hardhead' is definitely designated as a curse. In others it can be a veritable blessing (think of the kudos given to those who 'can take their drink'. (Although I acknowledge that is also a function of how and what they drink.))

However, if coffee did not have CNS stimulant properties similar to cocaine, the world would not have 5 billion caffeine users, an estimated 30% of whom are addicted. Nor would it be quite the cash crop it is today - Just like coca.

Hardest drug I have ever had to stop taking is Nicotine. So hard in fact I still cannot kick the habit. Trying again very soon.

However although I have had mainly positive drug use, I would not use the fac that nicotine is legal as a reason to make other things legal. I would just say ban nicotine. I also do not believe other drugs should be made legal. I would scare the hell out of me to have quality, cheap cocaine available to all, same thing with Heroin.

Drugs or a problem of society, people take them for all sorts of reasons. While recreational drug use rarely causes big issues, it’s the people looking for escape that are the problem. Making it more widely available to this subsection of people is tantamount to state sponsored suicide.

Originally posted by back2basics
Hardest drug I have ever had to stop taking is Nicotine. So hard in fact I still cannot kick the habit. Trying again very soon.

However although I have had mainly positive drug use, I would not use the fac that nicotine is legal as a reason to make other things legal. I would just say ban nicotine. I also do not believe other drugs should be made legal. I would scare the hell out of me to have quality, cheap cocaine available to all, same thing with Heroin.

Drugs or a problem of society, people take them for all sorts of reasons. While recreational drug use rarely causes big issues, it’s the people looking for escape that are the problem. Making it more widely available to this subsection of people is tantamount to state sponsored suicide.

Surely the majority of the problems caused by drugs are actually more to do with the social and legal issues surrounding it? Wouldn't it better all round to provide a regulated source of pharmaceutical grade and consistant drugs to those who use it? After all you would at a stroke destroy the drug cartells (well assuming that all countries did this!) and prevent the majority of deaths from overdoses and acute toxicity which apparently more a result of the way that the drugs are cut rather than the toxicity of the drug itself...

Originally posted by boyface
so is a drunk beating seven colours of crap out of somebody better than somebody stealing something, because they've paid for the alcohol they have had?

I don't see your argument.

but they're not usually beating somebody innocent up to pay for their habit.

isn't it funny how forum members often come on with threads complaining about criminals stealing their cars or cd's or burglarising or speeding.and then try to justify the use of illegal substances.

the only redeeming feature of drug user is that it only f***s your own lives up, oh & those of your family & friends.
but no doubt if you are one of the few that don't become dependent i suppose you'll support NHS services for druggies.

no doubt several of you will be in decent jobs or looking for decent jobs, pretending to be moral & upright citizens.
what a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally posted by willman
but they're not usually beating somebody innocent up to pay for their habit.

How much violent crime is to fund drug purchases? I know there is a fair amount of fighting between drug gangs and aparrently alot of petty theft is drug related but not sure about violent crime and certainly not sure about brawling in the street which has always seemed more booze than "drugs" related.

When you are lying in a hospital bed having had the crap beaten out of you I doubt whether the attacker was drunk or after drugs will matter all that much to ya!

Originally posted by willman
but they're not usually beating somebody innocent up to pay for their habit.

Nah, they usually beat some innocent person up because it's a "good laugh".

Originally posted by evildrneil
Surely the majority of the problems caused by drugs are actually more to do with the social and legal issues surrounding it? Wouldn't it better all round to provide a regulated source of pharmaceutical grade and consistant drugs to those who use it? After all you would at a stroke destroy the drug cartells (well assuming that all countries did this!) and prevent the majority of deaths from overdoses and acute toxicity which apparently more a result of the way that the drugs are cut rather than the toxicity of the drug itself...

I don't believe it would destroy the drug cartels. For a start every country would need to legalize for the cartels to go away. They would just find new markets if that were not the case. Cannabis is available legally in Amsterdam but there is still a huge illegal trade in Cannabis. It may effect their bottom line, but that’s about it. They will always stay one step ahead. What happens when somebody makes a new drug that people want, there would be a rush to get it out legally, or their would be a void, filled illegally.

I fully agree on the quality issues. Obviously taking cleaner gear is advantageous.

I have known a number of people addicted to Heroin, and while I understand it actually a very safe drug, I do not know many people who have ever got off the drug.

I think Cocaine is another life wrecker, in both forms. It may be fine recreationally, but again if you have problems in your life, that’s when it can start to control you.

And I was part of the summer of love generation. I grew up with people taking Ecstasy week in, week out. I have suffered health issues (short term memory, depression) and I have friends that took it too far. I know people who have committed suicide due to the depression and other things going on in their lives. Again I know how safe these drugs are, I am not talking about the majority of people who use restraint, I am talking about the weak people we need to protect.

And the we have things like Speed and Meth, some of the dirtiest drugs. I worry about social acceptability. I worry about more people moving to needles quicker if drugs were legal and acceptable. We really have little data on that. We do know that drug addiction feed crime. If drugs were legal we would probably chance from importing illegal drugs to robbing pharmacies as they would in the 60 and 70’s for speed and downers. I believe it would be foster a black market of stolen legal drugs and as nobody is saying make these drugs free, we would still have an issue of people getting committing crime to get their next fix.

We do have good data on giving heroin addicts heroin instead of Methadone and the results there were good. I believe something like the trials in Scotland should be put back in place. I think we need to spend more money on treatment, and the root causes of problem drug addiction.

I think the debate should be opened again, more data should be compiled. I personally have not heard of anything people are saying that makes me believe it’s a good idea.

Originally posted by evildrneil
How much violent crime is to fund drug purchases? I know there is a fair amount of fighting between drug gangs and aparrently alot of petty theft is drug related but not sure about violent crime and certainly not sure about brawling in the street which has always seemed more booze than "drugs" related...

brawling is a result of excess alcohol & an inabiltiy to control one's intake, not a sign of alcoholism.
how many drinkers also take a little something extra at the same time, but get registered as a drunken brawl.

crime to pay for drugs is caused by the addiction.
no drugs no addiction.

Originally posted by willman
brawling is a result of excess alcohol & an inabiltiy to control one's intak

And this makes it any better???

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Thank you for your concern :rolleyes: - and kindly keep your ill-informed comments to yourself.

I was exaggerating slightly, in what is known as 'poetic licence' to make a valid point.

StarSparkle

In other words, it wasn't true. I realised that of course and exaggerated slightly in return.

As for keeping my comments to myself? What a bizarre thing to say! In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion forum.

Get a grip, please.

Well if one were to extrapolate the results of this poll to the forum (just a bit of fun, nothing in it) one might get a graph something like this (http://hypocaust.kicks-ass.net/graph.gif)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well if one were to extrapolate the results of this poll to the forum (just a bit of fun, nothing in it) one might get a graph something like this (http://hypocaust.kicks-ass.net/graph.gif)

I'd guess that's a fair reflection of the real world. Perhaps your beloved mushrooms are placed a little higher than I would have predicted, but that's only to be expected ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
I'd guess that's a fair reflection of the real world. Perhaps your beloved mushrooms are placed a little higher than I would have predicted, but that's only to be expected ;) Given that they are popular with such a wide variety of people, from Crusties to Lincolnshire Landowners, I was actually a little disappointed to see them so low down the list. But, as they say, the only way is up.

edit -- how amusing to see the google ads for this page linking to Paul Stamets' site 'fungi perfecti'

Paul Stamets is the man who started ten thousand mycophiles on the science of cultivating new mushrooms strains.

Originally posted by evildrneil
And this makes it any better???

its no different to football trouble,kids scrapping in the playground & as unpleasant as it is ,it still doesn't justify the illegal use of drugs.

Originally posted by willman
isn't it funny how forum members often come on with threads complaining about criminals stealing their cars or cd's or burglarising or speeding.and then try to justify the use of illegal substances.


so just because you have copied a CD at some point in your life, or bought a dodgy DVD, or broke the speed limit, will that give you no right to complain when someone rapes and murders your mum? they're both crimes, after all :roll:

the law is not polarised.. just because use of some drugs is currently illegal, proponents of said usage are not denied the right to be protected by other laws..

and before you go off on one and saying "that's obviously not what i meant blah blah :rant:" that is exactly what you meant: drug users should not complain about people stealing from them because they are obviously on the wrong side of the law..

idiot :roll:

Originally posted by willman
its no different to football trouble,kids scrapping in the playground & as unpleasant as it is ,it still doesn't justify the illegal use of drugs.

I wasn't saying that it did justify the illigal use of drugs. I would strongly disagree with your claims that drunken brawling is no different to kids scrapping in the playground. If we take a look at some figures for crimes of violence:

Roizen, in his 1997 paper, summarized the percentages of violent offenders who were drinking at the time of the offense as follows: up to 86 percent of homicide offenders, 37 percent of assault offenders, 60 percent of sexual offenders, up to 57 percent of men and 27 percent of women involved in marital violence, and 13 percent of child abusers.

I think this shows that alcohol is a significant contributing factor to violent crime (almost certainly more so than illegal drugs) and that when trying to have any sort of adult debate the simple notion of a drug being bad simply because it is illegal should be put to one side so a coherant and non-biased debate into the effects of the chemical is possible.

Originally posted by back2basics
I don't believe it would destroy the drug cartels. For a start every country would need to legalize for the cartels to go away. They would just find new markets if that were not the case. Cannabis is available legally in Amsterdam but there is still a huge illegal trade in Cannabis. It may effect their bottom line, but that’s about it. They will always stay one step ahead. What happens when somebody makes a new drug that people want, there would be a rush to get it out legally, or their would be a void, filled illegally.

This is why I put in the 'assuming all countries do this rider'!

should all drugs be legalised? it would mean more people using drugs at first, but making all drugs socially acceptable would take the power away from the 'underworld', and put it in the hands of the government. from there, the government would be able to regulate the circulation of drugs and warn people against them. would this be a huge mistake or a smart move?

