Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[splodgeyAl]

...snip...

 

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.

 

...snip...

 

As this thread is about the legal classification of drugs, I thought I'd comment on this part of your post, Bago. Others have commented on other parts, and I have little to add to their comments there.

 

Cannabis, at the time called hemp, was very much on the statute books in Elizabethan times, because it was illegal not to grow it. It was used to make the sails and ropes that helped to ensure Britain had one of the strongest navies in the world.

 

It would be a marvelous thing if cannabis was re-legalised for similar reasons today. It's fibres can be used in place of cotton (and it requires less water, herbicides and insecticides than cotton); can be used instead of wood fibres to make paper, MDF; hempseed oil is high is omega-3 and 6 and other essentials, it can be used to manufacture paints, inks and lubricants, it can be used as bio fuel and, obviously, food, it can also be used to manufacture plastics.

 

Still, best to keep it illegal cos some old blues and jazz musicians like to smoke it, I guess.

[pem123]

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.

 

Nice try, but I don't think there is quite the intrinsic link between the 'little sods' breaking into cars and weed use as there is with heroin users and crime.

 

The little sods are more likely to be habitual thieves, who use their ill-gotten gains to buy weed, as well as trainers, mobile phones, MP3 playes, rap music and probably lots of strong alcohol.

 

The heroin user may not have stolen in his life before getting addicted and steals only to buy heroin, no other reason.

 

Weed is not addictive - people don't turn to lives of crime to fund it's use. If it didn't exist, your little sods would still be doing cars over

[Phanerothyme]

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.

That may be true precisely where you live, but reports from Indonesia would suggest the opposite.

 

In spite of the death penalty for possession on hemp flowers, as well as heroin and cocaine, drug use in indonesia …

… will definitely go up this year. The increasing number of people living with high levels of stress will contribute to this rise in drug spending," warns National Narcotics Agency (BNN) chief

which isn't surprising when you consider

Police and military personnel have long been accused of involvement in illegal drugs. After the police were separated from the military in 2000, the two underfunded forces became embroiled in a struggle for control over turf. They are thought to still be in fierce competition with each other and powerful elements in both forces protect the big drug traders.

 

What worries the indonesian authorities is the age of the drug addicts addicted to the cheap indigenous heroin product, 5% of whom are under 17.

 

The average age of a heroin user in Indonesia, where the death penalty is routinely applied for intent to supply, is going steadily down. The average age of a heroin user in Switzerland or Netherlands, where heroin is legally (but not freely) available, is going steadily up.

 

It's not exactly computational fluid dynamics.

 

And the per capita rates of deaths due to drugs are similar - although the UK figures are based on a drug being mentioned on the death certificate, so the actual figure may be much lower than Indonesia - which has about one drug death per 16,000 citizens, UK is about 1 per 14,000.

 

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Asia …

…the National Assembly's Legal Commission also favoured reducing the number of crimes that attract the death penalty.

 

Legal Commission vice director Tran The Vuong said it acknowledged the deterrent effect of the death penalty was "not so significant".

 

"Though there have been a lot of death sentences for drug-related offenses, the number of drug criminals has increased," Tran The Vuong said on the fringes of the assembly's winter session.

[Bago]

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?

If you write something like that, it comes across to me as if you do not understand what science means, and what drugs mean. I think you really need to appreciate the industry, and the publication that are written per year. I expect a Joe Public to write something like that, just because they have an anti-establishment kind of attitude in general. For me, I do not. I like to read and take facts into consideration and weigh up the context of what it was written for, and why. I am certain that the government did not ask their advisors to endorse drugs. The advisor who did this, have no understanding, and concept of what he is saying. I find that incredibly naive.

 

Statistics can be recalculated and represented in a meaningful way, and in a non-conclusive way. The fact that you are not even comparing like for like, and is merely plcuking a number and comparing tells me that you don't really understand qualitatively what it is that you are comparing with. If I said to you, would you compare an apple with an piece of beef, would you say that they are the same? Even generically, they are both considered as "food". You may as well also farfetched to say that, cows are more environmentally unfriendly because they produce methane, whereas apples do not. So therefore the cows are bad for society.

