Mexico set to decriminalize pot and cocaine

[solypsist]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if the drugs are carried in small amounts for personal use, under legislation passed by the Mexican Congress.

The measure given final passage by senators late on Thursday allows police to focus on their battle against major drug dealers, the government says, and President Vicente Fox is expected to sign it into law.

"This law provides more judicial tools for authorities to fight crime," presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said on Friday. The measure was approved earlier by the lower house.

Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060428/ts_nm/mexico_drugs_dc


holy ****** ****!!!!!

[Byzantine Prince]

Mexico rulez :2thumbsup: , I don't know why people are leaving the place.

[Devastatin Dave]

Mexico rulez :2thumbsup: , I don't know why people are leaving the place.
Because cheetos taste better than tortillas when you have the munchies...:2thumbsup:

[Blodrast]

wooot, gimme my plane ticket ! ~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

Not nice. Pot is fine by me (though I hate it personally) just like tobacco; but heroin!?

What the mother******! :dizzy2:

America really need to oppress Mexico now...er...I mean, oppose...its policies...

:furious3:

[Soulforged]

Not nice. Pot is fine by me (though I hate it personally) just like tobacco; but heroin!?

What the mother******! :dizzy2:

America really need to oppress Mexico now...er...I mean, oppose...its policies...As long as they don't threaten people directly all drugs should be legal. I hope this example to be set on the rest of America, it's a good sign.

[Divinus Arma]

Mexico's Congress Legalizes Drugs for Personal Use
Friday, April 28, 2006

MEXICO CITY — Mexico's Congress approved a bill Friday decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use — a measure sure to raise questions in Washington about Mexico's commitment to the war on drugs.

The only remaining step was the signature of President Vicente Fox, whose office indicated he would sign it.

Full Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193616,00.html)

Edit: Heck, they're legalizing just about everything for personal use!


No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," the Senate bill reads. It also lays out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, ecstasy — about two pills' worth — and amphetamines.

2nd edit: HA HA! Look at your friendship with Mexico NOW, Bushie! Some friend, eh? ROFLMFAO.

Now we can allow millions of poverty stricken drug addicts into our country. lolololol. Boy, what a chump. Go hang out with old Foxie on the ranch, W, I'm sure he is ready with yet another giant knife for your back. lolololol. This is so hilarious. I love it. I just love it.

[Divinus Arma]

How did I not see this? :inquisitive:

Merge, please?

[Justiciar]

To mirror the thoughts of thousands of like-minded ejits here, there, and everywhere.. "Screw Amsterdam! To Mexico!"

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Holy crap!:laugh4:

[Ice]

As long as they don't threaten people directly all drugs should be legal. I hope this example to be set on the rest of America, it's a good sign.

Good luck with an example to the rest of America.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Heheh, think about all them Americans that will illegally cross the border, smuggle drugs and undermine the social fabric of North Mexico by their sheer numbers. :laugh4:

[Divinus Arma]

Here is the problem from a business minded standpoint:

By legalizing consumption, you increase consumption. Increased consumption = greater demand.

Greater demand stimulates greater supply.

More and more "businesses" will manufacture narcotics to sell to the new Mexican Industry of Narco-Tourism. Congratulations Mexico, you have just become the center of the world for drug consumption.

I suspect that we will see a flood of Americans crossing your borders now, eh? And guess what: They are almost all Democrats so you folks should get along nicely. :laugh4:


This is going to get very very interesting, very very fast.


If ever there was a reason for border security, this is it. GREAT WALL OF EL MEXICO HERE WE COME!!!!!

Thank you Vicente!

[solypsist]

ninja'd

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=64094

[Soulforged]

Good luck with an example to the rest of America.
You do know that I mean America as in the whole continent right? Cocaine to be descriminalized in Bolivia, and now this group of descriminalizations carrying the banner of freedom and reason in Mexico, what's stopping it from spreading to Nicaragua, Guatemala, and beyond?

[solypsist]

this is bad news for border towns (on both sides of it) - those places are going to turn into ****holes by "tourists" of the worse type and those seeking to capitalize on selling to them.

[Ice]

You do know that I mean America as in the whole continent right? Cocaine to be descriminalized in Bolivia, and now this group of descriminalizations carrying the banner of freedom and reason in Mexico, what's stopping it from spreading to Nicaragua, Guatemala, and beyond?

I didn't actually. Not much.

[Divinus Arma]

You do know that I mean America as in the whole continent right? Cocaine to be descriminalized in Bolivia, and now this group of descriminalizations carrying the banner of freedom and reason in Mexico, what's stopping it from spreading to Nicaragua, Guatemala, and beyond?

Why is this a good thing? Mexico is going to become the drug capital of the world!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another reason for the wall.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here is the problem from a business minded standpoint:

By legalizing consumption, you increase consumption. Increased consumption = greater demand.

Greater demand stimulates greater supply.

More and more "businesses" will manufacture narcotics to sell to the new Mexican Industry of Narco-Tourism. Congratulations Mexico, you have just become the center of the world for drug consumption.




From the original article it looks like they will be cracking down on the "businesses". Who knows how succesful that will be though.

[Reverend Joe]

"All in all, it's just another brick in the wall."

See you on the other side. Mexico is now my goal for living: Tequila, Mescal, peyote growing wild, and now various legalized substances that will do terrible harm to my body. In other words: my heaven.

:flybye:

[Idaho]

Here is the problem from a business minded standpoint:

By legalizing consumption, you increase consumption. Increased consumption = greater demand.
Not sure if that is born out by the evidence in places that have decriminalised personal use drugs.

Personally I think it is the worst way to do this. You are not tackling the black market or the poor quality of the drugs, or the high prices.

You need full legalisation and control.

[rory_20_uk]

Do people know the number of deaths every year from alcohol from illegal stills? One hell of a lot. More go blind or are brain damaged.

Anyone would scoff that this is reason in itself to criminalise alcohol, as the two are completely different.

So drugs. I've given people morphine, and they've lived to tell the tale. Heroin on occasion, and I've had and given cocaine analogues.

Yes, we give all these things in pure form of set metered amounts in hospitals. And it is very rare that we kill someone.

It is a good forst step in Mexico. A better one would be for some companies to be allowed to sell and distribute the drugs. Pure doses, with no contaminants.

Who here would inject an unknown substance into their veins. Even flour and water. Yes, it can bugger your veins up, and can kill you. Is this a reflection on the chemical itself or our way of approaching the issue.

Sure some towns will be affected, but if one was going into a pharmacyand bought a pack and then had a place to use it, the difference would be the massive cash injection (ho ho) into the town. It is the failure of other countries to not have the balls to do likewise that would cause narco-tourism.

~:smoking:

[Ronin]

By legalizing consumption, you increase consumption. Increased consumption = greater demand.

Greater demand stimulates greater supply.

More and more "businesses" will manufacture narcotics to sell to the new Mexican Industry of Narco-Tourism. Congratulations Mexico, you have just become the center of the world for drug consumption.



consumption was legalized (or better "de-criminalized") over here some 2 years ago......the levels of consumption haven´t escalated......so that blows that teory out of the water.

[Soulforged]

Why is this a good thing? Mexico is going to become the drug capital of the world!So? Isn't Germany the beer capital, in some way. Isn't the Vatican the christianity capital. We'll have vices and obsessions. We'll rely on something external to find support. It will be perfect if we found that support always and only on humans, but because we're weak we resort to all kind of thinks: religion, drugs, alcohol, tabacco, 12 step programs, etc. What's your problem with drugs if you are not taking them?
Not sure if that is born out by the evidence in places that have
decriminalised personal use drugs.

Personally I think it is the worst way to do this. You are not tackling the black market or the poor quality of the drugs, or the high prices.

You need full legalisation and control.Substances like heroin became cheaper and cheaper as the war on drugs advanced. If you legalize it, you can tax it, increase it's price, and control its consumption. I'm not sure why you wanna do that, but the better way to do it, is to introduce it into the mechanism of the market not alienate it. I agree with you. And I'm talking about all drugs, from pot to meth, morphine, arsenical, whatever you want to destroy your body with, it's your choice really.