Originally posted by dirtybobby
so just because you have copied a CD at some point in your life, or bought a dodgy DVD, or broke the speed limit, will that give you no right to complain when someone rapes and murders your mum? they're both crimes, after all :roll:

the law is not polarised.. just because use of some drugs is currently illegal, proponents of said usage are not denied the right to be protected by other laws..

and before you go off on one and saying "that's obviously not what i meant blah blah :rant:" that is exactly what you meant: drug users should not complain about people stealing from them because they are obviously on the wrong side of the law..

idiot :roll:

yep spot on.
its all about karma.
you behave bad then bad things happen to you.

my statement also supports the fact that most of the post - ers on here have also stated fat people should pay for nhs, bnp supporters should be banned etc etc.
i honestly feel that most people on here would benefit from lessons on self analysis.

public support of drug taking is worse than discussing illegal software on the forum.IMO.

the only idiots on here are those using drugs.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I wasn't saying that it did justify the illigal use of drugs. I would strongly disagree with your claims that drunken brawling is no different to kids scrapping in the playground. If we take a look at some figures for crimes of violence:



I think this shows that alcohol is a significant contributing factor to violent crime (almost certainly more so than illegal drugs) and that when trying to have any sort of adult debate the simple notion of a drug being bad simply because it is illegal should be put to one side so a coherant and non-biased debate into the effects of the chemical is possible.

fully agree so why aren't the same ethics carried over into other posts, i know why 'cos the drug supporters don't agree with them so they rant about facts & figures & emotional effects.

people dont fight to get drunk - the fight after getting drunk,i'm not arguing the validity of a fight. my point is however people do not commit crimes in general to support coffee,alcohol or cigarette use.

Originally posted by willman
yep spot on.
its all about karma.
you behave bad then bad things happen to you.

i completely agree with this.. i consider myself to have good morals, and i don't need the law to tell me what to do because i am perfectly capable of determining right from wrong myself..

enjoying drugs in a sensible way is illegal, but by no means morally corrupt.. ergo, i feel safe that karma will not have anything to do with such an activity..

my statement also supports the fact that most of the post - ers on here have also stated fat people should pay for nhs, bnp supporters should be banned etc etc.
i honestly feel that most people on here would benefit from lessons on self analysis.

what? i don't see how any of this is at all relevant to anything posted here :confused:

the only idiots on here are those using drugs.

in your opinion.. in my opinion, the only idiots in this thread are those who steadfastedly refuse to listen to facts and reasonable debate, instead choosing to waste space and bandwidth with their small minded, propaganda fueled nonsense..

Originally posted by willman
my point is however people do not commit crimes in general to support coffee,alcohol or cigarette use.

Isn't that a function of their legality though. Granted caffeine and nicotine users would be unlikely to, but alcohol addicts certainly would (and do - but do it less because alcohol is relatively cheap).

Originally posted by willman
my statement also supports the fact that most of the post - ers on here have also stated fat people should pay for nhs, bnp supporters should be banned etc etc.

They have? Where and when??

Originally posted by willman
so they rant about facts & figures

yeah, i hate it when people prove points by quoting cold, hard, irrefutable facts..


:roll:

Originally posted by dirtybobby
i completely agree with this.. i consider myself to have good morals, and i don't need the law to tell me what to do because i am perfectly capable of determining right from wrong myself..

enjoying drugs in a sensible way is illegal, but by no means morally corrupt.. ergo, i feel safe that karma will not have anything to do with such an activity..



what? i don't see how any of this is at all relevant to anything posted here :confused:



in your opinion.. in my opinion, the only idiots in this thread are those who steadfastedly refuse to listen to facts and reasonable debate, instead choosing to waste space and bandwidth with their small minded, propaganda fueled nonsense..



you have offered no facts to support why drug use should be allowed.or have missed that post.

in general the only people supporting legalised drug use are drug users, however i stated that if prescribed free meds helped society i was in favour of it.

the relevance of my post is that we all have small minded opinions on some subjects but do we ever sit back & think" should i be that bitter & twisted to name call when my own opinions or actions are no better".

Originally posted by dirtybobby
yeah, i hate it when people prove points by quoting cold, hard, irrefutable facts..


:roll:

as yet none have been provided to support the neccessity for illegal drug use.

Originally posted by willman
as yet none have been provided to support the neccessity for illegal drug use.

who has asserted that it is necessary?

I would assert that illegal drug use is unavoidable if you prohibit them. Escapist, sacred and recreational drug use is as old as culture and no amount of legislation has made any difference to that whatsoever.

Given that we are talking about a 'crime' which involves ingesting a substance, and not murdering people, why criminalise drug taking at all? And especially why criminalise the ingestion of some drugs and not others.

just responding to other posts which brought up facts & figures or the "fact" i dont listen to facts. thats all.

dont really care about number's really.i think illegal drug use fuels other illegal activity & that's not a responsibilty i wish to take.

Originally posted by willman
the only idiots on here are those using drugs.
???

I've seen plenty of idiots post on the forum, and no evidence that all or even a majority were on drugs.

Originally posted by willman
you have offered no facts to support why drug use should be allowed.or have missed that post.


i never mentioned legalising drug usage, or even "allowing" it.. i was simply pointing out why millions of people continue to use drugs despite their legal status, and offering some explanations as to why..

you are of the opinion that drug users are bad people, as well as being chronically stupid and ill-informed.. this is small minded and will achieve nothing.. in order to construct a decent argument against drug usage, you should be fully aware of what kind of people involve themselves with drugs and the magnitude of their usage..

i do not think badly of non-drug users.. in fact, my girlfriend is quite against drugs (she barely drinks alcohol, even).. that is her choice, and i am certainly not going to try and convince her otherwise.. why do you feel the need to force your archaic propaganda on people who choose a different lifestyle to yourself?

Originally posted by willman
i think illegal drug use fuels other illegal activity & that's not a responsibilty i wish to take.

exactly, you think.. it is an opinion, not a fact.. listen to what other people have to say, you might learn something..

Originally posted by dirtybobby
i never mentioned legalising drug usage, or even "allowing" it.. i was simply pointing out why millions of people continue to use drugs despite their legal status, and offering some explanations as to why..

you are of the opinion that drug users are bad people, as well as being chronically stupid and ill-informed.. this is small minded and will achieve nothing.. in order to construct a decent argument against drug usage, you should be fully aware of what kind of people involve themselves with drugs and the magnitude of their usage..

i do not think badly of non-drug users.. in fact, my girlfriend is quite against drugs (she barely drinks alcohol, even).. that is her choice, and i am certainly not going to try and convince her otherwise.. why do you feel the need to force your archaic propaganda on people who choose a different lifestyle to yourself?

i accused no one of being bad, similarly you inflicted the first accusations regarding intelligence not me.

my own moral stance is that drug use & dependency in a society is proven to create more problems than it solves.
i don't really care who uses drugs, good people or bad people.
neither do i think all drug users are addicts.

i 'm forcing no one to do anything i am entitled to my opininon, whether you approve or disapprove is not my concern.

in addition i dont smoke or drink - but the post apparently went down the way of illegal substances so i offered my views.

Originally posted by willman
i accused no one of being bad, similarly you inflicted the first accusations regarding intelligence not me.

my own moral stance is that drug use & dependency in a society is proven to create more problems than it solves.

I'd be interested in the facts and figures behind that.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
exactly, you think.. it is an opinion, not a fact.. listen to what other people have to say, you might learn something..

yep i think so why do you have to take an antagonistic view when commenting to my opinions.you obviously don't think so!!

drug taking is illegal that is fact. so taking drugs is illegal so my post was accurate.
i'm sure that the drugs enter the country legally, they're farmed or produced by people with union membership & minimum wages.
therefore the use of drugs fuels illegal activity, how basic do i have to make this.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I'd be interested in the facts and figures behind that.

phone the police their crime stats will support the alleged behaviour of drug users & crimes associated.
but no doubt they wont be true or it will be pure conjecture.(lol)

Originally posted by willman
phone the police their crime stats will support the alleged behaviour of drug users & crimes associated.
but no doubt they wont be true or it will be pure conjecture.(lol)

Well I tried and they were most unhelpful. Perhaps you oculd point me to a web or some other resource which proves that "drug use and dependency in a society causes more problems than it solves".

Perhaps you should consider the millions of law abiding middle class south americans who regularly use ayahuasca as part of their Catholic religious rituals.

Ayahuasca is an admixture of an enzyme inhibitor and a very powerful (if not the most quintessentially psychedelic) drug called n,n - dimethyltryptamine.

These members of Santo Daime or Uniao Do Vegetal may use ayahuasca every month or more. No effects have been noted other than a closer and more personal relationship with God and a better digestive system.

I'd hazard that you can't find any facts or figures to support your assertion that ""drug use and dependency in a society causes more problems than it solves".
", because your terms of reference are too loose.

And to reiterate - the dangers to society from illegal drugs are predominantly a result of prohibition, and there is no evidence, that I can find, that prohibition in any way reduces the problems. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to share just some of the facts and figures?

What about GHB - It has only recently become illegal and I though it was quite a nice drug. it was used by a lot of body builders but then idiots started using it for date rape. - apparently (don't know how because the taste is that vile it would be very hard to disguise in any drink!).
It is good unless you take too much then it will knock you out unconcious!!

There is also other natural drugs which you can get off the internet like Hawaiann Baby Woodrose Seeds - they are totally legal. Make sure you don't take too many because you will have a seriously bad trip! :gag: :gag:

Originally posted by willman
drug taking is illegal that is fact. so taking drugs is illegal so my post was accurate.
i'm sure that the drugs enter the country legally, they're farmed or produced by people with union membership & minimum wages.
therefore the use of drugs fuels illegal activity, how basic do i have to make this.

However the activities you outline here are due to the fact that the drug is illegal rather than the properties of the drug itself. If a drug is illegal then the market is controlled by criminals (pretty much by deffinition) who can charge vast prices for the drug which will drive some users into criminal actions to keep themselves supplied. On the other hand if a drug is cheap and plentifull then there are limited problems with supply and users will not (usually) perform criminal acts to obtain the drug and problems are due to the drug rather than supply and demand. Trying to prevent access to the drug does not work (look at prohibition in the US - all that did was make bootleggers very rich!) so perhaps a regulated supply is the sane answer?

Originally posted by evildrneil
However the activities you outline here are due to the fact that the drug is illegal rather than the properties of the drug itself. If a drug is illegal then the market is controlled by criminals (pretty much by deffinition) who can charge vast prices for the drug which will drive some users into criminal actions to keep themselves supplied. On the other hand if a drug is cheap and plentifull then there are limited problems with supply and users will not (usually) perform criminal acts to obtain the drug and problems are due to the drug rather than supply and demand. Trying to prevent access to the drug does not work (look at prohibition in the US - all that did was make bootleggers very rich!) so perhaps a regulated supply is the sane answer?

so making it cheap & accesible to everyone would not cause an increase in under age usage or increase levels of abuse.
ithink i'd rather keep it illegal, prosecute the ones caught & try to remove them from society than to think my children could obtain them as readily as a packet of sweets.

