Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[steve_magoo]

Sorry, but I do not do drugs.

 

Perhaps if you did drugs you would know more about their effects on the body and be able to come to an informed decision. Don't go on what the government says, as they won't even listen to paid advisers and don't listen to the media as they churn out bullsh*t. So you're better off experimenting with drugs in a controlled environment and coming to a decision first hand.

[steve_magoo]

The ironic thing is that classified drugs are often safer than legal alternatives as they have been tried and tested over a number of years. PZP was introduced as an alternative to a range of different classified drugs and turned out to be far more dangerous, causing heart attacks, seizures and resulting in a number of deaths in otherwise healthy people. Aspirin causes far more deaths every year than Ecstasy so why should it be available legally and for ridiculously low prices when it is clearly more dangerous and alot less fun?

[Cyclone]

Instead of throwing wide context such as that, can we just mainly focus on narcotics? I have already changed the word "drugs" to "narcotics" in an attempt to get you to understand where I am coming from. I think I have been pretty fair and calm in wanting to discuss in a respectful manner, while individuals like yourself, like to generalise everything under the sun, when you know full well that we are only talking about classified drugs. CLASSIFIED drugs, not prescribed drugs like aspirin. I am still trying to follow this thread and its context. I hope that you can do the same.

 

Any class of substances or drugs, that reduces pain, induces sleep and may alter mood or behaviour that are also illegal; Any type of numbing drug ...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narcotic

 

That includes alcohol, as Phan suggested several posts before and you attempted to rubbish.

 

You do do drugs, you just think that you don't.

 

you cannot change my opinion

Why are you bothering to join the discussion then? You clearly think that you have all the answers (despite not actually knowing much about the subject).

[flamingjimmy]

You do do drugs, you just think that you don't.

Indeed, in fact, we are all on drugs!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxRj5uWyngI

[Mercenary]

Sorry, the government is here to govern a large group of people who are abiding by the laws, and wish to do so. If you want to rebel against that, then expect the law to come down on you. If you don't like it, then leave and go elsewhere where the law is more relaxed. Cos as far as I can tell, the law remain standing as it is, and there is not clause to readjust this at this moment in time. If there is an vote on this, I would still vote against it being less than Class A.

 

Everybody want their own choice, but you know that they cannot have their own choices. Hence it is a "democracy", where everyone can voice their opinions, but it will be the majority of the votes which will be decisive outcome.

 

People can indeed take whatever they like, but it does not mean that they won't break the law. So if they do break the law, then expect the government to clamp down on it. Do not be surprised, cry or moan about it, when you already know the law in this area.

 

In this area the government has clearly got it wrong.

 

Don't be argumentative for the sake of it. People don't randomly and decidely fall down the stairs. Whereas individuals consciously decide to take drugs. They make the concious decision to do so. (Okay, given some people do not have that conscious decision any more because it is already addictive. e.g. heroin.) Statistics like that are ridiculous, and is not a good comparison, as they are not like for like. So, what does that prove? That there are a lot of things out there which could potentially harm you so that you should not lead a life, or to try and do anything?

 

Do you want to know what I think? I think that as a supposed educated nation, we are bloomin stupid! The increased usage of drugs numbs and dumbs the mind, and is not utilising to its best possibility, and I am sure that you notice that if you just try and detox your body. This is the same when we overdose ourselves with additives. Same thing with drugs, how can you really know if all of your ingested drugs are out of your body's system?

 

A lot of information on drugs are based on experiments done in a controlled environment, under a set condition. However, how can you use such things for your everyday joe's circumstances? They do not match, and it does not mean that if you take it, then you will have the exact results as the controlled experiment to begin with. The quantitative measure and the qualitative measure is not there to begin with! So therefore, all the research written and published are there for subjective interpretations, and also for use in conjunction with other factors too.

 

Maybe the average joe like to think that they are in control of their own destiny, and the government itself, but you should know that isn't the case, and we cannot all have our cake and eat it. That is life.

 

I don't take drugs. You seem to take the subject very seriously when what is happening is people enjoying themselves. I find it sad that you can not agree to that.

[Phanerothyme]

With a username like yours, surely you can answer this question yourself? I find that obtuse of you to even ask. Are we even on the same wavelength here about drugs in general? Or are you going to go down that silly route of taking an average over the counter dispensed drug to compare with a narcotic?

Like cyclone says, Narcotic has a very specific meaning. Ask any pharmacist.

Okay, let me ask you this question. Has it been found in human bodies as a natural compound,

Yes

and where does it reside in the human body?