[Kanamori]

Really, the runners high can be more intensely euphoric than heroin, anyway. Endorphins are quite similar to morphine.:book: Injecting anything doesn't necessarily mess up your veins, it is the user and if they're stupid enough to keep using some dull arse needle in their veins. Injecting is pretty stupid, anyway. Once it's in there, it's in there and you're screwed if it's too much. That's why its better for users to know for sure what the strength of the stuff is. DA, smell a dollar bill sometime. The chances are that it smells like baking soda (usually the cut) and cocaine. Drugs are already used by far more people than you know. I think when it comes to long term drug-damage, the most damaging are methamphetamine, ketamine, (cigs because of the preservative junk), alcohol, and extremely large doses of DXM, along with the nasty combination you find in most pills of exstacy. Some of the most dangerous to use often are already legal. I really don't understand how alcohol is any different than the rest, somehow people think it's better. Most drugs don't have nearly as extreme an effect on your state of mind, and it is one of the most prone to make you do utterly ridiculous things. I hate it. Chemical reactions are changing in your brain all the time -- what you eat, how you exercise, and what you do daily, all change how your brain works and its chemical reactions. Most people live in a world of total ignorance to these things.~:)

[Sjakihata]

Decriminalizing personal drug use is a good idea, it brings the resources of lawenforcement to focus on the barons and pushers instead of the victim of addiction.

[GoreBag]

Wicked, but 5 grams of pot? Everyone buys in quarter-ounces...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Decriminalizing personal drug use is a good idea, it brings the resources of lawenforcement to focus on the barons and pushers instead of the victim of addiction.Exactly! :idea2:

[Redleg]

People who don't understand the situation on the border between the United States and Mexico haven't a clue about what they are talking about.

What will this do to the communities along the border which are alreadly suffering from runaway corruption and crime?

An interesting political ploy by Mexico, considering the upcoming planned demonstrations on monday and the upcoming election cycle in the United States.


Some would ask why I state this, read the article carefully and you might just notice why.

[Reverend Joe]

Wait a second... when you posted this, you specifically mentioned


Under the legislation, police will not penalize people for possessing up to 5 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of opium, 25 milligrams of heroin or 500 milligrams of cocaine.

What you failed to mention was


The legal changes will also decriminalize the possession of limited quantities of other drugs, including LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms,... and peyote

You left out all the good stuff! :furious3: Now I know I have to move to Mexico!

[rory_20_uk]

Policy for an entire country can not be governed by a thin line of small towns.

Many problems they may have are going to be related to the USA's unrealistic intolerance to drugs. If both had the same sensible laws there would be no need to gravitate towards the border.

~:smoking:

[yesdachi]

I saw this on the news the other day and considering the situation in the US and the timing of this, all I can think is what a bunch of idiots.

[edyzmedieval]

Holy crap... :laugh4:

Bunch of idiots. :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Some more news on the subject

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_decriminalizing_drugs_1;_ylt=AhtvnN.pL39WUIrkxLe_IvFg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--


Martinez, who works at the popular border-area bar the Kentucky Club, noted that American teens already swarm the city's bars and clubs because the Mexican legal drinking age of 18 is rarely enforced. He said he feared the new measure could lead youths to try hard-core drugs.

The legislation also confused some police.

"On one side, they're asking us to fight it," said Jose Valencia, a police officer in Mexico City's tourist-oriented Zona Rosa district. "On the other, we have to allow consumption."

[Vladimir]

I understand that most people here are young and childless (I’m the latter, not the former) but think about it this way: Would you really want your kids walking down to the local *drug* store and shooting up heroine? If you don’t think it’s bad enough with alcohol just legalize all drugs.

And what if it doesn’t work? What if the worst (or bad enough) does happen? Are you going to criminalize them again? Just imagine how difficult that would be to implement and the harm it would do. You think “big oil” is bad enough now, how would “big drug” be?

It’s amazing how corporations can be evil when selling cigarettes but “really cool” when selling hard drugs. I really hope a lot of people are just having fun with this (and are young enough that they don’t vote for it).

[Soulforged]

I understand that most people here are young and childless (I’m the latter, not the former) but think about it this way: Would you really want your kids walking down to the local *drug* store and shooting up heroine? If you don’t think it’s bad enough with alcohol just legalize all drugs. As alcohol, with drugs, a legal age for consumption should be stablished upon descriminalization. If that is enforced properly or not, that's another question.

And what if it doesn’t work? What if the worst (or bad enough) does happen? Are you going to criminalize them again? Just imagine how difficult that would be to implement and the harm it would do. You think “big oil” is bad enough now, how would “big drug” be?What do you mean with "doesn't work"? You mean children taking it more often? That will go beyond the purpose of descriminalization. It's purpose is only to finish with unreasobable persecutions, and concentretate time in real crimes, like the big dealers, not the conssumers. The limit that should be established, and must probably will be, will say to you, that if there's more children in drugs then there's someone in violation of laws, but the providers could do so legally, and that relaxes the charge of the state a lot.

It’s amazing how corporations can be evil when selling cigarettes but “really cool” when selling hard drugs. I really hope a lot of people are just having fun with this (and are young enough that they don’t vote for it).Corporations already have to respect a lot of legislation on their backs to sell products that the people want to buy... I wonder where's the problem in satisfying the demand? I'm not young enough, and there's a lot of people here, including lawyers, judges, jurists and politicians that agree in part with me (in regards to marihuana, cocaine, etc), the same situation exists in other countries around the globe, they understand how a republic should function, and what should be the limitations of the state.

[rory_20_uk]

The rather mawkish argument of "please! Think of the Children!!!" is one I rarely hear out of the Simpsons.

Merely if something is legal doesn't make it socially acceptable. Resonsible parents can still ensure their kids don't get the drugs (now in stated measures, and not basically "guess what you're abuot to pump into your veins")

Prior ot the 1950's drugs were far more widely used. What has making them ilgal done? Well, in places like Hong Kong it made the Triads extremely rich.

I am extremely unstreetwise, yet I imagine I could get drugs in an evening if I wanted to do so. The reality is that drugs are that prevelant.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

The rather mawkish argument of "please! Think of the Children!!!" is one I rarely hear out of the Simpsons.

Merely if something is legal doesn't make it socially acceptable. Resonsible parents can still ensure their kids don't get the drugs (now in stated measures, and not basically "guess what you're abuot to pump into your veins")

Prior ot the 1950's drugs were far more widely used. What has making them ilgal done? Well, in places like Hong Kong it made the Triads extremely rich.

I am extremely unstreetwise, yet I imagine I could get drugs in an evening if I wanted to do so. The reality is that drugs are that prevelant.

~:smoking:

Oh please, don't try to associate me with some "I like clean air" or "think of the children" type. The statement was think of *your* children. You know the harm alcohol can cause to the young and dumb, and you want to increase their exposure to even more dangerous and highly addictive drugs.

Reasonable parents? You certainly have a rather colonial (timeframe) view of people. You may have noticed that reason is not currently in vogue and trusting strangers to use reason and logic isn’t…well, reasonable.

What drugs of the 50’s are you talking about? I really hope you’re not comparing opium and minor hallucinogens to crack, heroine, and ecstasy. Your line of reasoning would lead to everything being legal just so criminals don’t get rich (because after all, if you don’t have laws, you don’t have criminals).

Drugs are everywhere, and if you want to risk getting shot, robbed or get sent to jail you can find them. That’s quite different from advertising them on late night TV.

[yesdachi]

That’s quite different from advertising them on late night TV.
Or Sunday morning cartoons. :bow:

[Vladimir]

Or Sunday morning cartoons. :bow:

No they've already done that. Don't you remember Rocky from Rocky and Bullwinkle? I know that squirrel was high on something.

[GoreBag]

Drugs are everywhere, and if you want to risk getting shot, robbed or get sent to jail you can find them. That’s quite different from advertising them on late night TV.

lol Right. Have you ever tried to buy drugs, Vlad?