Originally posted by evildrneil
However the activities you outline here are due to the fact that the drug is illegal rather than the properties of the drug itself. If a drug is illegal then the market is controlled by criminals (pretty much by deffinition)
Exactly. In other words, when all drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will take drugs.

Originally posted by willman
so making it cheap & accesible to everyone would not cause an increase in under age usage or increase levels of abuse.
ithink i'd rather keep it illegal, prosecute the ones caught & try to remove them from society than to think my children could obtain them as readily as a packet of sweets.

Ermmmm did you miss the word regulated?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well I tried and they were most unhelpful. Perhaps you oculd point me to a web or some other resource which proves that "drug use and dependency in a society causes more problems than it solves".

Perhaps you should consider the millions of law abiding middle class south americans who regularly use ayahuasca as part of their Catholic religious rituals.

Ayahuasca is an admixture of an enzyme inhibitor and a very powerful (if not the most quintessentially psychedelic) drug called n,n - dimethyltryptamine.

These members of Santo Daime or Uniao Do Vegetal may use ayahuasca every month or more. No effects have been noted other than a closer and more personal relationship with God and a better digestive system.

I'd hazard that you can't find any facts or figures to support your assertion that ""drug use and dependency in a society causes more problems than it solves".
", because your terms of reference are too loose.

And to reiterate - the dangers to society from illegal drugs are predominantly a result of prohibition, and there is no evidence, that I can find, that prohibition in any way reduces the problems. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to share just some of the facts and figures?


my terms of reference unfortunately are based on my experiences and obviously the public domain.
and although i do feel that some remarks are being purposely taken out of context or u r playing devils advocate in general terms a lot of petty crime is carried out to fuel the next fix.

and my usual get out clause is " i dont need to prove anything" drugs as we are debating are illegal, you have to disprove my theory.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Ermmmm did you miss the word regulated?

christ i forgot that word, u mean like valium & tomazepan (how do u spell it) that are prescription only but available in school yards for 50p a tablet.
or does prescription not count as regulated?
how would a non user get onto a regulated list to become a regulated user, how many users on hear would like to volunteer their personal info. onto a database so they can obtain regulated drugs.

Originally posted by willman
ithink i'd rather keep it illegal, prosecute the ones caught & try to remove them from society than to think my children could obtain them as readily as a packet of sweets.
What, like your children can obtain sex toys as readily as a packet of sweets?

Face it, most kids can already buy drugs "as readily as a packet of sweets" (of course they can't, but I might as well borrow your hyperbole for the sake of argument). Legalising and regulating drugs will actually make the sale of them a lot easier to police: if the majority of (adult) users buy them through legal channels, it's easier for the police to focus their energies on the illegal channels which are a threat to schoolkids.

Originally posted by DanSumption
What, like your children can obtain sex toys as readily as a packet of sweets?

Face it, most kids can already buy drugs "as readily as a packet of sweets" (of course they can't, but I might as well borrow your hyperbole for the sake of argument). Legalising and regulating drugs will actually make the sale of them a lot easier to police: if the majority of (adult) users buy them through legal channels, it's easier for the police to focus their energies on the illegal channels which are a threat to schoolkids.

good & valid point, never though of that way.

Originally posted by willman
my terms of reference unfortunately are based on my experiences and obviously the public domain.
and although i do feel that some remarks are being purposely taken out of context or u r playing devils advocate in general terms a lot of petty crime is carried out to fuel the next fix.

and my usual get out clause is " i dont need to prove anything" drugs as we are debating are illegal, you have to disprove my theory.

No you don't need to prove anything, and nor do I. What I think we are doing, or trying to do at least, is establish what the damaging effects on society are from drug dependency and addiction.

Unfortunately, you cannot find any evidence to support your notion (not prove, support) that "drug use and dependency in a society causes more problems than it solves".

If that was just a throwaway statement with nothing to support it but your own intuition, then I think you need to make that clear.

If however, you arrived at that conclusion after some thought and at least a brief examination of the facts and figures available, you might least remember where you saw those facts and figures, so that the less enlightened among us can go and look for ourselves and see the wisdom of your assertion.

By clamming up with a "get out clause" all you do is undermine the validity of your own assertion in the minds of anyone who isn't a knee jerk reactionary (on either side).

The legality of any drug in question isn't a part of your assertion.

ok
most police forces will support that petty crime is & can be associated with drug abuse, how many people refuse to give to beggars 'cos they suspect them of drug use/abuse.
the inability to afford illegal drugs leads to crime everyone acknowledges that.
car crime,burglary,prostituition,theft, - not all are caused by users but thousands are.
likewise your opinions that drugs are safe has not been substantiated by anyone on the post except to say it doesn't affect them.

there was recently a report into driving under the influence of drugs, cannabis smokers were tested are were shown to have poorer control than a person with alcohol in their system. however death by drunks carries a max 14 year sentence why does death by a drug influence driver only carry 7 year maximum ?.this was prompted because an innocent passenger was killed by a drug using driver (who survived) the instigator of the report was the drug users mother.why?
'cos people who take drugs think that they're safe and they're not.

This new "market morality" against drugs is based on a series of US studies which found that substance abusers

33% less productive

3 times more likely to be late

3.6 times more likely to be involved in a job-related accident

5 times more likely to file for Worker's Compensation

3 times the medical bills than non-users

10 times more likely to miss work

In addition 25% steal from their employers

Cocaine addiction is particularly disruptive in the workplace.

75% of cocaine addicts use drugs at work

64% admit it hurts work performance

44% sell drugs to other staff

18% steal from co-workers to fund a habit.

These figures are averages - but what about the impact on an individual company?The US Postal Service found amongworkers who used illegal drugs

Absenteeism was 66% higher

Use of health services was 84% higher in dollar terms

Disciplinary actions were 90% higher

Staff turnover was higher

removed from a UK publication on drug dependency in the uk citing the usa model as what is likely to be happening here.the survey was carried out by major corporations not hospitals or social study groups.

willman, I know it is perhaps a minor point in your eyes but when refering to 'drugs' you seem to be differing them from alcohol and tobacco. If this is the case, what is the basis of you thinking they are different? Is it purely the legalities of it?

Wilf

There are strong links between drug use and crime. Around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit.

In the year ending March 2003, the total number of drug offences recorded by police was 141,116 – a 16% rise over the previous year.

This is due largely to increased police activity aimed at tackling drug dealing and arresting more people to bring the supply of drugs under control


and this post is from the hOME oFFICE SITE.

Originally posted by willman
There are strong links between drug use and crime. Around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit.

By definition there MUST be links - however what you still haven't addressed is the question of whether the drug users are committing the crimes because of the drugs per se or because of the artificially high price put on the drug as it is available only through the black market?

Originally posted by evildrneil
By definition there MUST be links - however what you still haven't addressed is the question of whether the drug users are committing the crimes because of the drugs per se or because of the artificially high price put on the drug as it is available only through the black market?

so now we're splitting hairs.i never disputed the cost of the drugs.
I have figures/facts to support drug crime ruining society, that has always been my contention not the cost of it.
valium/tomazepan @ 50p is not beyond most people's purse, apart from that i couldn't tell you how much drugs cost.
but apart from that it's all relative.drug users know how much drugs cost before they start using.

Originally posted by willman
There are strong links between drug use and crime. Around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit.

In the year ending March 2003, the total number of drug offences recorded by police was 141,116 – a 16% rise over the previous year.

Exactly. Crime to feed the habit.

Why is the habit so expensive, when cocaine and heroin costs pennies to produce?

Originally posted by willman
so now we're splitting hairs.i never disputed the cost of the drugs.
I have figures/facts to support drug crime ruining society, that has always been my contention not the cost of it.
valium/tomazepan @ 50p is not beyond most people's purse, apart from that i couldn't tell you how much drugs cost.
but apart from that it's all relative.drug users know how much drugs cost before they start using.

I wouldn't have a clue how to get hold of valium or tomazepan, whether it was 50p or £50, and I'm 23. Are schoolkids really dealing/using these?

Originally posted by willman
so now we're splitting hairs.i never disputed the cost of the drugs.
I have figures/facts to support drug crime ruining society, that has always been my contention not the cost of it.

It's hardly splitting hairs - IF the fact that a drug is illegal is making it artificially expensive so that users turn to crime to support their habit then surely the problem is as much (if not more) with the illegality of the drugs as with the drugs themselves???

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Exactly. Crime to feed the habit.

Why is the habit so expensive, when cocaine and heroin costs pennies to produce?

as i stated never entered the debate on the price, my own opinions are based on the current fact.
holland still suffer from "anti social" crimes and cannabis is openly available, although they have restricted the amounts that can be sold to individuals.

westfield school tomazepan was available @ 50p per tablet.

Originally posted by willman
holland still suffer from "anti social" crimes and cannabis is openly available

Do you have ANY examples of when cannabis has caused an anti-social crime?

I drink espresso which contains caffeine. I don't class that as 'using caffeine' because the pleasure I derive from drinking espresso is in the taste and smell. It just happens to contain caffeine. If decaff tasted and smelled the same I'd drink that.

I drink wine which contains alcohol. Again I don't class that as 'using alcohol' because the pleasure I derive from drinking wine is the smell and taste. Wine just happens to contain alcohol. If you could provide me with an identical tasting and smelling non-alcoholic wine I would be more than happy to switch.

As for the rest of the drugs shown in the poll I've never felt the need / or had the desire to experiment. You can put it down to my conservative way of thinking but I've always felt that the feelings of relaxation, euphoria [or any other side effect] to be found from taking drugs [any drugs] to be rather fake and empty. I've never understood the concept of 'dropping a pill' in a club to enhance the experience. If this is necessary, then surely one should question why they're going to the club with a view to altering their perception of it.

Sure I drink wine when I got to a restaurant but only because it compliments the taste of the food. Remove the alcohol and I'd be equally happy. The same can't be attributed to pills and clubbing given that the only effect to be gained from taking E is a fake feeling of happiness and weightless limbs. In my opinion that is 'using' a drug.

