Mexico set to decriminalize pot and cocaine

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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.

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

Yes I read your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

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

---

Did you even read my post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

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

---

Ah, the lowest form of homour. Fitting.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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.