Rory, going out to score something might be harder if you're not a young adult just because everyone will think you're a narc.

[Kanamori]

Do you really think some drug pusher cares about how old some kid is trying to buy drugs? Most problems in the system come from the illegal dealer, so they should simply be removed from the system.

In one day's time I could, almost certainly, have my hands on any drug I wanted. Obviously, the system does not work, and I do not understand the fetish that some people have with running another adult's life. It's the simple truth that I have had far more problems with video game addiction than I ever have with heroin, which I've never even had the urge to do again. Even if someone gets addicted to heroin it only becomes a problem when: they run out of money (surprise, cigarettes do this to and the demon liquid), if they do not know how to inject properly (if they keep using the same needle and the actual method), or if they have no idea what the real strength of the stuff is. All of these problems come from it being criminalized. But watch out! All drug users will eat your children and do anything at all for the next hit!:dizzy2:

You blindly accept the social stigma that is given to them. I decide what I want to do with my own body. I don't ban you from doing the things you like to do by and with yourself.

[rory_20_uk]

my friend's 18 year old brother's immediate statement on drugs was "drug addicts mug grannies for their money". Looks like the brainwashing works then...

I'd hope that my children would do as I say and do as I do. If they want to experiment I'd be against it, but I'd not push the away. I'd explain to them the differences between substances and how some (like cigarettes and crack) can really mess your life up.

Opium isn't that different from herion. Quicker high yes, but thats about it.

Leglising drugs would only be from certain registered retailers. Smuggling is still illegal. All that would change would be the margins would be far lower, and probably uneconomic. Advertising would be more restrictive than for cigarettes. In the UK, that means TV, billboards, sporting events and many others are not allowed.

I don't feel the need to fun other people's lives for them. If people wanted to take drugs they should be allowed to as long as others are not going to get hurt. There can be laws that certain substances are not allowed in the body of professionals in certain fields (as is currently the case for example doctors and opiates).

~:smoking:

[GoreBag]

Do you really think some drug pusher cares about how old some kid is trying to buy drugs?

I do.

[Redleg]

I do.

So are you confessing to being a drug dealer? :inquisitive: :dizzy2: :oops:

Hmm - I wonder if the FBI is tracking this site to run down your IP address? :sweatdrop:


Someone needs some :help:

[Major Robert Dump]

I don thave an answer to the decrim-legalize-criminalize problem, but the way to STOP people from doing drugs is not to send them to prison, break up families and ruin lives and spend billions of dollars a year doing it. It just isn't. I hope this works out for Mexico, someone had to do it first.

[Redleg]

Fox's spokesman stated today that President Fox will be signing the bill soon.

Any bets to a last minute deal between the United States and Mexico.

Mexico to veto the bill
United States to grant ammensity to all current illegal immigrants.

[rory_20_uk]

There is a massive difference between drug users and drug addicts.

The former use drugs. They have jobs and are, except for a tox screen result, normal people.

The second lot are completely dominated by the drug of choice. Be it alcohol, herion or whatever. Their lives collapse into a mess both physically and mentally.

The worst cases (in my admittedly limited experience) are the alcoholics. Dangerous, crazed people who are prone to life threatening fits. :thumbsup:

The first lot don't really need to give up drugs anymore than people need to give up alcohol or tobacco.

The second lot range from those that need help in a clinic to those that are in essence uncurable, and will only stop their habit when they die. And I've met people like this.

~:smoking:

[GoreBag]

So are you confessing to being a drug dealer? :inquisitive: :dizzy2: :oops:

Hmm - I wonder if the FBI is tracking this site to run down your IP address? :sweatdrop:


Someone needs some :help:

I'm going to chalk this one up to your infamous inability to understand and properly utilize the English language.

[Redleg]

I'm going to chalk this one up to your infamous inability to understand and properly utilize the English language.

:laugh4: Someone doesn't recongize sarcasm... :laugh4:

Tag your it............

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, but heroin is known to be extremely addictive and even when not addictive quite dangerous. Oops. You "experiment." You tried once. Cigarettes? Fine, you get out of it. It's apparently not that hard. Alcohol? It has too many social "defences" on it to possibly even think of removing, even though it is dangerous. Oh well, the President survived. Anyone can.

But how many heroin addicts have you seen that managed to get out of their addiction without sacrificing something extremely monumental?

I'm aware of the failure and the propaganda of the War on Drugs; but really, a dangerous substance like heroin? If you can't sell but you can possess a small amount...the question is: where in the freakin' hell did you get it from?

Oops, illegals. Of the real deal.

By the way, ecstasy is apparently not truly dangerous in and of itself but its side effect manages to kill a great amount of dumb teenagers because they drink a little too much water. So the drug's legalization is quite justifiable if it would require an extreme amount of precautions.

It might as well be just what Redleg said, a political blackmail on the United States. A bargain tool...

[rory_20_uk]

How many random people have you asked "have you ever taken heroin?"

You've no idea what number of people can dabble with heroin with no adverse addects - neither do I. They aren't newsworthy.

I've seen alcoholics who have extreme difficulty giving up, ditto cigarettes.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

I have two primary concerns with this issue. I am open to reconsider if a good argument proves logical and persuasive.


First, consider the message being sent by a government that legalizes consumption. Alcohol, Marijuana, Tobacco, Cocaine, Meth, and other consumables will be lumped together. Being legal for consumption implies not only legal permission, but moral permission as well. Few here would argue that alcohol use is evil, but some would argue that abuse is, including *gasp* myself. I am an advocate of Marijuana legalization because I think the evils of its use and abuse are less than the evils created by its prohibition. The greatest evil of marijuana prohibition, in my opinion, is that it creates a false impression of harder drugs. An individual who has used marijuana will be so unimpressed with the great government hype surrounding it that they may be inclined to believe that harder drugs also are overhyped. The harder drugs deserve their stigma. Hard drugs have been proven to rapidly destroy cognitive functioning, are physically debilitating, and in some cases can cause life-altering addiction almost instantaneously. Conumption legalization counters this stigma.

This brings me to my second point: availability. All agree that demand exists for a recreational drug market. The decline in family values and religious social influence in the United States has created a culture of permissiveness, experimentation, and rebellion. This American laissez-faire attitude towards individual liberty is directly related to drug use. Legalization will attract the market for consumption to Mexico, and a growth in demand is almost certain to occur. But instead of only drinking or smoking pot, youth will find themselves ever closer to dangerous substances that were traditionally taboo.

The equation of permissiveness + availability + message of tolerance equals massive recreational use. Youth have always followed fringe rebels. Those are the "cool" kids. When I was a teenager, the baggy clothes trend and skateboards were still fringe, as were tatoos. Now every damn kid wears their pants around their ankles, rides a skateboard, and has a half-dozen tats. Rap was still black, but now black is cool, so all these suburban kids roll around blasting 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg. My point is that fringe leaders will be the first to make heroine and cocaine "cool". And when that happens, the secular progressive half of American youth will be lost to addiction and death under the drug revolution. Granted, we will learn our lesson once kids start dying in massive numbers, but I don't want to see us get to that point.


I understand that the advertised message will still be drugs are bad, though the legalization shows a public policy contradiction. If drugs are bad, then they should remain illegal. If enforcement costs are the issue as Mexico states, than enforcement should simply be reduced.

[Fragony]

The greatest evil of marijuana prohibition, in my opinion, is that it creates a false impression of harder drugs.


That is about it, and this is a bad idea. Now marihuana isn't as harmless as some like to believe, but it is still not as bad as the more hardcore substances like cocaine and heroine (and alcohol), calling it the same is just silly. It's ok to guide what you can't fully control but legalising all is nothing more then a surrender.

[doc_bean]

Ah, but heroin is known to be extremely addictive and even when not addictive quite dangerous. Oops. You "experiment." You tried once. Cigarettes? Fine, you get out of it. It's apparently not that hard. Alcohol? It has too many social "defences" on it to possibly even think of removing, even though it is dangerous.