But as I've said this is my personal [and rather conservative]view. I wouldn't ridicule or rubbish anyone if their view differed to mine. After all, it's their choice.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I drink espresso which contains caffeine. I don't class that as 'using caffeine'
I drink wine which contains alcohol. Again I don't class that as 'using alcohol'

They are still drugs though.

Originally posted by JonJParr Sure I drink wine when I got to a restaurant but only because it compliments the taste of the food. Remove the alcohol and I'd be equally happy. The same can't be attributed to pills and clubbing given that the only effect to be gained from taking E is a fake feeling of happiness and weightless limbs. In my opinion that is 'using' a drug.[/B]

I'm sure there are many users of ecstacy that would use a 100% safe alternative that produced identical effects, but there isn't one. Just like decaf tastes nothing like the real thing, you stick to coffee.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
They are still drugs though.

Gypo: if you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you didn't pull what I say out of context.

I remarked that I didn't class drinking wine and espresso as using alcohol and caffeine respectively as the pleasure I derive from drinking wine and espresso is from the taste and smell not the drug itself. I also went on to say that I would be happy to drink non-alcoholic wine and decaff espresso if they tasted and smelled the same.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
Do you have ANY examples of when cannabis has caused an anti-social crime?

"The Netherlands' policy is aimed at providing a safe environment for cannabis users and breaking the link between drugs and crime.

But it has found drug-related crime in general - such as burglary to pay for drugs - stubbornly refuses to go away.
Moreover, the coffee shops themselves have brought "nuisances", such as litter, noise and falling prices for nearby property. "


stolen from BBc news report March 2000.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I also went on to say that I would be happy to drink non-alcoholic wine and decaff espresso if they tasted and smelled the same.

And I commented that they don't, which is why you don't drink them.

How did I quote you out of context?

Originally posted by willman
"The Netherlands' policy is aimed at providing a safe environment for cannabis users and breaking the link between drugs and crime.

But it has found drug-related crime in general - such as burglary to pay for drugs - stubbornly refuses to go away.
Moreover, the coffee shops themselves have brought "nuisances", such as litter, noise and falling prices for nearby property. "


stolen from BBc news report March 2000.

How does this show that users of canabis are comitting anti-social crimes?

For the record, I DO NOT use canabis. But I've met many, many, many people who do, and none of them have ever comitted a crime whilst using canabis or in order to purchase it.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
How does this show that users of canabis are comitting anti-social crimes?

For the record, I DO NOT use canabis. But I've met many, many, many people who do, and none of them have ever comitted a crime whilst using canabis or in order to purchase it.

doesn't say they are it indicates that where cannabis is freely available & "legall" crime is still present to obtain drugs.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I drink espresso which contains caffeine. I don't class that as 'using caffeine' because the pleasure I derive from drinking espresso is in the taste and smell. It just happens to contain caffeine. If decaff tasted and smelled the same I'd drink that.

I drink wine which contains alcohol. Again I don't class that as 'using alcohol' because the pleasure I derive from drinking wine is the smell and taste. Wine just happens to contain alcohol. If you could provide me with an identical tasting and smelling non-alcoholic wine I would be more than happy to switch.

S'funny, I (honestly) used to smoke cannabis because I liked the tast & smell. The mental effects, while sometimes enjoyable, became rather awkward and annoying after many years of smoking it, but I still kept on smoking because I loved that smell & taste.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Sure I drink wine when I got to a restaurant but only because it compliments the taste of the food. Remove the alcohol and I'd be equally happy.
Again, I drink wine for the taste rather than because I want to get drunk, but I would certainly enjoy any visit to a restaurant a lot less if I couldn't drink wine (in fact, for this reason I almost always abandon my car when I go to a restaurant).

I suspect that both of these cases are subtle examples of addiction. My conscious self justifies my liking for wine in respect of its taste and smell, but somewhere buried deeper in my brain is a part that's craving the alcohol, or at least "addicted" to the social environment in which I take wine.

Originally posted by willman
"The Netherlands' policy is aimed at providing a safe environment for cannabis users and breaking the link between drugs and crime.

But it has found drug-related crime in general - such as burglary to pay for drugs - stubbornly refuses to go away.
Moreover, the coffee shops themselves have brought "nuisances", such as litter, noise and falling prices for nearby property. "
I think you'll find the two are only loosely related - it is not the cannabis users who are commiting the "drug related" crimes, but users of illegal drugs. And all of the comments relating to these drugs being illegal, expensive and prompting criminality still apply, just as they do in the UK.

Holland is a special case, because it is "drug tourist" location which, as well as a lot of harmless cannabis use, attracts users of illegal drugs, so you will find a lot more drug related problems there. If the rest of the world had Holland's liberal attitude, then these problems would not be so concentrated in one small country.

If you live in a poor area and see the effects of the cheap, escape drugs like smack or meth, you see the associated crime etc, then you are going to have a very negative view on drugs.

If you come from a party/recreational angle you don’t see so much of the negative affects and somebody telling you all drug takers are bad is going to seem very far fetched to you. The statistics are clear, when you take extreme poverty out of the equation many more people take drugs recreationally, without major issue than do not. But millions of pounds in crime are also created by non-recreational drug use.

There has to be a balance. I do not believe we should be spending as much on the war on drugs. It’s just a waste, you will never stop people. The money should be used to subsidies farmers in places like Cuba and Afghanistan, not put pot heads in prison. The whole thing needs to be looked at. I would rather they kept weapons and bombs out of the country than pot. The amount spent on this un-winnable war is obscene and there is no evidence that it has any effect other than trends in social drug use. Best case scenario I have seen is they slightly reduce the amount of a given drug on the streets for a few weeks, and that for the amount of money that is spent is a waste.

holland aren't liberal on hard drugs.
technically the sale of cannabis is still illegal in Holland.
and i don't for one minute think that people who use cannabis recreationally would need to resort to crime.

Originally posted by back2basics
If you live in a poor area and see the effects of the cheap, escape drugs like smack or meth, you see the associated crime etc, then you are going to have a very negative view on drugs.

If you come from a party/recreational angle you don’t see so much of the negative affects and somebody telling you all drug takers are bad is going to seem very far fetched to you. The statistics are clear, when you take extreme poverty out of the equation many more people take drugs recreationally, without major issue than do not. But millions of pounds in crime are also created by non-recreational drug use.

There has to be a balance. I do not believe we should be spending as much on the war on drugs. It’s just a waste, you will never stop people. The money should be used to subsidies farmers in places like Cuba and Afghanistan, not put pot heads in prison. The whole thing needs to be looked at. I would rather they kept weapons and bombs out of the country than pot. The amount spent on this un-winnable war is obscene and there is no evidence that it has any effect other than trends in social drug use. Best case scenario I have seen is they slightly reduce the amount of a given drug on the streets for a few weeks, and that for the amount of money that is spent is a waste.
And in doing so, the War on Drugs merely succeeds in hiking the prices a little, boosting the profits for traffickers, and the property crime required to make those profits.

You make a very good point regarding how people use drugs. Heroin can be used as a pharmaceutical analgesic, being a very effective pain blocker. However, it can also still the pain of living a life without hope, joy or the slightest whiff of purpose and meaning. It is no accident that drugs are used in this way by the most impoverished members of society. That these people are then criminalised only serves to worsen the cycle of impoverishment and drug use. CNS stimulants will, for a short time, allow people to feel in control, and potent. A very seductive sensation for people with no control or power over their own lives.

Psychedelic tryptamines will only serve to intensify feelings of alienation and despair in a situation like that, so tend to find more favour with those who are secure in themselves, settled and grounded.

The dangers of drugs are not limited to illicit drugs, street drugs or naturally ocurring plant drugs. I believe Merck is facing a multi-billion dollar class action for behaving like pushers. (ignoring and denying the considerable health risks, whilst all the time profiting on sales of what turned out to be a significantly dangerous drug.)

I think what is required is an in depth assessment of each drug, rather than an attempt to lump them all together as a single 'problem'.

I think what is required is an in depth assessment of each drug, rather than an attempt to lump them all together as a single 'problem'.

For sure... and in America the biggest drug problem by a very long shot are missuse of prescription drugs. Every college kid knows to crush up and snort Ritalin as it is a upper.

Oxycontin is an opiate abused my many, many people over here.

I know people who get 500 valium from their doctors at a time.

If you cannot even rely on Doctors to ethically prescribe drugs, how do we hope to control the legal supply of drugs and keep them out of the hands of the criminal class?

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4.aspx


The supply of OxyContin is soaring. Sales of OxyContin, first marketed in 1996, hit $1.2 billion in 2003.

The FDA reports that OxyContin may have played a role in 464 deaths across the Country in 2000 to 2001.

In 2000, 43 percent of those who ended up in hospital emergency rooms from drug overdoses-nearly a half million people-were there because of misusing prescription drugs.

In seven cities in 2000 (Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Seattle, and Washington, DC) 626 people died from overdose of painkillers and tranquilizers. By 2001, such deaths had increased in Miami and Chicago by 20 percent.

From 1998 to 2000, the number of people entering an emergency room because of misusing hydrocodone (Vicodin) rose 48 percent, oxycodone (OxyContin) 108 percent, and methadone 63 percent. The rates are intensifying: from mid-2000 to mid-2001, oxycodone went up in emergency room visits 44 percent.

In 2000, more than 19 million prescriptions for ADHD drugs were filled, a 72 percent increase since 1995. An estimated 3 to 5 percent of school-age children have ADHD. A study of students in Wisconsin and Minnesota showed 34 percent of ADHD youth age 11 to 18 report being approached to sell or trade their medicines, such as Ritalin.

There was an article in the newspapers this week in which a coroner stated that, having now examined 100 heroin-related deaths, every single one was linked to earlier cannabis use.

So for those out there who strongly argue against the validity of stepping-stone theory, in order to attempt to justify their support of an illegal and deeply damaging industry, can you realy stand on your soap box and say that cannabis isn't harmful?

There are no 'soft' illegal drugs, just illegal drugs which are the cause of untold crime and mysery in our society.

There is also a lot of evidence including an extensive government report released this week that says that cannabis does not lead to using harder drugs.
Which paper was the artical it in ?

I'd put money on the fact that not everyone who uses cannabis goes on to use heroin, and not everyone who uses heroin has previously used cannabis.

