Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

Back to the discussion.

 

I'd summarize that we all agree that drugs should be regulated and not available everywhere and anywhere, to anyone, contaminated by anything, and above all, tax-free. That is clearly insane, way past barking and into Dagenham.

Woah. Where did I agree to that?

In fact, drugs, you know, the narcotic types, should be banned from usage by humans. Simple. They should not have different classes, but simply banned. 1) They are not compatible with your biology, and it should not be marketed or seen that way. 2) It affects your brain's chemistry, and we should not tamper with this at all, if you respect your body.

The government should not regulate anything of the sort. As it is not for human consumptions, and they are not at all.

The "eradicate drugs" alternative is simply non-existent. You can't.

Maybe because the government were never strict on this to begin with!

The debate over whether Ecstasy should be Class A or not is a non-debate. The A B C classification of drugs under the Misuse of drugs act is as simplistic as it appears to be, and widely discredited as an index of harm (which is what it purports to be)

 

Why is it permissible that a human being should be incarcerated for 14 years for simply picking a mushroom?

Ecstasy is classed as A is not purely because of its harm, or that because of effect based on studies. It is classed as A, because the government wish to curb the habit of the nation. It is as simple as that. It is not necessary imho to class it based on the science. The drug law is there to protect the citizens, and not to allow citizens a free ride in their lives under the finance of the government. Why should they fork out individuals' bad habits?

The debate over whether drugs should be prohibited by law is over for almost everyone bar the politicians, none of whom have the courage to break with the catastrophic prohibitionist policies of the past. The policies that have created the 'drug problem' and all it's facets.

They make it stricter, and it should nto be broken at all!

Woah. Where did I agree to that?

 

In fact, drugs, you know, the narcotic types, should be banned from usage by humans. Simple. They should not have different classes, but simply banned. 1) They are not compatible with your biology, and it should not be marketed or seen that way. 2) It affects your brain's chemistry, and we should not tamper with this at all, if you respect your body.

The government should not regulate anything of the sort. As it is not for human consumptions, and they are not at all.

 

 

Maybe because the government were never strict on this to begin with!

 

 

Ecstasy is classed as A is not purely because of its harm, or that because of effect based on studies. It is classed as A, because the government wish to curb the habit of the nation. It is as simple as that. It is not necessary imho to class it based on the science. The drug law is there to protect the citizens, and not to allow citizens a free ride in their lives under the finance of the government. Why should they fork out individuals' bad habits?

 

 

They make it stricter, and it should nto be broken at all!

I don't understand why you do not find it as incredulous as I am to find that mind-altering drugs, is not a good thing. Some people don't like taking drugs which changes their brain's chemistry even if they are depressed. Maybe they still care for their own bodies. So I don't understand why you think that it is okay to digest something which changes the chemistry of your brain.

Highlited a few points there.

They are contradictory, when we take into account your usage of science to discourage drug use (illegal drugs only). Then say the science is irrelevalant.

And in the rest of your posts, where you have said Ecstasy is not metabolised, and that only bad things affect your mind.

Doesn't visualizing flowers make you happy?

Ecstasy is classed as A is not purely because of its harm, or that because of effect based on studies.

That makes sense.

It is classed as A, because the government wish to curb the habit of the nation.

A non addictive drug that has little consequence. Unlike Alcohol and Nicotine, which are nicely taxed (and in the case of alcohol, allowed to be advertised on TV).

It is not necessary imho to class it based on the science. The drug law is there to protect the citizens, and not to allow citizens a free ride in their lives under the finance of the government. Why should they fork out individuals' bad habits?

Bad habits?

Forking out?

NHS smoking related costs per annum 2.7 billion(2008 figures)

NHS alcohol costs also 2.7 billion (2008 figures)

Alcohol relating to crime:

* in nearly half (45%) of all violent incidents, victims believed offenders to be under the influence of alcohol

* this figure rose to 58% in cases of attacks by people they did not know

* 37% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol

* in nearly a million violent attacks in 2007-08, the aggressors were believed to be drunk

BCS source

The annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has been estimated at £7.3bn

The cost to employers has been put at £6.4bn.

(source)

Death rates, There were 8,724 alcohol-related deaths in 2007 (source)

Death rates, Smoking kills around 114,000 people in the UK each year. (source)

'According to the Home Office there have been over 200 reported ecstasy-related deaths in the UK since 1996' (source)

Highlited a few points there.

 

They are contradictory, when we take into account your usage of science to discourage drug use (illegal drugs only). Then say the science is irrelevalant.

And in the rest of your posts, where you have said Ecstasy is not metabolised, and that only bad things affect your mind.

 

Doesn't visualizing flowers make you happy?

Look, stop beign so anal, and use that a-typical argument. If not A, then it must be B. As I said, that science is very complex, where drugs are concerned, and ongoing research and so forth are being done as we speak. I do not understand how you can compare something which is obviously a food item as dangerous as a synthetic drug which is definitely going to mess with your brain's chemistry.

I do not know how you can be so desensitised to that at all. Even though you have a username called "chemist", you're hardly a decent chemist in my eyes if that is the argument that you use, and the average joe seems to lap it up with!

It is not rocket science that as governments all the world over, drugs are controlled, and they are not sold as food items, whatever terms people like to call them in different countries. "Recreational" drugs, is named because people see it that way, but it has always been known that the science behind it, will and still continue to class it as a drug. D-R-U-G. You know, the big difference between that and a food item?

If I want to visualise flowrs, then there is something wrong with me wanting to do that. Even though a lot of people say it is more common than ever. Hence why the government is assessing this and wish to make it stricter, is how I see it. They are not to desensitise it so that they can market it and make more money! How unethical would the government be if they did this?

The Swiss government changed its law to provide a cleaner environment for heroin addicts to wean themselves off the drug is because they do not want the number of users to be high. However, from a few individuals' posts here, it seems that they want the drug to become more publicised and widely used. THAT is a stance, I do not see the government ever making , and I am glad of that.

...

Have you got me on ignore?

You know what, you seem to think that the government should work their laws FOR you, but how wrong you are. As I see that the government should keep US (citizens) safe! That also means thethings which we consume, and affects our health, and actually over a period of time changes our bodies biologically. I applaud that actually.

 

I tried to come back into this discussion that difference between the scientific angle, and the laymen perspective from the average joe. I cannot believe you will call yourself a chemist, and do not have the ethical stance behind what you say either. If you wite moot arguments that way, then I really have nothing more to say. As you obviously seem to actually want to use drugs, and you think that government should in any which way oblige that.

 

I do not agree at all.

That's fine for you if you want to be nannied by the government but people should be free to make their own choices. Individual's lives are their own and if they want to take whatever then that is their choice.

Sorry if this is a thread already but I couldn't find one related. Anyway, are politicians mad to keep ecstacy as a class A drug? Why do they bother asking the opinions of experts and then totally ignore the findings? Madness.

 

EDIT: would have helped if I spelt ecstasy correctly, mods feel free to delete!

No not mad at all - people have died from it.

Yep, another well informed opinion from MR BENN!

Not everyone likes drugs as much as you appear to do.

No not mad at all - people have died from it.

People have died from crossing the road or drinking too much water. Should we make them both illegal?

 

The "eradicate drugs" alternative is simply non-existent. You can't.

 

Maybe not but it should be possible to drive them so far underground that the only people who will ever encounter them or those who take them are those who go out of their way to do so.

It should be possible to rid night clubs of drugs and force druggies to go to unooficial rave type events well out of the mainstream of society and leave clubs for the more respectable amongst us.