There have been studies on the addictive nature of various substances, iirc heroin isn't that bad, in the same range as nicotine and alcohol.



Oh well, the President survived. Anyone can.

The president was a coke head, what kind of message does that send out to the public ? It's okay to do drugs if you're rich, you can still be president ?



But how many heroin addicts have you seen that managed to get out of their addiction without sacrificing something extremely monumental?

One, that's all the people that have used heroin that I know.



I'm aware of the failure and the propaganda of the War on Drugs; but really, a dangerous substance like heroin?

You do realize that alcohol is right up there with coke and heroin in terms of addictiveness and shear damage it can do right ?



If you can't sell but you can possess a small amount...the question is: where in the freakin' hell did you get it from?

The point is not to allow drug use and trade, the point is not to waste resources going after the users and putting them in jail rahter tahn go after the dealers and drug lords. It's common sense, kill the suplly line and you stop the users.



By the way, ecstasy is apparently not truly dangerous

XTC is virtually harmless in itself. I know quite a few people who've used it (and speed) without any problems. A few minor addicts maybe, but nothing serious. The problem is the crap they put in the pills along with the MDMA. Mixing with alcohol is also a bad idea, I think because both can cause dehydration.



in and of itself but its side effect manages to kill a great amount of dumb teenagers because they drink a little too much water.

I assume you mean too little water ? Drink lots of fluids (non-alcoholic) and you should be fine. Soft drinks are probably better than water though, since they contain sugar which is good for all the energy you're using up.



So the drug's legalization is quite justifiable if it would require an extreme amount of precautions.

I think the dangers of drugs are vastly overrated, in any case, the current system doesn't work either.


It might as well be just what Redleg said, a political blackmail on the United States. A bargain tool...

Possibly.

[Fragony]

I think the dangers of drugs are vastly overrated, in any case, the current system doesn't work either.
Possibly.

No they are harmfull, I don't know anyone who does heroin but I do notice a lot of difference with some friends that like the white powder a little bit too much. Alcohol is just as bad, but a lot slower, cocaine can just about ruin someone in a month if they have little character or a natural taste for self-destruction. If you take a little bit of coke it begs you to take more once it wears off, there is no denying of that. You can sleep it off, or take more. Marihuane or alcohol don't have that effect.

[Divinus Arma]

Doc Bean, your comments show inexperience, immaturity, or a lack of knowledge about the harmful effects of hard drugs.

There is no discussion on whether hard drugs are harmful. I have seen folks strung out, totally addicted to meth. I have known one person who became almost mentally incapable of social functioning due to persistent paranoid hallucinations caused by LCD.

This is no joke. Hard drugs can and will destroy a user or cause permanent disability.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that crystal meth deserves a special category by itself. It is so destructive it should be in a special category of its own.

LSD I agree can be used in excess. But then overdosing anything can kill or cause damage.

Legalising the substance: the government has made prostitution legal in many countries. It's not viewed as moral or a good choice of career. I doubt many people think that the government has enough moral gravitas to sway many. Who cares what the bunch of corrupt politicians think?
More stigma can be given by accurate information as to side effects. Alcohol is toxic to every cell in the body, yet has no warning.

Availability would increase. As would rehabilitation, clean preparation of narcotics, lack of social stigma / isolation / fear, lowered risk of infection. Hell, even info as to how to take the stuff. I'e seen addicts die from ulcers / abscesses from injection sites. Unclean needles and poor technique are responsible.

There is already massive use of cocaine amongst the style concious. Bieng ilegal has not helped. OK, occasionally one gets to go to rehab, but that's it.

I imagine use will increase. But since it is not taboo anymore, it will not be "cool" to have done / are doing it. if you like it great. If not don't take it - it's your call. The purity will radically reduce side effects, as will awareness and openness. More money in rehab and a more permissive society will enable those that fall to recover and not become part of an uncared for underclass.

~:smoking:

[Byzantine Prince]

Why don't we ban food and alcohol and other such insane vices that lead to destruction. Gimme a freaken brake. If drugs were given in the proper places and doses they are pretty much all harmless(with exceptions like meth).


I have known one person who became almost mentally incapable of social functioning due to persistent paranoid hallucinations caused by LCD.
LSD used to be harmless but it is not made the way it used to be because the government shut down the production and destroyed the [proper] formula.



This is no joke. Hard drugs can and will destroy a user or cause permanent disability.
Is it possible that is because they are made illigally with little quality control?
It's a vicious cycle.

I think we should just ban anything a small moral minority doesn't like. Yeah.

[Fragony]

Why don't we ban food and alcohol and other such insane vices that lead to destruction. Gimme a freaken brake. If drugs were given in the proper places and doses they are pretty much all harmless(with exceptions like meth).


Ya let's ban food so people wouldn't have to steal to use it. They aren't harmless mia muca, and proper doses and places won't prevent people from forking themselves up. Alcoholics get their proper doses, and they are such normal healthy people aren't they. I don't know what meth is, but I suspect you are talking of cocaine boiled in ammonia?

[Redleg]

Ya let's ban food so people wouldn't have to steal to use it. They aren't harmless mia muca, and proper doses and places won't prevent people from forking themselves up. Alcoholics get their proper doses, and they are such normal healthy people aren't they. I don't know what meth is, but I suspect you are talking of cocaine boiled in ammonia?

Meth is a substance that is cooked up using ephrine (SP) (easily found in most over the counter diet pills, and breathing aids.

THey cook it up using substances that are extremely toxic such as red phrospous and kerosine. (And other caustic substances are sometimes used.)

[Divinus Arma]

BP,

Drugs are dangerous because of what is in the drugs, not just because of impurities. The drugs themselves are destructive.

Also, it has little to do wtih morality. I am far more concerned about the destructive capabilities of hard narcotics.


You know who will be most affected by this? Suburban middle class kids. Half of our population are secular progressives who just thrive on experimentation and bucking tradition. All kids think they are smarter than their parents, so did I. These kids are gonna suffer. And then the Chicanos will reclaim aztlan.

[master of the puppets]

sad, well mabey some of the mexicans will go back over the border and get so high they forget to return:dizzy2: .

but really this is just gonna cause a bunch o sh** with retarted teenagers who will find it a lot cheaper to buy...sickening innit. We should just go in and napalm columbian feilds.

[doc_bean]

Doc Bean, your comments show inexperience, immaturity, or a lack of knowledge about the harmful effects of hard drugs.

My, I'm getting a lot of love here. ~:smoking:

So how many do YOU know that regulary use/used drugs ?


There is no discussion on whether hard drugs are harmful.

I never wanted to argue that. Alcohol is (mostly) harmful, so are sweets. It's not because it's harmful that we should ban it. Freedom and making your own choices and such do matter to me. I would never advise anyone to take drugs (quite the opposite, including alcohol), but right now, in the mindset of most people user=addict, that just isn't true. One high doesn't make people addicts. Neither does one burger make you fat.
I do stand by my point that drugs themselves aren't the worst health threath, it's the crap that is mixed with them. Like rat poison in XTC.

Drugs also have effects that differ from person to person and dose, ritalin makes hyper people focused, it turns 'normal' people into complete psycho's if they take too much. I've had some BAD experiences with just regular pot (which i won't go into), most people can handle it just fine. Some people die if they ingest even the tiniest bit of a peanut. You can't always predict the effects a drug will have on you and that's part of the danger. But right now, with drugs being illegal, pretty much all info that people will get on them is hearsay, a friend will assure them it's safe, and they might believe it. Prescription drugs come with a 'manual' (don't know the right word in English), illegal drugs don't. Some ppor kid might not realize the dangers he puts himself in if he takes amfetamines and has a hearth condition for instance.

So yes, drugs can be, and for the most part will be harmful. I don't see that as sufficient reason to ban them altogether.



I have seen folks strung out, totally addicted to meth. I have known one person who became almost mentally incapable of social functioning due to persistent paranoid hallucinations caused by LCD.