 

The way you compared aspirin with Es, are in a similar logic as I compared apples with beef. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Bago]

In this area the government has clearly got it wrong.

If you are not the government, then how can you say that they are "wrong"?

They have their own set of responsibilities and guidelines to follow. I think they have followed that in this instance.

 

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.

Excuse me, I have written that I do not have a problem with individuals taking drugs? However, just do not expect me to vote for drugs to be legalised, or declassified. I think I am within my right to do just that. It just means that individuals will go underground, and that is fine with me. I am sure that many people have broken the law with the knowledge and decision to know full well what they are doing. If they want drugs, then I am sure and certain that they will do it. Regardless of what I write on the internet.

[Bago]

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

 

YesThe Pineal GlandYes, but it is an endocrine gland implanted within the brain, rather than actual brain tissueingested DMT acts in precisely the same way as endogenous DMT - it is identical. 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.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). 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.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. 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.

Do you not find this pretty anal? My point is that, one should not be unethical, and I did think about whether I should dig up more points to argue against your supposed scientific information, whereas I know that it won't be as simple as that. Yes, this, and that, under what condition? You know that in reality, the chemistry, and the science can be so complex. It is never isolated, and never really simple. What is your point to paint the picture that Es are totally harmless? I do not get that.

 

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

Did I ever say that? I truly detest this "either", "or" kind of argument! The English language may have the implied concept in it, but I write as a I describe something, and if you don't get it by now, then you never will.

 

Es are harmful to human biology, and for social reasons, it is classed as A. Because of that, I will support such classification. Simple.

 

I am not going to go down the obtuse route of banning one thing will mean banning everything and so forth. I would like to focus on what was mentioned in this thread. Es!

 

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.

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.

I have no desire to really argue with you. Truly. I cannot believe that you would twist my usage of the word "tamper" to describe what you think I meant, rather than what I truly mean.

 

It seems obvious to me that you do not like someone making a decision on your live, then so be it! For me, I am talking about a law, whcih I am entitled to consider and think about as a citizen. I think I am within that right to do so. I think that taking something like E is tampering with one's body chemistry. If you do not agree with that analogy, then so be it. It is no skin of my nose. I do not see any value in arguing with you. Nor do I wish to listen to your rant about it being a political situation about one's rights.

 

 

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

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.

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.

So something that has been synethsized further so that the most important compound is isolated, and desensitized to the human body means in your eyes should be grouped as its raw form? Gosh.... I would never thought that you would write such a statement. If that is the case, then I nothing more to add. Since you like to generalise.

 

I do not need to find such people, I think they already exist in this thread.

 

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.

IF? So you are not certain if I did suggest to ban all drugs or not? Sinc eI keep justifying myself, and since you do not believe me. Exactly what are we doing? To be honest, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

Sorry if you like to use the other moot argument and statistic to support your points.

 

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.

Sorry, I believe you picked on my point and challenged me on post 89 to begin with. It was only then did I responded to you. When you continually nitpicked. I then kind of backed-off. When you so rudely wrote that I did not even respond to you in kind, my, that really truly set ME off! It is from that moment onwards that I can see where this is heading. It is the all typical argument again. The format will be the same. To my surprise, you sprouted the same rubbish, as another drug user that I know elsewhere on another forum, who happened to just co-erce young people to try drugs, and he has sprouted every single thing he could find on the internet to defend his own position.

 

I find it fascinating and pretty crap.

 

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.

If you believe in liberty, then where is MY liberty? You come along and you keep challenging me, and diss my right in saying what I want to. To be honest, I have no desire to fight you. I detest that this was going down a certain route when certain arguments were written in this thread.

 

You detest the interference of the state of your own mind? Pff... find that hard to believe, cos you have been defending the right to ingest something which indeed WILL interfere with your mind. If anything, you are coming across as supportive of drugs if anything.