Heroin-related deaths are often secondary to the use of heroin itself, for example the issues surrounding contaminated needles, sepsis etc. You cannot make a direct comparison between the use and the effects of heroin and those of cannabis.

They probably also drank coffee and alcohol before as well :rolleyes:

Cannabis is considered to be the softest drug, so it figures that someone on Heroin hasn't just jumped straight to it, without trying a whole host of softer drugs first. But that doesn't mean that every person that has cannabis is going to carry on and go to heroin. Some just continue with it, some move "up" to E's, Speed or Cocaine and stop there, some carry on to Heroin.

So what does the fact that people on Heroin once started with smoking cannabis matter? It means nothing. Just that they started at that point and chose to carry on.

And I'd bet my life that the majority of them started smoking cigarettes before cannabis. What does that say about smokers?

There was an article in the newspapers this week in which a coroner stated that, having now examined 100 heroin-related deaths, every single one was linked to earlier cannabis use.

So for those out there who strongly argue against the validity of stepping-stone theory, in order to attempt to justify their support of an illegal and deeply damaging industry, can you realy stand on your soap box and say that cannabis isn't harmful?

There are no 'soft' illegal drugs, just illegal drugs which are the cause of untold crime and mysery in our society.

I'll not stand on any soapbox and say it's not harmful; but the fact that 100 heroin users have taken cannabis previously proves absolutely nothing....as others point out, ask and you'll probaly find they all smoked cigarettes before dope (would you advocate making cigarettes illegal?)
Cannabis can cause health problems, but for many users it's a pleasant and relaxing substance that greatly enhances the quality of their lives at no detriment to anyone else's.

They probably also drank coffee and alcohol before as well :rolleyes:

I'd be prepared to put myself on the line here and say that 100% of them also breathed air and drank water prior to using heroin.

You can make a connection between ANY two things if you want to hard enough - but it doesn't mean the supposed 'connection' means anything.

StarSparkle

Cannabis is considered to be the softest drug ... Some just continue with it, some move "up" to E's, Speed or Cocaine and stop there, some carry on to Heroin.

I think this perception of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs is a total red herring.

the danger of ingesting any drug depends on many factors

-route of administration
-adulterants
-dose
-physical health of the indivdual concerned.
-mental wellbeing of the individual.
-characteristics of the drug's 'generic' effects

To put drug deaths in perspective:

2004 drug related deaths (excerpt) - where a specific drugs were mentioned on the death certificate:
Alcohol - 6,580 (2003 figure)
Paracetamol - 847
Heroin/Morphine - 744
Antidepressants (all) - 453
Benzodiazpenes - 206
Methadone - 200
Cocaine - 147
SSRIs - 89
Amphetamines (all) - 83
MDMA - 48
Aspirin - 19
Cannabis - 14
Barbiturates - 14
MAOIs - 4
GHB - 3

I know people who have never used cannabis but have used so called harder drugs. To my knowledge, none of them have ever commited a crime and aren't the cause of misery for anyone.

To put drug deaths in perspective:

2004 drug related deaths (excerpt) - where a specific drugs were mentioned on the death certificate:

Paracetamol (Paracetamol (includes dextropropoxyphene mentioned without paracetamol) - 847
Heroin/Morphine - 744
Antidepressants (all) - 453
Benzodiazpenes - 206
Methadone - 200
Cocaine - 147
SSRIs - 89
Amphetamines (all) - 83
MDMA - 48
Aspirin - 19
Cannabis - 14
Barbiturates - 14
MAOIs - 4
GHB - 3

I had a feeling there would be a few legal drugs with high death rates. Where do alcohol and niccotine figure in this?

I had a feeling there would be a few legal drugs with high death rates. Where do alcohol and niccotine figure in this?

edited to include alcohol! Also, the paracetamol figure may be higher, still trying to make sense of the classifications here...

couldn't find any nicotine related deaths (where nicotine was involved - although apocryphally, a woman once od'd on nictine patches, thinking she should add a new patch every time she wanted a cigarette...)

Phan, just out of interest, how do you die from using cannabis?

paracetamol is poisonous is it not? but only to a certain small percentage of people.

1) Are you really one of those people that trust media interpretations of scientific research? And was it scientific??
2) I have just analysed a piece of research that I conducted comparing homeless heroin/non-heroin users. Half of the sample used heroin and half had never used it. However (shock horror), most of the sample had used cannabis... I think there were 2 exceptions and they were unlike the rest of the sample in many other ways too.
3)There is SCIENTIFIC research out there that has found 'hidden' samples of heroin users that are above average income, mainly middle class, and hold down regular jobs in their community.
4) There is also some research (although contraversial I admit) that explores the idea of making heroin legal. They suggest (and back up quite convincingly in my opinion) that it is the attitudes and beliefs about heroin, not the substance itself, that is cause for concern.
If you'd like to read these and more articles PM me... The Sun is not always right (joke.. I trust it wasn't!)

Phan, just out of interest, how do you die from using cannabis?

You don't. You just need a coroner to put it on the death certificate, because they think it was involved in the death.

THC TOXICITY DATA:
666 MG/KG ORAL-RAT LD50
482 MG/KG ORAL-MOUSE LD50
29 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-RAT LD50
42 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MOUSE LD50
128 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MONKEY LDLO;


LD50 - dose at which 50% of subject died.
LDLO - lowest dose at which subject died.

Who said animal testing was bad?

paracetamol is poisonous is it not? but only to a certain small percentage of people.

Yes paracetamol is pretty toxic.



Paracetamol has a very low LD50:ED50 ratio, as low as 10:1, which makes it a very dangerous drug indeed. The only other class of street drugs I can think of with a ratio lower than that are barbiturates.



Note:What is an LD50:ED50 ratio?LD50 is a much maligned test of lethality in toxicology and represents the dose at which 50% of subjects administered a given substance, die.

The ED50 is just the same except it measures the dose at which 50% of the rats wig out (show measurable effects without dying).

If you compare the two dosages you end up with the LD50:ED50 ratio - essentially the difference between a 'safe' dose and a 'dangerous' one.

This is a pretty crude method of determining the actual safety of a given substance, but as a comparison between different drugs it is quite a useful tool.

The real utility of the ratio is that most substances have been tested for both LD50 and ED50 making comparisons fairly straightforward.

it's all down to the individual

I might be totally wrong here but I read somewhere that the link between the two, heroin and cannabis, is more to do with the illegality of both substances.
In plain terms, the user is exposed to the sphere of influence of the dealer network and certain users will then pursue harder drugs that are offered to them by the network.
If perhaps cannabis was treated as per the Dutch model then many of those customers would possibly never stray into harder drugs possibly?

Phan, just out of interest, how do you die from using cannabis?

Smoke a joint & fall off your moped on the way home.

Happened to a friend of mine, he survived but there wasn't a lot left of his crash helmet. Eventually he moved to Spain, mainly to get away from the drug use amongst his friends and family. As someone who had recovered once from the problems of significant substance abuse, he felt that continued exposure to freely available drugs would inevitably lead to him being added to the list of death statistics.

Of all the people that I know that use cannabis, I don't know any that has a "dealer" that's part of a "network".

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't appear, to me, to be like that. :)

Smoke a joint & fall off your moped on the way home.

Without wishing to seem insensitive, thats more to do with driving whilst under the influence rather than being killed by the drug itself?

Without wishing to seem insensitive, thats more to do with driving whilst under the influence rather than being killed by the drug itself?

Yes it is. Tbh I don't know how coroners operate, but I would assume that they would mention the reason for his inability to control the moped in this particular instance. I am quite happy to be corrected.

I'd put money on the fact that not everyone who uses cannabis goes on to use heroin, and not everyone who uses heroin has previously used cannabis.

Heroin-related deaths are often secondary to the use of heroin itself, for example the issues surrounding contaminated needles, sepsis etc. You cannot make a direct comparison between the use and the effects of heroin and those of cannabis.


Yep wel if you put money on it then you won ppn_2204, I use to smoke cannabis it was just has normal to me has someone does with smoking a cigarett, ive now gave up 2ys ago and i did smoke it since i was 14 and i never touch heroin even when i got offerd just to smoke it as i knew the facts and how it grips on to your life has i seen it my self and lived with it.

I know heroin users that are in tretment to be clean, and they said it was ither peer pressure or even just to see what buz they got from the drug as the other drug was not strong no more.
I know people that gone onto heroin and not touch anyother drug and just started to smoke it insted of injecting first. I dont know the effects of heroin to canabis by useing it but i can say what i see and how i felt on cannbis and to be honest someone on heroin were no near the same as someone on canabis or how a person act. and also not one of us did any crime to feed our habbit,not ALL people that take drugs dont steal and do crime and that includes people on heroin to.

even just to see what buz they got from the drug as the other drug was not strong no more.

That sounds a bit like stepping up to me.

I didn't say that EVERY cannabis user either moves on to heroin or is a thief to provide for their habit, but I would suggest that he negative influence of cannabis has been influential on many of those who moved on to dying from heroin. Daverty's point that cannabis users will often be exposed to negative influences is very apt.

As for trusting 'scientific research' I'd say that the substance abuse histories of 100 corpses should be pretty unambiguous, but of course some people will only choose to accept or believe things that support their own opinions.

There was an article in the newspapers this week in which a coroner stated that, having now examined 100 heroin-related deaths, every single one was linked to earlier cannabis use..


As for trusting 'scientific research' I'd say that the substance abuse histories of 100 corpses should be pretty unambiguous, but of course some [all?] people will only choose to accept or believe things that support their own opinions.

Substance abuse histories from corpses? How? Did he use a medium to ask them beyond the grave - or were they particpants in a study before they pegged it?

So which newspaper was all this 'scientific research' actually in - or was it in all of them? If you could just name the coroner, finding the article would be simplified - or maybe you could just post the link so we can make our minds up about the validity of this 'scientific research' ourselves.

As for trusting 'scientific research' I'd say that the substance abuse histories of 100 corpses should be pretty unambiguous, but of course some people will only choose to accept or believe things that support their own opinions.

That wasn't the point... you read an article about some scientific research (ie something that takes a piece of evidence and attempts to make causal links with something else) in a newspaper, where facts are often manipulated and misconstrued. I certainly don't just look for things that support my own opinions... I was merely suggesting that you should question what you read and not assume everything is so clear cut. As many ppl on this thread have pointed out, there is a lot more to consider than just the fact that these heroin users had also smoked cannabis, before concluding that the evidence supports the stepping stone theory.

paracetamol is poisonous is it not? but only to a certain small percentage of people.