In cases like that, I tend to wonder whether it's the chicken or the egg that came first. A lot of alcoholics run away from their problems. A lot of potheads are just plain bored. Often people will do drugs for a reason, and just getting high to get high, often isn't the reason.

I'm not saying drugs might not mess up some people who might otherwise have turned out fine. But how many lives haven't been ruined by gambling, for instace. We allow that (in a controlled way), why not drugs ?



This is no joke. Hard drugs can and will destroy a user or cause permanent disability.

Can: sure, will: depends on the user, the dose, and the quality, amongst other things.

[Major Robert Dump]

There are tons of dangerous, but legal, substances we can put in our bodies. These things are regulated and taxed. Something being harmful is no reason to put the users in prison. Technology exists to field test people for being under the influence of many drugs, but its not used or mainstream because it may cause people to ask questions.

Nicotine is addictive, but fewer people smoke than 10 years ago because of education.

Using the battlecry "for the children" is no reason to put people in prison. Police tread the edges of the constitution going after drugs, they send 10 man narc teams into homes to find an ounce of marijuana and then charge the person with 7 different crimes -- wow, big difference they are making there, great job police!!!! If they find no drugs they scrape tables and pipes for residue until they can get the gram they need to charge possession, how creative!!!! Most police departments have drug interdiction teams the size of the homicide division or bigger, and most of what they arrest people for is marijuana. Drug squads have quotas like everyone else, both for budget retainment and to meet certain bust criteria to qualify for federal blackamil, er, i mean grants.

[Divinus Arma]

Doc Bean,


So how many do YOU know that regulary use/used drugs ?

I'm a cop. I've seen my share. And there was a day when I was not a cop. And I saw my share then, too. Thin blue line and all.



So yes, drugs can be, and for the most part will be harmful. I don't see that as sufficient reason to ban them altogether.

It is not a matter of banning all drugs, just the most dangerous. Again, it is about reducing availability and sending the right message about drug abuse.

I care very little about some of these, since they are habit forming rather than addictive.

I tend to agree with most that legalizing some drugs will help regulate purity, remove harmful myths, and create a new source of tax revenue that can fund addiction treatment and law enforcement activities.


And re: gambling. There are those who can be addicted to that, as well as pretty much anything. Including food, video games, and sex.


I believe in legalizing and regulating the drugs that do not have a proven link to physical dependancy with semifrequent recreational use and are not capable of causing permanent harm in one usage.

That would pretty much just be MDMA and Marijuana.

[Kanamori]

Ah, but heroin is known to be extremely addictive and even when not addictive quite dangerous. Oops. You "experiment." You tried once.

:laugh4: I tried once and found that it was overated. I have a friend that likes his opiates in general, and I am no stranger to the class. It's a joke, IMO, and I don't care for depressants in general. I can get nearly the same high from any opiate/opioid. (The best way to use them is to get a medium to smallish dose, and then to go for a jog, you can control the morphine levels generally then by deciding how far you want to go, and stopping when necessary.~;)) If you want to get down to it, I know at least a dozen people who have done heroin. One of them got semi-addicted for a week, saw how it was destructive, and quit. Heroin is only destructive when it becomes addiction and you do not have enough money to support the habit or become apathetic from overuse. Really, I find it amusing when people talk to me about the mental effects of drugs that they have never had. Do you want to know why heroin is more addictive than the other opiates/opioids? Only because it is injected and has a higher morphine content. This is the major reason why it can be dangerous to use: injecting anything is dangerous as heck, once it is in the blood stream, it's in there. This is usually problematic when an inexperienced user does it by themselves, and when the person does not know what exactly they are putting into them. There is no way to tell what the heroin was cut with, and there is little easy way to tell its strength. Surprisingly, these problems are from criminalization. The other problem is when use is prolonged and often. It does not take a genius to realize that shooting up every day is bad for you, and it does not take a genius to realize that getting drunk every day is quite a lot worse for your body.


By the way, ecstasy is apparently not truly dangerous in and of itself but its side effect manages to kill a great amount of dumb teenagers because they drink a little too much water. So the drug's legalization is quite justifiable if it would require an extreme amount of precautions.

Ecstacy pills are most often bad for you with extreme doses, such as twenty pills per night where the normal user has perhaps two to three, and prolonged use of high doses. Ecstacy use dehydrates the user. And so those retarded teenagers were trying to use the drug responsibly, but teaching them how to use responsibly would be absolutely stupid, as it would save lives.:balloon2:


An individual who has used marijuana will be so unimpressed with the great government hype surrounding it that they may be inclined to believe that harder drugs also are overhyped. The harder drugs deserve their stigma. Hard drugs have been proven to rapidly destroy cognitive functioning, are physically debilitating, and in some cases can cause life-altering addiction almost instantaneously.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that they are already morally incorrect. Begging the question in a big way. I would also like to point out that that is simply taught to you and you have about zero reason to think that use is immoral. Anyway, most of the harms of the drugs come from extremely high doses and very prolonged use. I wonder which ones you classify as 'hard'. Cocaine, for one, is not neurotoxic at all.


This brings me to my second point: availability. All agree that demand exists for a recreational drug market. The decline in family values and religious social influence in the United States has created a culture of permissiveness, experimentation, and rebellion. This American laissez-faire attitude towards individual liberty is directly related to drug use. Legalization will attract the market for consumption to Mexico, and a growth in demand is almost certain to occur. But instead of only drinking or smoking pot, youth will find themselves ever closer to dangerous substances that were traditionally taboo.

Nobody in their right mind would go to Mexico to use mind-altering substances. I might add that they still are incredibly taboo. By far most marijuana users and even heavy users do not go on to other substances. That is how ingrained the taboo is; both alcohol and marijuana put you into a more screwed up state of mind than most other drugs and even hallucinogens at medium doses.:balloon2:


The equation of permissiveness + availability + message of tolerance equals massive recreational use. Youth have always followed fringe rebels. Those are the "cool" kids. When I was a teenager, the baggy clothes trend and skateboards were still fringe, as were

This is utterly ridiculous stereotyping, and the entire argument against drug use is one big stereotype that they are all ****** up apathetic bums that leech off the system and steal your wallet, or kill your family. I started using drugs with a bunch of yuppies and still do. You are taught to look at the user like you look at a leper. The ***** will rape the white woman on cocaine, the pot user will rape your children, it's all the same load of rubbish. You never question it, and every case of an addict only reinforces your view, but you never see the majority that use responsibly, do not live on the street, would never like to live on the street, would not allow themselves to live on the street, and are otherwise law abiding citizens. I've seen more drug use than most here, I would be willing to bet, and the most destructive I've seen to date is alcohol.

This society is sheer hypocrisy. There is absuletly no logical reason to allow alcohol consumption and not the consumption of other drugs.

Using drugs is simply a more mechanical way of changing your state of mind, and can be much more radical where one can experience the world, thoughts, and styles of thinking that they would never be able to experience otherwise. I am very certain that my life is much more in risk when I ride my motorbike than when I'm am doing any drugs. I do not support the notion that nobody should be taught about drugs and how harmful we all know they can be. There is a responsible way to use the majority of drugs out there recreationally.


I believe in legalizing and regulating the drugs that do not have a proven link to physical dependancy with semifrequent recreational use and are not capable of causing permanent harm in one usage.

That would pretty much just be MDMA and Marijuana.

There are quite a few more drugs out there that I'm pretty sure you have no idea about.~;) I don't understand either of your criterion. Alcohol, Caffiene, and nicotine all fail the physical dependancy bit, and all three can cause permanant damage in one use. Alcohol poisoning kills, Caffiene in its pure form and higher doses easily kills, and so does nicotine. Anyway, you can use most drugs w/o becoming physically dependant in one usage. Zorba goes on and on about his peyote. You know the harms of that? Well, there are none, but it isn't alcohol and it changes themind for a short period of time, so ban the crap out of it, lable the users as murders, rapists, lepers, and social rejects. Throw them in jail, throw out the key and let them to rot. What a bunch of hypocrites.

