Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[Mercenary]

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.

 

Their responsibilities are to the citizens of the country. The 'war on drugs' hasn't worked so therefore we need a new approach.

 

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.

 

You are excused. Why should people have to go underground for doing something that harms no one else but themselves? The law is an ass.

[Mercenary]

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

Maybe I missed it.

 

I'm still trying to find a single post that shows how making drugs illegal is good for society.

[chem1st]

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

 

Please could you answer the highlited question bago, I have been answering yours and you keep ignoring mine.

[steve_magoo]

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.

 

You've managed to say absolutely nothing of any merit in your reply, which is quite an achievement.

 

Why exactly does it make no sense to compare ecstasy to aspirin? The head of the metropolitan police is quoted as saying that Ecstasy is safer than Aspirin. Before it was made illegal it was used for therapeutic purposes, treating anything from anxiety to post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not sure of the reasoning for classifying it as a controlled substance, but i'm sure it's far from water tight.

 

My point was that the majority of controlled drugs have been tested far more than many of the drugs that are widely available to the public. LSD for example has been around for some 50 or so years and in that time has been tested endlessly around the world. Many newer legal alternatives, although passing stringent vetting processes are still alot less safe than their illegal counterparts.

 

So rather than claiming that I am simply plucking numbers out of thin air and comparing two unrelated things, perhaps you could come back with a considered and educated response. For someone who seems to know nothing about drugs, you do seem to have a strong, albeit ill informed, opinion.

[Cyclone]

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

Maybe I missed it.

 

Your problem is that you confuse drug use with drug misuse. Maybe if you can separate the two in your mind then the discussion would be more enlightening for you.

[Smithster]

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

Maybe I missed it.

 

And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question about your oil/wood/coffee use and to provide a link to some statistics for ecstasy trade-related deaths.

[chem1st]

Please could you answer the highlited question bago, I have been answering yours and you keep ignoring mine.

 

Pretty please.

[Bago]

You've managed to say absolutely nothing of any merit in your reply, which is quite an achievement.

 

Why exactly does it make no sense to compare ecstasy to aspirin? The head of the metropolitan police is quoted as saying that Ecstasy is safer than Aspirin. Before it was made illegal it was used for therapeutic purposes, treating anything from anxiety to post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not sure of the reasoning for classifying it as a controlled substance, but i'm sure it's far from water tight.

 

My point was that the majority of controlled drugs have been tested far more than many of the drugs that are widely available to the public. LSD for example has been around for some 50 or so years and in that time has been tested endlessly around the world. Many newer legal alternatives, although passing stringent vetting processes are still alot less safe than their illegal counterparts.

 

So rather than claiming that I am simply plucking numbers out of thin air and comparing two unrelated things, perhaps you could come back with a considered and educated response. For someone who seems to know nothing about drugs, you do seem to have a strong, albeit ill informed, opinion.

 

My response to you is that, if you think that there is no difference between aspirin and Es, than I have nothing more to say to you. If you are that educated on these two "drugs", and think that the government is out to cheat you, and rob you of your precious experience in life, then I have nothing more to add. I mean, since you already know everything.

 

I know the remit and why the Head of the Met said what he did, and I find it absolutely irresponsible socially. Maybe he likes to just deal within his own responsible area, and not consider the wider picture as a whole. As if he is the Head of the Met, then he should have considered his position before he said such things. I don't have that much respect for him, if he cannot even use a qualitative argument on the drug stance.

 

You know what, I have read too many online forums to be baited into another anti-drug thread. I am so sure that you have the brains and the IQ to deduce what I am saying. If you think that I am ignorant based on what I wrote, then so be it.

 

I am just glad that the government is staying with the current status quo.

[Bloomdido]

I took recreational drugs this weekend and they were all legal. Caffeine, alcohol, party pills, salvia .....

 

Bago, sorry but you are ignorant.

[chem1st]

I think I would have much preferred the in statu quo res erant ante bellum. Sadly I was born into the war.