 

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.

Sorry, I did not realise that this was another seriously political thread with an underlying tone that it is about human rights, liberty and so forth.

 

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?

Excuse me while I want to rudely write. "Talk to the hand."

 

 

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.

More assumptions and personal insinuation...

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.

 

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

But you admit the possibility.

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

I am being personal? Just like you are being obtuse by twisting someone else's words. To be honest, I do not trust you as much as you do not trust me. It is pretty obvious. Since I see you as very antagonising, and I do not know whether you realise that of yourself.

 

I certainly do not want to dissect threads and go into a ranting war with someone on the internet. I rather save a bit of sanity.

 

I thought that this thread would've been a share information, and then decide your own angle, and leave it at that, kind of thread, rather than to see a mass group of people dissecting and using all sorts of arguments to win their points. To be honest, people can do what they like in their homes. It is no skin off my nose. However, I know where I stand on this issue.

 

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.

 

That is a joke. I now work with Dutch people in my current company, and I think you will very easily gain a sense of decency amongst the people. All you need to do is also to venture into Amsterdam, to see and realise how the locals detest cannabis. Their city is ramsacked by drunks and users. If you also weigh up the average user, the percentage will not be due to local users, but mostly tourists due to it being marketed as a tourism commodity.

 

They have happy kids is because their parents work hard at spending time with family. They do not whine, and they do not moan about their jobs. Nor are they brand conscious. Their attitude is that, everyone must be happy, and they make it their culture to make sure that everything works well, and everyone is accomodated for. UK will never be like this, because of this class system, which still exist in this day and age any way. Also, this argumentative, supposed debate style, which angst rather than accept, is also another kind of social attitude which you would not find in a liberal country like The Netherlands. This is what is dividing up a country like the UK, to that of The Netherlands, and it is not a simple case of declassifying drugs. Far from it. That is my honest opinion.

[Cyclone]

If you write something like that, it comes across to me as if you do not understand what science means, and what drugs mean. I think you really need to appreciate the industry, and the publication that are written per year. I expect a Joe Public to write something like that, just because they have an anti-establishment kind of attitude in general. For me, I do not. I like to read and take facts into consideration and weigh up the context of what it was written for, and why. I am certain that the government did not ask their advisors to endorse drugs. The advisor who did this, have no understanding, and concept of what he is saying. I find that incredibly naive.

Bago, this thread has made it pretty clear that you know virtually nothing about drugs or the drug industry.

Telling an advisor what to advise would be pretty pointless, so lets hope that the government didn't tell them either way.

The advisory panel happens to be made up of experts in the field, give them a little credit for knowing more than you and maybe just consider why their advice was like it was. It certainly wasn't naïve.

 

Statistics can be recalculated and represented in a meaningful way, and in a non-conclusive way. The fact that you are not even comparing like for like, and is merely plcuking a number and comparing tells me that you don't really understand qualitatively what it is that you are comparing with. If I said to you, would you compare an apple with an piece of beef, would you say that they are the same? Even generically, they are both considered as "food". You may as well also farfetched to say that, cows are more environmentally unfriendly because they produce methane, whereas apples do not. So therefore the cows are bad for society.

If you wanted to compare environmental damage, then yes, beef cattle is about the worst form of food production we have.

 

The way you compared aspirin with Es, are in a similar logic as I compared apples with beef. It makes absolutely no sense.

Except that they are both drugs, something you find difficult to accept.

[Cyclone]

As to your other long post - where is your liberty?

Do you think that legalisation of drugs will mean that you have to take them? Do you understand what liberty means?

[upinwath]

I'm still trying to find a single post that shows why drug misuse is good for society.

Maybe I missed it.

[splodgeyAl]

I'm still trying to find a single post that shows why drug misuse is good for society.

Maybe I missed it.

 

Well, by definition, misuse is unlikely to be good. See post 281 for some good (some historical) uses for a drug.