(The F-Bomb and the N-word are way off limits, even when making a point - Beirut)

[Kanamori]

In order to counter all the harms that drugs have on people, I woud first need to hear them, and I have not heard many, if any, specific harms. :book:

[Divinus Arma]

Some good comments here, but also some angry assumptions.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that they are already morally incorrect. Begging the question in a big way. I would also like to point out that that is simply taught to you and you have about zero reason to think that use is immoral. Anyway, most of the harms of the drugs come from extremely high doses and very prolonged use.

As I said before, my concern is not morality. Only safety. Increased availability means increased exposure and increased possibility of experimentation. I think my train of conclusions is fair and logical here.



Nobody in their right mind would go to Mexico to use mind-altering substances.
I disagree. Look at our friend Zorba here. He probably already has a plane ticket. ~;)


I might add that they still are incredibly taboo. By far most marijuana users and even heavy users do not go on to other substances. That is how ingrained the taboo is; both alcohol and marijuana put you into a more screwed up state of mind than most other drugs and even hallucinogens are medium doses.:balloon2:

I'm suggesting that this will change with time. America is an increasingly permissive society, despite the influence of "Christian Conservatives". Call it liberty, call it liberalization, call it a secular progressive movement, call it what you will. I see traditional taboos breaking down, for better or worse.



This is utterly ridiculous stereotyping, and the entire argument against drug use is one big stereotype that they are all ****** up apathetic bums that leech off the system and steal your wallet, or kill your family.

Did you even read my post? I said suburban middle class. I never said anything about bums that leech off the system. I see the danger to our middle class youth. Urban gang culture is already occupied; they have neither the money nor ability to run off to mexico for narco-tourism.


I started using drugs with a bunch of yuppies and still do. You are taught to look at the user like you look at a leper. The ***** will rape the white woman on cocaine, the pot user will rape your children, it's all the same load of rubbish.
These are the angry assumptions I referenced earlier. This was totally unfair.


You never question it, and every case of an addict only reinforces your view, but you never see the majority that use responsibly, do not live on the street, would never like to live on the street, would not allow themselves to live on the street, and are otherwise law abiding citizens.
Again, you are making an unfair assumption. As I said before in this thread, I am open to reconsider if a good argument proves logical and persuasive.



I've seen more drug use than most here, I would be willing to bet, and the most destructive I've seen to date is alcohol.
Alcohol is very dangerous. As one of the Org's patron Saints of Alcohol, I concur entirely. It is addictive and abuse can lead to serious mental and physical destruction. Users can easily kill themsleves or others and not even be aware of it.



This society is sheer hypocrisy. There is absuletly no logical reason to allow alcohol consumption and not the consumption of other drugs.
Agreed. But the risks of legalization for certain drugs are, to me, unacceptable. That is my opinion based on my education, professional training, and personal experience. As I said, I am willing to reconsider given logical arguments.


Using drugs is simply a more mechanical way of changing your state of mind, and can be much more radical where one can experience the world, thoughts, and styles of thinking that they would never be able to experience otherwise. I am very certain that my life is much more in risk when I ride my motorbike than when I'm am doing any drugs. I do not support the notion that nobody should be taught about drugs and how harmful we all know they can be. There is a responsible way to use the majority of drugs out there recreationally.
Some recreational use of certain drugs is acceptable to me. Others are unacceptable because they can cause permanent damage to users after just a few exposures. This is not a debate on the dangers in the world. This is a discussion on the dangers of drugs. We are not comparing risk of death between various activities, only the merits of legalization and its political, social, and economic risks/benefits.


There are quite a few more drugs out there that I'm pretty sure you have no idea about.~;) Zorba goes on and on about his peyote. You know the harms of that? Well, there are none, but it isn't alcohol and it changes themind for a short period of time, so ban the crap out of it, lable the users as murders, rapists, lepers, and social rejects. Throw them in jail, throw out the key and let them to rot. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Again, assumptions. Perhaps you should smoke a little of your marijuana and watch Alice in Wonderland to set your mind at ease. Are you directing your anger to me personally, or are you expressing frustration with a society that does not agree with your point of view on the subject?

(Quoted language - Beirut)

[Byzantine Prince]

As I said before, my concern is not morality. Only safety. Increased availability means increased exposure and increased possibility of experimentation. I think my train of conclusions is fair and logical here.
If the banning of these substances is not based on morals, what the hell else could it be based upon. Ethics of a society is what forms its laws.

In any case none of us here would know what would happen if hard and soft drugs got legalized because no such place exists where the government/medicinal company is the main provider of drugs like cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy.

Actually there are drugs out there that do no harm even if you abuse them (if you are sane that is), like Peyote, or the pure form of LSD, or Shrooms. Honestly there is nothing in these drugs that can do any harm to anyone, and yet they are banned, for no good reason other then our leader's moral high horse that "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?".

[Ice]

Thank God

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/03/mexico.drugs.ap/index.html


Fox will ask "Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense," according to a statement from the president's office released Wednesday.

[Kanamori]

These are the angry assumptions I referenced earlier. This was totally unfair.


Again, you are making an unfair assumption. As I said before in this thread, I am open to reconsider if a good argument proves logical and persuasive.


Again, assumptions.

Alright, perhaps...


Perhaps you should smoke a little of your marijuana and watch Alice in Wonderland to set your mind at ease.

You had me 'til now. Surprisingly, someone can relax quite easily w/o marijuana. Drugs are not the solution to everyone's problems, but you seem to think that all users think they are. Anyway, Alice in Wonderland would hardly be my choice. I much prefer the unmastered version of The Empire Strikes Back, Reefer Madness, or Transformers: The Movie. Remastering the original Star Wars trilogy was the worst thing ever done to Star Wars until the made the new trilogy; talk about stylistic clash.:wall:

[Redleg]

Thank God

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/03/mexico.drugs.ap/index.html


I wonder what the officials gave Fox to get him to back off on the signing of the measure.


The announcement late Wednesday came after U.S. officials urged Mexico to tighten the proposed law "to prevent drug tourism." On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had said he would sign the bill.

[Divinus Arma]

*sighhhhhhhhhhhh*

Ahh, the power of the United States. Once again, we strike a blow for public safety through subtle nuanced diplomacy, as is our favored policy throughout the globe.
And when that doesn't work:


Bring 'em on.

[doc_bean]

If the banning of these substances is not based on morals, what the hell else could it be based upon. Ethics of a society is what forms its laws.


Traffic laws are based on safety, certain standards when building a house are based on protection-against-ignorant-consumers.



In any case none of us here would know what would happen if hard and soft drugs got legalized because no such place exists where the government/medicinal company is the main provider of drugs like cocaine, heroin, or ecstasy.


Let's not forget that is totally isn't what mexico is doing. They're just saying they won't prosecute the users anymore and instead will go solely after the dealers. Many EU countries have similar rules.


Actually there are drugs out there that do no harm even if you abuse them (if you are sane that is), like Peyote, or the pure form of LSD, or Shrooms. Honestly there is nothing in these drugs that can do any harm to anyone, and yet they are banned, for no good reason other then our leader's moral high horse that "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?".

I've heard several stories about people being stuck with permanent hallucinations after longtime use of LSD. Nothing too serious, but it sin't without its consequences.

[rory_20_uk]

Here in the UK the drinking laws were set in the first world war as it was felt that drinking was meaning the war wasn't being won: more drinking meant less shells produced... :dizzy2:

So extremely recently we've had pubs able to apply for up to 24 hour opening licenses. The noise of outraged squealing as people predicted the whole place awash with booze, all pubs open etc etc.

In reality disturbances have gone down as people don't all race for the 11pm shut out, and can pace themselves. Many pubs have opened longer, but economics means that generally for a couple of hours. The change in laws has made things better.

I feel that the same can be true of drugs.

For those that optimistically think that they can ossify society into whatever timeframe they look upon nostalgically well, I am sure there are some midwestern towns that would be ideal.