The Pineal Gland

Is it within the brain area?

Yes, but it is an endocrine gland implanted within the brain, rather than actual brain tissue

Also, if you take the same DMT, does it reach the same area?

ingested DMT acts in precisely the same way as endogenous DMT - it is identical.

You say that it is synthesized within the body, but then does it not mean that you are overdosing and adding too much if you ingest more?

No because endogenous DMT is not routinely released. In fact its purpose is something of a mystery but research has pointed at it being a component of near death experiences and dreaming too.

Does it need more?

DMT is rapidly metabolised because human neurochemistry is well equipped to use this exact substances and then clear it up. the DMT molecule is also found as the basis of several other tryptamine psychedlics, notably Psilocybin and Psilocin (the active compound in Magic Mushrooms).

Does your body's chemistry still behave and react in the same way if you overload your bloodstream with more of onekind of chemical?

No, not if you overload it - by definition it cannot cope, otherwise it is not overloaded. Some drugs are rapidly and easily metabolised by the human body, others less so. Alcohol is highly toxic to the liver for example. DMT is non-toxic. It does not accumulate, its metabolites are readily reabsorbed, and it can be taken repeatedly with no toxic effects or increase in tolerance.

How is your body able to cope?

Specifically with DMT, it copes because it has evolved to do so - DMT is a naturally occuring compound in the human body with so far undiscovered uses.

 

We supposedly have heavy metal within our bodies, but they are in different format too, and are you going to suggest to anyone to naturally drink some mercury into their bloodstream? How ridiculous is that argument.

You tell me, you are the one who put it forward. No-one is arguing that it is safe to drink mercury, and I would say it is ridiculous for you to suggest that anyone is. Beyond that, I'm baffled what heavy metals have to do with this argument.

 

 

Why is it not called tamper? Cos the way I see it is that, it is not classed as food stuff, which means that your system does not need more. If you need more naturally, then it would've been added to our everyday life activity. If humans need this kind of synthesized drugs, then it would've been in our livelihood already. The fact that it hasn't, and it has not become our lives, speak volume over a long time period that this is not a substance which we need in order to survive.

Are you suggesting that we should ban everything that is not needed in order to survive?

Adding something which is not there, offset that balance, and of course it then means that the chemical added into the body tampers with existing chemistry that is already going on.

It changes the existing chemistry in a way that is identical to inducing it in a non-drug way. The word tamper makes your statement a value judgement, an opinion on who has the authority to determine your personal biochemistry. I happen to believe that I have sovereign authority over the processes and thoughts in my brain and no-one has any right whatsoever to dictate what state of mind I choose to be in.

Are you a bloody lemur, or an elephant??

I mention those two examples because they have been altering their own conciousnesses for longer than humans have existed, and obviously with no serious evolutionary disadvantages. A side point as it were, there exists in many mammals a drive or need or desire for altered consciousness.

Do not tell me that you are going to compare overcounter drugs, with narcotics. Really.

Lots and lots of OTC drugs contain narcotics, specifically opiates. Kaolin & Morphine? Codeine? Dihydrocodeine?

I would have thought that you know that there is a BIG difference between DRUGS, as in the kind like HEROIN, to that like ASPIRIN!

Well yes there is a big difference between your two examples, but fewer differences between Heroin and Codeine for example. Or Pseudoephedrine (sudafed) and Amphetamine. Novocain is not a million miles from cocaine (chemically speaking at least, as it has no stimulant effect). Dextromethorphan is similar to PCP and Ketamine. So really OTC and illegal drugs are all on the same spectrum. Only their legality separates them - they are all open to abuse, can be damaging, addictive and lethal, whether they are legal or not.

You know what, a lot og drug users who cannot even distinguish the difference between the two, often will say that there is no difference between any drugs, and how absolutely ridiculous that is! Just because they are all called "drugs". I could call it X, and Y, and it should still have that big distinction that they two is different. The fact that you seem to generalise it, and call it a simple X scares me. Cos you have no idea what it is that you are suggesting.

I challenge you to find a drug user who cannot tell the difference between aspirin and heroin. Where in this thread, or anywhere, has anyone claimed that there is no difference between any drugs? Of course that's ridiculous, you don't need to tell me that. I'm saying that there is no rationale behind the illegality of some drugs and the legality of others, I'm saying that there are class C drugs that are recognised to be some of the deadliest, and there are class A drugs that are completely identical to chemicals in your brain, and that are non-addictive and non-toxic.