It's highly toxic to everybody as far as I know, Jimbob - even relatively small doses will kill you - and it's a particularly nasty way to die.

[QUOTE=Bartfarst]That sounds a bit like stepping up to me.QUOTE]


Yes it can be seen as stepping up but you can just say the same for people that drink and like to get drunk all the time or every weekend and you see it a lot, people go from larger to spirits to cocktails and mix drinks in one night just to get a bigger buzz and feel more drunk. but i never met a person who smokes canabis and who has the same feeling as someone being drunk ever start a fight or want to be in one or be aggresive. It is always the ones that have drank acohol but nothing is ever said about this drug as much as canabis users or anyone eles that uses other soft drugs.
I think and belive alcohol is much of a killer then soft drugs to be honest. And should be put on a hard drugs list as that is man made just like many soft drugs are to make them stronger and i found alcohol more stonger buz then any soft drug any day. Alcohol makes people agressive and many other things too. All a person on canabis want to do is chill have a laugh and are happy.

I have done my own research:

Anyone who has ever commited a crime has a Mum.

Every Mum has had sexual relations with at least one man / artificial insemination.

So we can conclude that if we ban all women having artificial insemination or having sexual relations we can wipe out all crime in a couple of generations. Another conclusion may be that women are partially to blame for all crime.

Nobody can argue with these figures.

JFK, that's a fine piece of debate you put forward.

There's another connection that seems very appropriate: everyone who supports the use of illegal drugs must be a sad druggie loser.

There was an article in the newspapers this week in which a coroner stated that, having now examined 100 heroin-related deaths, every single one was linked to earlier cannabis use.

So for those out there who strongly argue against the validity of stepping-stone theory, in order to attempt to justify their support of an illegal and deeply damaging industry, can you realy stand on your soap box and say that cannabis isn't harmful?

There are no 'soft' illegal drugs, just illegal drugs which are the cause of untold crime and mysery in our society.

I'll bet 100% of them had drank alchohol as well. It takes a certain self destructive streak to become a heroin addict. Just because they have used other drugs does not mean that the other drugs were the cause of their heroin addiction.

I'll bet you'd also find that about 99% of alchoholics under the age of 40 have also tried weed, yet there have always been alchoholics.

It's hardly suprising that people who are drawn to the most dangerous drugs have also tried softer drugs - it doesn't mean that without the softer drugs they would never have tried heroin. Perhaps they would have tried it even sooner!

JFK, that's a fine piece of debate you put forward.

There's another connection that seems very appropriate: everyone who supports the use of illegal drugs must be a sad druggie loser.

Where do I advocate the use soft drugs? I was only trying to show how the original researcher has manipulated the statistics for their own political agenda. It is very easily done.

I am sorry that you think that I am a "sad druggie loser", but I haven't done too badly for myself in life.

JFK, that's a fine piece of debate you put forward.

There's another connection that seems very appropriate: everyone who supports the use of illegal drugs must be a sad druggie loser.

Ok to put a slightly different spin on things (and choosing not to rise to that 'sad druggie loser' comment), what about legal drugs that can be misused? There are a few in Phanerothyme's list n a hell of a lot more that are psychoactive drugs that can be legally prescribed. Are people on anti-depressants, beta-blockers, anti-psychotic medication sad druggie losers (ok couldn't ignore it completely!) too?

They probably also drank coffee and alcohol before as well :rolleyes:


i bet most of them have had sex as well,could contribute.:rolleyes:

I think this perception of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs is a total red herring.

the danger of ingesting any drug depends on many factors

-route of administration
-adulterants
-dose
-physical health of the indivdual concerned.
-mental wellbeing of the individual.
-characteristics of the drug's 'generic' effects

To put drug deaths in perspective:

2004 drug related deaths (excerpt) - where a specific drugs were mentioned on the death certificate:
Alcohol - 6,580 (2003 figure)
Paracetamol - 847
Heroin/Morphine - 744
Antidepressants (all) - 453
Benzodiazpenes - 206
Methadone - 200
Cocaine - 147
SSRIs - 89
Amphetamines (all) - 83
MDMA - 48
Aspirin - 19
Cannabis - 14
Barbiturates - 14
MAOIs - 4
GHB - 3


as Phan will be aware i am seriously anti drug use.

the difference IMHO re: his stats.
alcohol abuse is long term steady abuse - i have never heard of a person having 1 drink & then kicking the bucket.
u could also construe form other medical references as a comparison that death by paracetemol & some antidepressants is either suicide or a cry for help that didnt work.
however it is widely publicised for first time users of , glue sniffers & butane sniffers to die the first time they use.
cannabis has since been proven to have mental health issues,so it's no longer an unharmful drug.i'm sure if i had one spliff it wouldnt hurt me or affect me long term - however why try in the first place.

Anyone fancy getting all gorky-bez?

JFK, that's a fine piece of debate you put forward.

There's another connection that seems very appropriate: everyone who supports the use of illegal drugs must be a sad druggie loser.

Whilst you're obviously up to your old tricks again troll-boy, I'll still take this one on.

I used to do recreational drugs when I was younger. Between the ages of 17 and 21 I used to regularly do ecstasy, speed and cannabis, and it was good fun. This was usually in conjunction with either raving or clubbing. During this time I was doing a masters degree which I passed with a 2.1, and through part-time work in term time and full-time work in university holidays I managed to complete a four year degree course with no debt, and I paid my own tuition fees each year.

The reason that I stopped doing drugs was that I got bored of them and felt that I was getting too old for it. That's what large numbers of people do - they do recreational drugs for a while, get bored of them, then stop. There are many of my friends who've done the same. In fact, throughout the country there are millions of people just like me. In the early rave years (1988-1991) there were millions of people going raving every weekend to illegal warehouse raves. A large majority of those would have been taking ecstasy.

Those people would now be in their 30s or 40s, with jobs, families and mortgages. Many of them will have professional jobs and will be completely respectable. If recreational drugs make you a "bad person", you'd have to include millions of the population in that grouping.

Remember also, people such as myself have experience of this issue and know what we're talking about. People like you only know what you've read from the Daily Mail.

Remember also, people such as myself have experience of this issue and know what we're talking about. People like you only know what you've read from the Daily Mail.

Nice!:hihi:

Whilst you're obviously up to your old tricks again troll-boy, I'll still take this one on.

Remember also, people such as myself have experience of this issue and know what we're talking about. People like you only know what you've read from the Daily Mail.

Very impressive Daley, but playing the closet intellectual doesn't really go hand in hand with throwing infantile insults, does it? For goodness' sake, you can pit forward a more convincing case than calling me 'troll boy' can't you?

As for the experience vs reading the Mail, where should I start. I read through all of the papers, including the tabloids, but base my opinions on my own views (however biased they may be) not those of an editor with his own political agenda. As for experience, I haven't been easily-led enough to try the range of wonderful substances that you've pickled your mind with, but i have seen several people ruin their lives through drugs. One old school friend was killed by heroin (I await the various pro-drug comments along the lines of 'must have been the purity' or 'niot the drug's fault').

I’ve also seen several let themselves go downhill through too much cannabis, and watched a friend’s sister’s child try to eat soil because the mother had a choice between spending her last tenner on weed or food for the kid for the next 2 days.

So I do have experience, I probably read as much as you do, I’m as academically qualified as you, I suspect my vocational and professional qualifications may be higher, and I can assure you that my statements are genuine opinion and nothing to do with trolling.

If you drug users don’t like that fact that I look upon your illegal, degenerate activities as no better than being sex offenders, that’s not my problem.

If you drug users don’t like that fact that I look upon your illegal, degenerate activities as no better than being sex offenders, that’s not my problem.

Just out of curiousity, do you drink - EVER, at all?

Just because cannabis is illegal - is it degenerate to smoke it once in a while?

B****cks to your argument about the mother whom bought £10 of weed instead of feeding her child - That's BAD PARENTHOOD, and lack of intelligence, not addiction/dependance

Cannabis vs. Alcohol

- Cannabis isn't physically addictive
- Too much cannabis in a night never killed anyone (as far as I know)
- Cannabis is unlikely to lead to harder drugs, as the effects are less harsh than legal drugs such as alcohol or Salvia.

On the subject of Salvia Divadorum... have you heard of it? That's legal, and the most harsh feeling I have ever had to endure. Poppers are also legal, yet they are just solvents that you can legally abuse.

The validity of your argument lost my attention when you justified it with the above, quoted statement.


As for experience, I haven't been easily-led enough to try the range of wonderful substances that you've pickled your mind with, but i have seen several people ruin their lives through drugs.

I was never 'led' into cannabis use. I decided when bored one day to try and get hold of some to try it. Purely after hearing of it's effects.

As far as experience goes, you have none. Nor do I have ANY experience with any drug other than cannabis.

Well I think there are three reasons people start threads on this forum:

1/ Because they are interested in the views of others and wish to find out more on a certain subject.

2/ For a laff.

3/ Because they are already certain they are right about something and want to insult people who think the opposite.

I would firmly place Bartfast in group three and not waste any more time trying to debate seriously with someone who thinks I'm a druggie junkie chemhead loser.

I'm a druggie junkie chemhead loser.

Your words, not mine.

Anybody with shred of grey matter between their ears knows that drugs are harmful and wrong.

It defies my understanding how people who are even intelligent enough to turn on a PC can argue in favour of drug abuse. If some of you, who seem quite bright and educated, support drugs, what hope is there for the dregs of society who aren't clever enough to make their own minds up?

If you think of yourselves as intelligent people, you should be setting a positive example for the lower end of the population, not glorifying drug abuse.

Mod Note:

This has all become a bit unseemly so I'm closing the thread down.

BartFarst, you're at the centre of a few too many of these kind of thread breakdowns and I'm not happy about it. Please try to have some manners and respect toward others in future. I've got better things to do with my time than to keep trying to remind you, but if you don't buck up your ideas you'll be on the receiving end of another ban. Don't walk into it please.

Bartfarst, I have also found that I disagree with a lot of your view points, but as Kathy has pointed out, you do tend to insult those who don't agree with you. For example, labeling someone who smokes the odd spliff as a sad druggie, without knowing the first thing about them, is a tad ridiculous. I know I have probably done the same in the past, but it's really not the best way to gain respect as a relatively new member.