Cops and other emergency services are called out when drugs have done wrong. The masses of city folks having their cocaine are not disturbed, nor are most of teh heroin users. Those that we do see are the ones that have been seriously affected - by drugs and usually by other factors as well.

I can see no logical argument against a slow relaxation of laws, bar people's own puritanical (and often misplaced) fears.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

I've heard several stories about people being stuck with permanent hallucinations after longtime use of LSD. Nothing too serious, but it sin't without its consequences.

I personally know someone that suffers persistent paranoid hallucinations as a result of moderate LSD usage. IIRC, its been about ten years since their last, "experience".

Ride the snake, to the ancient lake.

[doc_bean]

I personally know someone that suffers persistent paranoid hallucinations as a result of moderate LSD usage. IIRC, its been about ten years since their last, "experience".

Ride the snake, to the ancient lake.

Didn't Syd barret (original Pink Floyd) go completely insane because of LSD ?

He did use HUGE amounts though.

[Redleg]

I personally know someone that suffers persistent paranoid hallucinations as a result of moderate LSD usage. IIRC, its been about ten years since their last, "experience".

Ride the snake, to the ancient lake.

LSD leaves trace amounts in the spinal fluid, even from just one dose, I have never seen a study that indicates how much LSD use will result in "flashback" esipodes based previous use. All I know is that "flashback" esipodes definitely exist.

Now Meth - is a very dangerous drug, primarily from the fact that the cooking of the substance leaves dangerous toxins as residue, and the cooking process is very violatial. (SP).

Meth also destroys the brain, but then so does achocal and its legal.

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting point there Redleg. Is it that the residue in Meth is what is really destructive?

If so that perversely is a better argument for legalisation IMO - purity. Moonshine alcohol can be lethal with heavy metals from the distillation (copper, lead, aliminium, chromium to name a few) and of course the methanol or maybe even ethyl diol or propyl diol to add to the mix. In nice legal samples none are a problem, so most forget that one side effect of it being legal is this decrease in deaths.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

Interesting point there Redleg. Is it that the residue in Meth is what is really destructive?

Well my brother used to cook and a good friend of mine works for the Treasury Department. Both told me the same thing about the residue and the cooking process. Very dangerous and very toxic left overs.



If so that perversely is a better argument for legalisation IMO - purity. Moonshine alcohol can be lethal with heavy metals from the distillation (copper, lead, aliminium, chromium to name a few) and of course the methanol or maybe even ethyl diol or propyl diol to add to the mix. In nice legal samples none are a problem, so most forget that one side effect of it being legal is this decrease in deaths.

~:smoking:

Achocal is legal - moonshine still exists regardless of the legality of achocal. Legalizing drugs does not prevent the dangers associated with Meth because of the actual ease of making the drug if one wants to take risk with their life and longterm health, to beat the tax stamp. (this is what is done with moonshine - its about not paying the taxes.)

Side note: That is what my brother was convicted of - not cooking but procession of ephrine without a tax stamp.

[Byzantine Prince]

I personally know someone that suffers persistent paranoid hallucinations as a result of moderate LSD usage. IIRC, its been about ten years since their last, "experience".

Ride the snake, to the ancient lake.
It depends on the person. Some people don't have the enzymes for certain drugs. LSD is the type of drug that for most people works fine without causeing any trouble, for others it drives them insane, and for others it does nothing at all. Just because you-knew-a-guy, doesn't mean it should be banned. It's like banning peanuts because some people are allergic to death of them. Oh but they are sooo good. ********! :laugh4:

(Language - Beirut)

[Divinus Arma]

It depends on the person. Some people don't have the enzymes for certain drugs. LSD is the type of drug that for most people works fine without causeing any trouble, for others it drives them insane, and for others it does nothing at all. Just because you-knew-a-guy, doesn't mean it should be banned. It's like banning peanuts because some people are allergic to death of them. Oh but they are sooo good. Bastards! :laugh4:

But we can test for peanut allergies. We cannot do this with LSD.

LSD works by bridging the synapses between neurons. Neurons are designed to carry specific signals from specific sensory sources in the body. Well, LSD does not discriminate in this way, and so bridges all synapses equally.

Your brain, programmed to recieve distinct signals from each sensory source and then categorize each distinctly, is unable to "sort out" where information is coming from nor how it should be organized for interpretation. This is because the synaptic bridges have been compromised and, at peak when the user "kaliedescopes", the brain is essentially recieving the same signal from each sensory source.

This is why, when a user is trending upward in the experience towards the peak, they "see" music, "hear" colors, or "feel" objects of their imagination. We all have a natural ability to visualize or see things of our imagination: experiences, objects, etc. On LSD, these imagined objects and experiences become all the more real because we "feel" what we see. An unnatural imagined presence can occur.

At the peak of the experience, a user's brain is entirely unable to distinguish sensory sources and their proper organization. Every sense comes together in a giant swirling blur that some users describe as a "kaleidescope". Some users equate this expereince as divine, believeing that they have seen God. Complicating this is the fact that other cognitive abilities, such as auditory-type thought processes and problem solving, function independantly of the sensory source. This can create a detatched feeling where your sense of self, for all intensive purposes, "becomes" a distinct being apart from your sensory perception. Your self awareness may be misinterpreted as being an external entitiy. You may perceive your self as an outside influence. See my comments on the danger of this below.

The experience subsides when the brain begins to sort itself out as the LSD degnerates in the synaptic bridges and is stored elsewhere by the body.


The danger is this: The brain may not be able to properly reorganize itself. It may cease to recognize where sensory information originates and where that info should be categorized. Thus users continue to have an LSD-like experience for extended periods of time. The scariest part is when a user's brain can also no longer distinguish between real or imagined objects/experiences. Thus a permanent state of paranoid delusions can occur. Thoughts are "felt" as a presence. Imagined thoughts of others, based on subconcious interpersonal cues, may become all too real. A user's own fears and insecurities contribute to this, building on this permanent alteration of perception.

The brain's ability to organize is fragile, and may be permananetly altered after one use or thirty or a hundred. It differs in everyone and there is no litmus test to determine who is most susceptible.


Allow me to provide an example experience at kaliedescope to demonstrate the risk. Think in your head "this is me thinking". Can you hear yourself in your head? Not hear with your ears, but can you imagine the syllables and pauses between each word? At kaleidescope, you may actually "hear" yourself think. You may then question the source of your thoughts and whether your thoughts are internal or external, since you have lost your ability to differentiate. Once this happens, you may then perceive that your thoughts are external. If they are external, then where do they originate? There can only be one logical conclusion: God. You have now convinced yourself that your own thoughts are the voice of God. Congratulations, you have just become insane. You are unable to distinguish reality from imagination. The two have become one.

If your brain is unable to reorganize itself from this point, you will be unable to realize that something is disordered in your thinking. You will be unable to reclaim your own thoughts and they will eternally remain "the voice of God", independant of you. And you will remain insane after your little LSD adventure is over.

[Byzantine Prince]

There are risks to doing anything, what makes LSD so dangerous statistically?

Yes I read your post.

[Divinus Arma]

There are risks to doing anything, what makes LSD so dangerous statistically?

Did you even read my post?

[GoreBag]

:laugh4: Someone doesn't recongize sarcasm... :laugh4:

Tag your it............

Ah, the lowest form of homour. Fitting.

[rory_20_uk]

So. That's taking too much LSD.

If you OD on opiates, the affect on the brain is to depress brain activity. This will make the person very drowsy, and depress respiratory effort and the gag reflex. The person may choke on their own vomit or merely asphyxiate.

Alcohol is also a depressant and has similar effects in a toxic overdose to opiates although by a very different mechanism.

And so it goes on. I fail to see the relavance bar to say that all substances are fatal in overdose - people die every year from paracetamol poisoning from the stated dose. A very small percentage of people is succeptable and will develop acute liver failure. We don't know who they are until it's too late.

Ditto some anaesthetics to some people
Some eyedrops can be fatal to certain people at a dose as low as one drop. Detectable if a trained doctor is looking at the ECG.

So many things are potentially fatal I could be here all day!