Don't be obtuse for the sake of it! If you cannot even discuss nicely, then I have nothing more to say. It is obvious that we have differing opinions, and you cannot change my opinion in order to support the argument that Class A drug like Ecstacy should be reclassed to a lower grade, or to be legalised in society. No way.

I'm not being obtuse. If you suggest that all drugs should be banned, then surely that must include everything that contains a drug that can be used as a drug. Glue is a perfect example. Glue-sniffing is deadly, but glue is legal to buy (although there is an age restriction). But you don't see many glue sniffers about any more.

 

Well, if you use that argument, then why don't you live over there? I mean, you can have toads for breakfast, and toads for lunch. Eat a few poisonous weeds here and there and get that ultimate headtrip that you want. Instead of posting on an internet forum arguing with me, and persuading me to accept that Ecstacy should be reclassed, or legalised. I mean, come on... you know where you can get your drugs, then why not just leave people like me who are in the majority in peace?

Bago - "leave you in peace" ??

 

Am I somehow disturbing your peace by replying to your posts on the forum?

 

Do you feel discomfort? I thought I would restart the discussion because you are one of the few people willing to defend the prohibitionist position at length, rather than with name calling and upinwath style declamations, and I deliberately tried to keep it impersonal and to engage with your points.

 

If I'm correct (and a pedant as well of course) I'd hazard I started posting in this thread before you did. You came to me via the thread, not vice versa.

If you do not believe in the law, then I question if you should be in this country. Then get out, and live in the Amazon, cos you obviously think that your body can cope with all these drugs, and that you will survive in those conditions with it. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from doing that tomorrow. Just buy a ticket and fly over, and you can have as many toads, mushrooms as you like to your liking too. I mean, you find the drug class index laughable, so there is no trust or believe in this so called legal system any more. Why live here? Why live in a civilised society? You may as well become a tribal man once again.

Why do you assume that I am some kind of drugs stakhanovite? I passionately believe in liberty and freedom and detest the interference of the state in my own mind and everyone else's. The prohibition of drugs has brought little more than misery and death and fat profits for organised crime.

 

Sure, in your ideal world perhaps it would be better if no-one altered their conciousness in any way, and never took any risks with their bodies, if no-one ever explored visionary realms or trasncendent states. I happen to

disagree.

 

In my ideal world, people would be well informed and free to do as they pleased with their own consciousness and body providing the risk to others is balanced.

 

Neither ideal will become reality, but what sort of platonic model do you think you, your kith and kin, the country or the world should be aiming at?

 

Well, people like me will say, "tough"! I don't like my taxes and my pay to go to your leisure, and just because you like to waste your life away, does not mean that I should be in support of that.

Why are you being so personal? You don't know anything about me anyway, so anything you say is going to be off target anyway.

Also, if you don't care for yourself and your body, then don't rely on the NHS.

More assumptions and personal insinuation...

Cos obviously, you do not care that the government is trying to control the unknown areas, and scope that areas, since there are not enough studies on all narcotic drugs individually, and why should people like yourself play on that, and waste the government's time, and money spent on this area, just because you find it tough in this country and slag it off most of the time on its laws?

The only money I have taken from the NHS, barring routine visits to general practice, was used for surgery and radiotherapy. So please take your assumptions to personal messages if you feel that strongly about me.

I think that reasonable suggestions which is good for all is a good thing. However, I do not think that bad ideas which is bad for all is a good thing. Now do you want me to repeat that again? I could...

Are you saying that no illegal drug can be good? That they have no merit?

A law "could" be, but in this case, I do not think that it IS. No way.

But you admit the possibility.

Each countries' law is different to each individual country's culture, and history. The English Law is derived from history to become what it is today, and it seems to be working. I have not seen cannabis as part of the English history, do you? Do you mean that other cultures' history is to be adopted into the mainstream English society? Well, I do not buy it, and I do not see it working either. As much as cannabis is used in rastafarian culture, I do not see it working in the same way here in the UK, and nor do people's habits will integrate it that well either. What works for one country and culture may not work with another's. People in the UK do not even use it in the same way as others in other countries. So why force that argument and think that it will work? We are not like for like, and it is high time that we stopped such comparison as a country.

All I am saying is that the misuse of drugs act, in this country, dates back forty years, and drug law generally about 100 years. Since then the drug "problem" exploded. If prohibition does reduce consumption, then it appears that 10-20% is all you can expect, but in many cases the prohibtion of a drug has resulted in increased use. When cannabis was reclassified to class C, consumption in this country went down

Even in a liberal country like The Netherlands, the locals do not take drugs, a high percentage is foreign individuals to pursue, and it is all a part of their tourism trade. At least they have their work/life balance well, and do not need to take drugs to cope and find that release in life. Even though a lot of people take recreational drug, when will they acknowledgde and see the effect that it is doing to their bodies, and also society in general?