Yes, I certainly haven't pulled my punches when dealing with drug abuse issues. Why? Because it's ILLEGAL. It's all very well discussing viewpoints on various issues which may be moot, but when it comes to drug abuse there is only one acceptable view to law-abiding people in this country, and that is that it is utterly, unarguably wrong, so on that score I am happy to stab straight in to the supporters of drug abuse just as I would against somebody who posted support for the right to commit burglary.

Lest we forget, the Mods (quite rightly) do a thorough job of clearing threads which might affect the 'family-friendly' nature of the Forum. I find it interesting therefore that they do not come down on people who advocate drug use, and try to tell us that drugs aren't bad for you - after all, children can read the posts.

I for one wouldn't like to be the parent of a dead child whose start down the drugs cascade was helped by reading comments by some posters on this Forum who are blindly convinced that the world's main governments and medical institutions are all wrong, and that drugs are the best thing since sliced bread.

Political views, views on traffic, Sheffield matters in general, fine, we listen and comment constructively, but I cannot respect the comments of people whose posts advocate illegal activity.

Yes, I certainly haven't pulled my punches when dealing with drug abuse issues. Why? Because it's ILLEGAL. It's all very well discussing viewpoints on various issues which may be moot, but when it comes to drug abuse there is only one acceptable view to law-abiding people in this country, and that is that it is utterly, unarguably wrong, so on that score I am happy to stab straight in to the supporters of drug abuse just as I would against somebody who posted support for the right to commit burglary.

Lest we forget, the Mods (quite rightly) do a thorough job of clearing threads which might affect the 'family-friendly' nature of the Forum. I find it interesting therefore that they do not come down on people who advocate drug use, and try to tell us that drugs aren't bad for you - after all, children can read the posts.

I for one wouldn't like to be the parent of a dead child whose start down the drugs cascade was helped by reading comments by some posters on this Forum who are blindly convinced that the world's main governments and medical institutions are all wrong, and that drugs are the best thing since sliced bread.

Political views, views on traffic, Sheffield matters in general, fine, we listen and comment constructively, but I cannot respect the comments of people whose posts advocate illegal activity.

I think the mods would come down very hard on people if they started posting things such as "Go on kids, go and take some drugs, you can get them **** and you can take them **** way, they're safe, its fine" - am I right mods?

As it is all I and others on this forum have done is acknowleged that prohibition simply isn't working and tried to promote different ways of solving the drugs problems we are faced with - for example making the drugs legal and treating people rather than criminalizing them. You have totally failed to grasp the nuanced articulation of this viewpoint and simply waded in saying we are all druggies promoting illegal activity.

To my mind this is exactly the same as having the knee jerk reaction of calling someone who is anti-immigration a racist.

:)

drive to the conditions, 100+ can be safe as houses. "


So can the odd spliff

Yes, I certainly haven't pulled my punches when dealing with drug abuse issues. Why? Because it's ILLEGAL. It's all very well discussing viewpoints on various issues which may be moot, but when it comes to drug abuse there is only one acceptable view to law-abiding people in this country, and that is that it is utterly, unarguably wrong, so on that score I am happy to stab straight in to the supporters of drug abuse just as I would against somebody who posted support for the right to commit burglary.

Lest we forget, the Mods (quite rightly) do a thorough job of clearing threads which might affect the 'family-friendly' nature of the Forum. I find it interesting therefore that they do not come down on people who advocate drug use, and try to tell us that drugs aren't bad for you - after all, children can read the posts.

I for one wouldn't like to be the parent of a dead child whose start down the drugs cascade was helped by reading comments by some posters on this Forum who are blindly convinced that the world's main governments and medical institutions are all wrong, and that drugs are the best thing since sliced bread.

Political views, views on traffic, Sheffield matters in general, fine, we listen and comment constructively, but I cannot respect the comments of people whose posts advocate illegal activity.

Actually, behind teh scenes we HAVE pulled quite a lot of stuff that has been promoting illegal drugs.

But discussion of illegal drugs isn't illegal in itself. I'm firmly against illegal drugs, have never partaken and never will do. I view the reclassification of pot as a serious mistake, but that's another thread...now....

Bartfarst, if you have a problem with a post, report it, and we'll look in to it. I'm not saying that we'd definitely pull it, but if it advocated the use of illegal drugs or assisted someone in getting drugs or drug paraphenalia then we would act on it.

That, however, is where we make our judgement calls.

Yes, I certainly haven't pulled my punches when dealing with drug abuse issues. Why? Because it's ILLEGAL. It's all very well discussing viewpoints on various issues which may be moot, but when it comes to drug abuse there is only one acceptable view to law-abiding people in this country, and that is that it is utterly, unarguably wrong, so on that score I am happy to stab straight in to the supporters of drug abuse just as I would against somebody who posted support for the right to commit burglary.


No-one has said drug abuse is a good thing. What we have said is:

a) not all drug use is drug abuse
b) making all drug abusers criminals is not necessarily the best way of protecting wider society from them.

To my mind this is exactly the same as having the knee jerk reaction of calling someone who is anti-immigration a racist.

:)

That, is a very fair analogy. :)

No-one has said drug abuse is a good thing. What we have said is:
a) not all drug use is drug abuse
b) making all drug abusers criminals is not necessarily the best way of protecting wider society from them.

Actually, look a couple of posts above yours that I quote above:
"Quote:
Taxman:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
drive to the conditions, 100+ can be safe as houses. "
Taxman:So can the odd spliff"

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I do interpret this as taxman advocating drug use. Might as well say 'Go on kids, give it a try - it's as safe as houses'.

Actually, look a couple of posts above yours that I quote above:
"Quote:
Taxman:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
drive to the conditions, 100+ can be safe as houses. "
Taxman:So can the odd spliff"

Call me a bluff old traditionalist, but I do interpret this as taxman advocating drug use. Might as well say 'Go on kids, give it a try - it's as safe as houses'.
Well if that was what he said, that would count as encouragement.

To use your own words, you might as well say,

"Go on Kids, drive at 100mph, it's as safe as houses."

But he stated a fact - that a single spliff can be safe as houses. That's not encouragement or discouragement. It's a well supported opinion.

As it is all I and others on this forum have done is acknowleged that prohibition simply isn't working and tried to promote different ways of solving the drugs problems we are faced with - for example making the drugs legal and treating people rather than criminalizing them. You have totally failed to grasp the nuanced articulation of this viewpoint and simply waded in saying we are all druggies promoting illegal activity.

To my mind this is exactly the same as having the knee jerk reaction of calling someone who is anti-immigration a racist.

:)

Actually Kathy, you have similarly missed the nuances of my postings. Some of the pro-drugs lobby argue as you do that prohibition hasn't worked. The fact that my response to that is that it would work with severe enough penalties is irrelevant, but what is relevant is that some posters DO argue that drugs aren't harmful, should be legal, and don't do you any harm. You were wrong to infer reference to yourself in my recent posting.

When people argue that there's no link between soft drug usage and hard drug deaths (flying in the face of the recent publication showing 100% of heroin autopsies performed by one pathologist being on people with previous history of cannabis use), and they argue that governments, doctors and medical institutions the world round are all wrong about the damage of drug abuse (including mental health damage associated with cannabis), I find that worrying. You may not be so irresponsible as to wave a banner supporting drug abuse, but other posters are.

When people argue that there's no link between soft drug usage and hard drug deaths (flying in the face of the recent publication showing 100% of heroin autopsies performed by one pathologist being on people with previous history of cannabis use),

Still we never discovered the name of the Coroner.....so we've got your word for it. Now call me a cynic, but I'd like to read what the coroner said myself.

Secondly, the last time you referred to this coroners report, the deaths were linked to cannabis, but now the subjects just had a history of cannabis use.

You are confusing correlation with causation here.

I'll wager that the subjects of these "heroin autopsies" all had a previous history of alcohol and cigarette use, not to mention caffeine use and chocolate use.

When people argue that there's no link between soft drug usage and hard drug deaths (flying in the face of the recent publication showing 100% of heroin autopsies performed by one pathologist being on people with previous history of cannabis use)

Surely the link is that it that demonstrates that heroin users use cannabis, not that cannabis users use heroin?

(Mod hat on: I'm going to put these drugs related posts into a drugs related thread so don't be surprised when they move. Your links should still take you to the new thread. :) )

Maybe Bartfarst would like to complete the poll here - http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56574

Time for a drugs megathread?

Still we never discovered the name of the Coroner.....so we've got your word for it. Now call me a cynic, but I'd like to read what the coroner said myself.

Secondly, the last time you referred to this coroners report, the deaths were linked to cannabis, but now the subjects just had a history of cannabis use.

You are confusing correlation with causation here.

I'll wager that the subjects of these "heroin autopsies" all had a previous history of alcohol and cigarette use, not to mention caffeine use and chocolate use.

By all means suggest that I'm lying, but don't expect me to remember the finite details of every newspaper article I read, or go trawling through either the web or the bins to satisfy your doubts over the existence of the article. I'm pretty sure it was the Mail, which probably means that the lefty mind-warped pro-drugs lobby will denounce it all as lies anyway.

Phanerothyme - probably, but most chocolate users tend not to be mixing with other illegal drugs users and dealers. I do suspect this may be relevant.

Tony - quite true, but it does suggest that the heroin users started on cannabis.

Time for a drugs megathread?

Already done Phan :D

Tony - quite true, but it does suggest that the heroin users started on cannabis.

You may well suggest that, but you can't conclusively draw that conclusion without the caveat. I happen to agree with you, but I also happen to think that dope is called dope for good reason. Most people become very dull and boring when using it habitually.

I personally couldn't care less whether people use it or not and I'm unconvinced that cannabis is a terror at a personal level. Then again, I'm unconvinced that many drugs are; including coke, E, MDMA, K, mushrooms and speed.

That's not to say that I think they should all be legalised because there are current implications with social and crime issues, but at a purely personal recreational level I see no problem with lots of things. Moving on to heroin and crack is another discussion altogether, as is the progression from one to another.

By all means suggest that I'm lying, but don't expect me to remember the finite details of every newspaper article I read, or go trawling through either the web or the bins to satisfy your doubts over the existence of the article. I'm pretty sure it was the Mail, which probably means that the lefty mind-warped pro-drugs lobby will denounce it all as lies anyway.