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

Ah, the lowest form of homour. Fitting.

Yep considering the nature of the discussion and the content of your posts. Sarcasm is the approiate response to your comment.

[Divinus Arma]

It's absurd to argue comparisons of dangerous activity. That is not the point of this discussion.

LSD carries a genuine risk of mentall illness. It does not take an overdose.

I understand that many are hellbent are learning for themselves, and that is your choice.

I suppose that education aside, I can only hope that some will recognize that usage carries a disproportionate risk to benefit. If I could go insane after one drink of liquor, I would never drink.

Social darwinism, I guess. Enjoy your drugs, my friends. I hope you survive. No argument will dissuade those who are committed to drug experimentation.


At least be educated:

www.erowid.org

Some good info and bad info. Read the variety of negative experiences and ask yourself if you would be willing to live a bad trip for the remainder of your life.

[rory_20_uk]

Let's not forget you're more likely to get run over, mugged or in the USA shot than die from drugs.

The effects on darwinism are so insignificant to be nothing more than a spectre.

~:smoking:

[Kanamori]

It's absurd to argue comparisons of dangerous activity. That is not the point of this discussion.


I fail to see how so? The point of comparing is to say that all of these other things are obviously acceptable, but for some reason people think that drugs aren't. (This is where people's preconcieved notions of drugs comes into play in mymind; despite all comparison, people stubbornly believe that all of them are bad. They list one or two things, which often can come from many other legal activities with the same risks, but they simply refuse to accept that people can use drugs responsibly with very little risk.) I ask then, what is the point of the discussion? Obviously, we all agree that drugs can harm people. To claim otherwise would be absolutely ludicrous. The argument that we make is that the risk is not enough to, first of all, send the user to prison for risking themselves (and nobody else), and secondly that there are all sorts of other risks in the world that are legal. There is not enough difference between the various risks and drug use in order to ban the one reasonably; I'll be damned when any government or person forces me, an adult, to not do with myself as I please. Banning the substance altogether and nurturing a general ignorance of the substance is hardly the best solution to the problem of the risk. As you say, when people find out that some things are false, some will assume that none of it is true. It is best to educate the individual in all honesty and to leave the decision to the individual instead of treating them like a little child that cannot decide what is best for themselves. Throwing them in prison only further harms the quality of their lives; it is totally asinine.


LSD carries a genuine risk of mentall illness. It does not take an overdose.

It's use does, not the drug itself. Most psychadelics are heavily (almost to the point of exclusivity) dependant on set and setting. Having the proper quality of both, prior to use, is essential to a good 'trip' which can be very personally rewarding for a lifetime. Under other circumstances, it can be the opposite. Knowing how to establish those would be far better and more rewarding to the user than for society to respond by lumping them in the same group as other 'undesireables' and severely hindering their life. Talk about hypocrisy. "Don't use them! They can ruin your life. So, if you do use them, we will ruin yours for sure!" What?

The harm is that it may ruin their life, and the solution is to ruin their's for sure.:help:


I suppose that education aside, I can only hope that some will recognize that usage carries a disproportionate risk to benefit.

This has been the entire issue. Despite my best attempts, I have gotten few specific harms mentioned by people other than, "They will ruin you're life (no chances at all, they will). Don't ask me how but they will." The exception being Redleg's very real comment on the dangers of producing methamphetamine. However, this neither means that it cannot be done safely by professionals, nor that the user should be sent to prison as punishment for the brewer risking other people's lives. Even most of the harms that can come from use are there only because forbidding them outright forces use underground into unsafe marketing, refining, 'cutting', and many other things related only to them being criminalized/banned. (Again, this is where my brass generalization comes in. People are so set against them, they hardly ever present clear and logical arguments against them, and then continue to consider their use absolutely detrimental to everything human and right.) I wonder, when will guns be banned since they may be used improperly by children and accidentally kill other children? When will motorcycle riding be banned -- I'm sure I could find some very graphic pictures of accidents that would not have been nearly as bad if the person were in a car or in a government-built, government-operated, government-owned, and government-maintainedm, vehicle.


Some good info and bad info. Read the variety of negative experiences and ask yourself if you would be willing to live a bad trip for the remainder of your life.

It does not, even remotely, necessarily follow. I would not recommend that anyone at all anxious about psychadelics (generally speaking, where there are many less prone to this problem such as mescaline and many dissociatives) use them. The paranoia feeds itself in that altered conciousness, and they should only be used when the person is absolutely comfortable and probably with first experiences w/ little to no external stimulus at all. Removing the stimulus that leads to many of the bad effects, and knowing which ones can, which ones will, and which ones in all probability will not is personal. Consider: how many bad trips occur when a person is totally at ease with the drug and their surroundings? Especially if the only thing being altered in perception is your thoughts. Contrary to your claim, there are very real ways of preparing the use of those substances so that the risk of a bad trip is quite close to zero.


Social darwinism, I guess. Enjoy your drugs, my friends. I hope you survive. No argument will dissuade those who are committed to drug experimentation.

I am yet to see any structured argument. All of yours already operate under the premise that use is a harm, in and of itself, which you have failed to show.

[Divinus Arma]

Read post 84 in this thread. And I just editted it a bit. Noticed a part I left out.

[Kanamori]

Linky? A pretty big claim, and other factors seem to be ignored. It is not apperant whether this happens all the time, which it obviously doesn't, and what causes the malfunction of returning to normality. What goes wrong and how does it go wrong? And importantly, why does this warrant the criminalization of use, and why does it warrant the criminalization of all other, currently illicit, drugs?

As I have said, there can be no doubt that drug use may result in bad things; there can be no doubt that eating peanuts may result in similar harms, as when someone may be unkowingly, and severly, allergic.

[Divinus Arma]

Linky? A pretty big claim, and other factors seem to be ignored. It is not apperant whether this happens all the time, which it obviously doesn't, and what causes the malfunction of returning to normality. What goes wrong and how does it go wrong? And importantly, why does this warrant the criminalization of use, and why does it warrant the criminalization of all other, currently illicit, drugs?

As I have said, there can be no doubt that drug use may result in bad things; there can be no doubt that eating peanuts may result in similar harms, as when someone may be unkowingly, and severly, allergic.

Sorry. No linky. it is a summary of education, training, and experience.

As a parallel, ask me to explain global marketing. I'll tell you that it is a combination of foreign entry, foreign local marketing, and global management. I'll go into great detail. You'll ask me for a link. I'll tell you that I finish my MBA early next year. Tacit knowledge is hard enough to articulate by itself, let alone attempt to derivate.

However, I'm sure most of what is written is at least somewhat logical to you. If you have used LSD with any frequency or have done significant research into the topic for self education, I am sure that you can understand the biological background behind the hallucinogenic manifestations I outline here.

edit: And to clarify, I am not suggesting that this type of experience is a certainty or an eventuality, only that it is one very real possible outcome. Some users internalize, or "headtrip". Other users externalize, and experience intense auditory and visual manifestations. The focus of the user depends, in part, as you said on the setting. However, the biomechanics of synaptic bridging which create misinterpretation in neural organization is still the cause, regardless.

Some users may report sharing a similar experience when tripping at the same time. They may feel connected in a way never before possible. The complete inability to interpret sensory signals, in this case, leads to the elimination of interpersonal barriers. Furthermore, the users are simultaneously "feeling" their perception of their trip partner's experience. It is created, in part, from a psycholigcal social mirror that is generated by behavioral interactivity. We reinforce each other's view of ourselves based on our own behavior. We hold views of ourselves based on the subtle cues of others' behavior surrounding us. This same phenomenon, which occurs regardless of drug use, is what contributes to the "we are sharing the experience and feeling each others' feelings" perception of users who trip together.

[Strike For The South]

Dont do shrooms:furious3: :dizzy2: :embarassed:

[Major Robert Dump]

Are you kidding me? Shrooms are 10x better than LSD and wont get you federal jail time. Except shrooms makes everyone appear to have downs syndrome, but thats part of the fun. Buffalo Pies make the best shrooms.