Yeah, another good case where relaxation of drug laws has resulted in lower usage and less overall spend on the drug problem, not to mention a better balanced population and some of the happiest kids in Europe. I'm surprised you brought it up, as it seems to contradict your previous points.

[chem1st]

Instead of throwing wide context such as that, can we just mainly focus on narcotics? I have already changed the word "drugs" to "narcotics" in an attempt to get you to understand where I am coming from. I think I have been pretty fair and calm in wanting to discuss in a respectful manner, while individuals like yourself, like to generalise everything under the sun, when you know full well that we are only talking about classified drugs. CLASSIFIED drugs, not prescribed drugs like aspirin. I am still trying to follow this thread and its context. I hope that you can do the same.

 

You have selective sight bago, you are reading only what you want to.

 

1. Lets focus on narcotics then, do you mean narcotic:

a. illegal drug

b. drug which causes analgesia/paralysis (an opiod type drug)

c. other

 

2. Classified drugs, do you mean classified:

a. classified by ABC 1971 system

b. classified in the way it affects the bodies chemistry

c. classified in some totally different way

 

3. Prescribed drugs, do you mean prescribed:

a. prescribed by a registered GP and not belonging to ABC 1971 classification

b. prescribed by GP.

c. prescribed by herbal retailer

 

 

Do you not agree that everything functions as a drug and alters our biochemistry?

[upinwath]

Interest in Current Affairs in Wath - very low:hihi:

 

In wath?

pity i don't live there. By the way i have no clue what bella is?

 

I use the internet to get my news. Much is from the BBC but i like to read the times and a multitude of international and local English language publications.

 

I often read stories of death and misery caused by drug use. That ranges from the father's of E users who have died of it to the 5000+ killed in mexico last year in drug wars.

I see stories of stupid Islamic militants who use 'taxes' taken from drug suppliers to kill British soldiers not to mention the possible connections to the taliban and the London tube bombings.

 

I have been reading stories written by ex addicts of their fight to get off drugs and the deaths of many of their friends who could not.

I've personally seen a lot of crime by drug users done to buy anything from weed to heroin. That starts with little sods who live in Wath breaking into cars for whatever they can get and it's off to Mexborough to buy weed from clayfield estate.

There have been drug abusers murdering others in Wath. I remember one glue sniffing idiot especially who was always stealing. Seen him beaten up a couple of times as well.

I've seen heroin users come straight out of the needle exchange in barnsley and break into parked cars to get their next tenner's worth of crap.

The cops in Barnsley arresting the same shoplifters every week. That costs honest people a fortune in added cost to pay for their drugs.

 

That about covers everything from weed, via E to heroin.

 

Can anyone tell me any good they do please?

[upinwath]

By the way I now live in Indonesia. Here there is almost no drug abuse.

Odd as it may be there is almost no crime here as well.

 

I'm sure the two aren't related in any way.

[Mercenary]

In wath?

pity i don't live there. By the way i have no clue what bella is?

 

I use the internet to get my news. Much is from the BBC but i like to read the times and a multitude of international and local English language publications.

 

I often read stories of death and misery caused by drug use. That ranges from the father's of E users who have died of it to the 5000+ killed in mexico last year in drug wars.

I see stories of stupid Islamic militants who use 'taxes' taken from drug suppliers to kill British soldiers not to mention the possible connections to the taliban and the London tube bombings.

 

I have been reading stories written by ex addicts of their fight to get off drugs and the deaths of many of their friends who could not.

I've personally seen a lot of crime by drug users done to buy anything from weed to heroin. That starts with little sods who live in Wath breaking into cars for whatever they can get and it's off to Mexborough to buy weed from clayfield estate.

There have been drug abusers murdering others in Wath. I remember one glue sniffing idiot especially who was always stealing. Seen him beaten up a couple of times as well.

I've seen heroin users come straight out of the needle exchange in barnsley and break into parked cars to get their next tenner's worth of crap.

The cops in Barnsley arresting the same shoplifters every week. That costs honest people a fortune in added cost to pay for their drugs.

 

That about covers everything from weed, via E to heroin.

 

Can anyone tell me any good they do please?

 

Yes, they make you feel good, relaxed and happy. Are you able to give evidence to any of your previous claims which the other posters have pulled you up on?