You just get better and better don't you :P

'Don't expect me to substantiate my claims! I read it in the paper and thats that!'

You may well suggest that, but you can't conclusively draw that conclusion without the caveat. I happen to agree with you, but I also happen to think that dope is called dope for good reason. Most people become very dull and boring when using it habitually.

I personally couldn't care less whether people use it or not and I'm unconvinced that cannabis is a terror at a personal level. Then again, I'm unconvinced that many drugs are; including coke, E, MDMA, K, mushrooms and speed.

That's not to say that I think they should all be legalised because there are current implications with social and crime issues, but at a purely personal recreational level I see no problem with lots of things. Moving on to heroin and crack is another discussion altogether, as is the progression from one to another.

But there comes a point when personal becomes communal - the personal impact of illegal drug use bleeds over to society as a whole.

Putting my (albeit old) biochemist hat on, E / MDMA concern me enormously. There are indications that long term use screw up the serotonin chemistry in the brain, and appear to reduce the efficacy of SSRI anti-depressants, whilst also increasing the occurences of depression and mood swings after several years of light to moderate use.

In other words, big potential for major mental health problems over a large number of people in the future, which will have to be picked up by the NHS.

As for coke - well, given the economic and social impact on the countries that it originates from, I'd say it's a nightmare. But, it's not 'personal' so I suppose to some people that makes it OK. I like to think wider, though.

When people argue that there's no link between soft drug usage and hard drug deaths (flying in the face of the recent publication showing 100% of heroin autopsies performed by one pathologist being on people with previous history of cannabis use

I thought that this particular example of yours, Bartfarst, had been satisfactorily pulled to pieces as meaning nothing, several weeks ago in either this thread or a very similar one.

You might as well say 100% of heroin users have previously drunk water at some point in their lives. Such comparisons are meaningless. Statistics can be made to say anything - it all depends on what your agenda is.

As for saying heavier penalties would deter drug abusers - you clearly have no concept of the nature of addiction.

StarSparkle

But there comes a point when personal becomes communal - the personal impact of illegal drug use bleeds over to society as a whole.
I agree with you Joe, hence my careful clarification, but I do stand by my thoughts on it's effect on a personal level. The previous discussion was about the progression of personal use from softer to harder substances.

Goverment policy / law can only stand and fall on the wider implications of drug use, so the current position in terms of the particular crime / substance / punishment balance is probably about right for society as a whole.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about cocaine JoeP and I dont think many coke users really think about it the origins of their drugs as much as they should. I do know people who consider themselves to be ethically living types (recycling, biking, fair trade and the like) who don't give a second thought to where their drugs come from.

On the subject of MDMA - it has very debated consequences so its hard for someone like me with no chemistry background to work out what is the truth. However, most of the 'pills' people buy nowadays have quite a low MDMA content and god knows what else in them - ketamin, amphetamines, talcum powder, etc. Given that people aren't likely to stop taking pills due to their prohibition, I think it would be a good idea for people to be able to test their drugs in some way to make sure they are clean and 'safe' no matter how 'safe' you feel MDMA to be in the first place.

It would be an interesting extension of the use of Law to accept that people will use drugs, but to allow legal testing kits to reduce risk.

It's really no different to turning a blind eye to syringe exchanges, condom issue, and would enable people to make informed choice. Heck it might even provide an opportunity for health promotion at the point of purchase!

However, it would need acceptance of the reality and Governments aren't much cop at that so what would be the political implications? Would it have legs?

In my research on prostitution I have read many accounts of young women and men who have been purposefully hooked onto crack or heroin in order to lure them into prostitution. They are befriended by pushers and made to think they are safe - then given one shot of highly addictive substance and they are hooked.

In some respects these are the people who suffer most from the illegality of drugs - there simply aren't enough rehabilitation services to cope with their inter-related problems - homelessness, addiction, prostitution, lack of education, broken family etc. So they end up in a cycle of prison - streets - prison.

If they were rich they could go to the Priory - drug use obviously isn't a problem if your kate moss - get a nanny to look after your kids and you can keep your trendy modelling contracts that pay you enough to get your next fix. If you're Joe Average from a Glasgow council estate it can be a very different picture.

However, it would need acceptance of the reality and Governments aren't much cop at that so what would be the political implications? Would it have legs?

I don't think so. I don't think this government has the political capital and I don't think there would be enough support from the public. It just allows the opposition (not to mention the media) to scream 'THEY'RE CONDONING DRUGS!' Cue teary eyes mother 'my son took pills and died'.

I'm sure I've seen pill testing kits at Glastonbury or somewhere. If I remember rightly, they were free...

As for the whole drugs issue, I have to admit that I worry about having a blase attitude to it. I'm 25 and have only just in the last few years started to seriously think about the health implications of all the stuff I do, including alcohol.

I've always had many many friends who smoked cannabis on a regular basis, and never had any problem with it. Until one after the other, they started to end up at Nether Edge Hospital. Don't get me wrong, not ALL of them, but enough for me to realise the connection between cannabis use and mental health problems. And what shocked me was that in spite of always feeling quite well informed, I had absolutely no idea that there was any suggested risk at all. I just knew it was illegal, but thought it was COMPLETELY safe.

I sometimes think we need to hear the views of hardline anti-drugs people. They may not be in touch with what's real, but I think they might make people stop and think, if only for a second.

I also think that recreational drug use is not our major problem. But it's difficult to realise when the line of control starts to blur, especially with socially acceptable drugs like alcohol. Serious addiction can ruin lives and tear apart families and it does start somewhere.

At 3am I think 100mph would be safe - does that mean I can just go for it then?

You know the risks. You take your chances:D.


They probably also drank coffee and alcohol before as well :rolleyes:

Or CocaCola, Lucozade etc;).


So for those out there who strongly argue against the validity of stepping-stone theory, in order to attempt to justify their support of an illegal and deeply damaging industry, can you realy stand on your soap box and say that cannabis isn't harmful?

Surely this is down to the individual having an "adictive personality"?

I know people who have only ever smoked cannabis who have not used anything harder (coffe excepted):D.


Phan, just out of interest, how do you die from using cannabis?

Having a few Kg fall on you:D?


alcohol abuse is long term steady abuse - i have never heard of a person having 1 drink & then kicking the bucket.

Strange this should come up.....

When I was in the second year @ secondary school, a lad decided it would be "cool" to bring half a litre of Bells to the school disco:rolleyes:. Very nearly died, so it can and does happen. TBH I'd ban alcohol if it was practical:).

[QUOTE=sccsux]Strange this should come up.....

Very nearly died,

obviously not the same as did die. first time glue sniffers,fuel sniffers,E users can & do die first time - not nearly die.

I'm sure I've seen pill testing kits at Glastonbury or somewhere. If I remember rightly, they were free...

As for the whole drugs issue, I have to admit that I worry about having a blase attitude to it. I'm 25 and have only just in the last few years started to seriously think about the health implications of all the stuff I do, including alcohol.

I've always had many many friends who smoked cannabis on a regular basis, and never had any problem with it. Until one after the other, they started to end up at Nether Edge Hospital. Don't get me wrong, not ALL of them, but enough for me to realise the connection between cannabis use and mental health problems. And what shocked me was that in spite of always feeling quite well informed, I had absolutely no idea that there was any suggested risk at all. I just knew it was illegal, but thought it was COMPLETELY safe.

I sometimes think we need to hear the views of hardline anti-drugs people. They may not be in touch with what's real, but I think they might make people stop and think, if only for a second.

I also think that recreational drug use is not our major problem. But it's difficult to realise when the line of control starts to blur, especially with socially acceptable drugs like alcohol. Serious addiction can ruin lives and tear apart families and it does start somewhere.

That's a very balanced and useful post. I would be accused by some posters of being one of the hard-line but 'out of touch' anti-drug types, but my hard line stance comes as much from having seen people, as you have, ruin their lives (or die) through drugs as it does from being a uniformed servant of the Crown who is intolerant to depraved anti-establishment activity.

obviously not the same as did die. first time glue sniffers,fuel sniffers,E users can & do die first time - not nearly die.


Is says than on airosols now - "can be instantly fatal"

When I was in the second year @ secondary school, a lad decided it would be "cool" to bring half a litre of Bells to the school disco:rolleyes:. Very nearly died, so it can and does happen. TBH I'd ban alcohol if it was practical:).

There are many many people who die from alcohol each year without even touching the stuff - kids who are run over by drunk drivers? people who are murdered by their drunken partners?

You just get better and better don't you :P

'Don't expect me to substantiate my claims! I read it in the paper and thats that!'

Very useful Kathy - which part of the debate does this contribute to?

None - it's just a personal stab at a poster whose views you don't share.

Very constructive, very mature.

Very useful Kathy - which part of the debate does this contribute to?

None - it's just a personal stab at a poster whose views you don't share.

Very constructive, very mature.

Thanks, I was following your lead :D

There are many many people who die from alcohol each year without even touching the stuff - kids who are run over by drunk drivers? people who are murdered by their drunken partners?

Just what does it prove quoting other deaths that are caused by people breaking the law? Nobody disagrees that it is, and should be, illegal to drink drive and kill, or kill a partner in a drunken rage.

So why argue the morality of drug abuse?

I think you will find that the number of kids run down by drunk drivers is a minute statistic, however sad it is, and we throw the book at the drunk drivers responsible for something so awful (or at least we should - I know there are some awful cases where they virtually get away with it (last headline case was a scrote of an immigrant who received an insult of a sentence)).

However, the number of young people whose lives are in pieces and are going through drug rehab programmes is significant in every city.

Oh for the last time.


I am not arguing the morality of drug use. I am arguing pragmatic ways of reducing the harm to drug users, and non-drug users.

My last post was in reference to willman's assertion that deaths from alcohol are usually from long term abuse. Do try and keep up.

Strange this should come up.....

Very nearly died,

obviously not the same as did die.

Only 'cause a member of staff found him in around the back of the school. Otherwise things would have been different (ie an hour later & he would have been dead).

Oh for the last time.


I am not arguing the morality of drug use. I am arguing pragmatic ways of reducing the harm to drug users, and non-drug users.

My last post was in reference to willman's assertion that deaths from alcohol are usually from long term abuse. Do try and keep up.

Oops, sorry - you got me there.