haX0red_Account Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 but what about the effects of 'drugs' produced by the body itself without ingestion of anything else? What is the normal baseline state of being for a body- how much adrenaline is good/bad, how much endorphins should be produced, etc- where does anyone draw the line; is a large dose of caffeine in a very strong coffee more or less harmful than chewing a bunch of coca leaves? Is a very heavy drinking session qualitatively worse than a mild mushroom trip which wouldn't have much impact on liver function? Think it's up to the individual to decide and judge(presumably while they have faculties to do this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 WRONG drugs are not negative, they are very positive for most, why else would anyone use them? they give you a good time and you don't get a hangover the next day. most people don't have any problems with them. get some facts before you comment otherwise you look like a dickhead The affect is negative, When people take drugs they don't notice the affect on their bodies, They only take notice of say the hallucinations, which they find exciting and fun but are actually damaging and affecting you normal bodily reactions. And that's what I meant - your body will be affected in a negative way, or are you trying to tell me that the use of cocaine, ciggies, or ecstasy has any health benefits? And as to "you don't get a hangover the next day" - ever asked an ecstasy user how he feels on a Monday after a heavy weekend? Or a coke snorter on how his mood swings are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416073,00.html I've read other articles in the past about therapists in the 80s using MDMA with their patients, one of the quotes I remember was something to the effect of "One session with a patient under the influence of MDMA was worth a year of regular counselling." To be quite honest, unless you've taken ecstasy yourself and experienced its effects for yourself, dismissing it out of hand as dangerous and worthless as you're doing is ignorant at best. From the above article: The study has provoked controversy, because significant doubts remain about the long-term risks of ecstasy. Animal studies suggest that it lowers levels of the brain chemical serotonin, and some politicians and anti-drug campaigners have argued that research into possible medical benefits of illegal drugs presents a falsely reassuring message. MDMA Effects (Positive/Neutral/Negative) Short-Term Side Effects of MDMA Based on reports from users, common adverse side effects of MDMA ingestion include rise in blood pressure and heart rate, nystagmus (eye-wiggling), trismus (jaw tension), bruxia (teeth grinding), sweating, agitation, a post-peak crash, muscle tension, headaches, nausea & vomiting, dry-mouth, liver problems, water retention, fatigue, confusion, mood swings, black outs, etc. I've never taken E, that's correct - but I've also never crossed a motorway with my eyes closed, or took a random pill from which I didn't know where its from or what's really in it - you don't need to have done it to know that it's a silly idea... And anyway - one minute, people cry for less salt in their food and demand a larger choice of healthier products from their supermarket, only to willingly mess with the fragile chemical balance in their bodies the next. If someone wants to do it, then it's obviously their choice - free country and all that - It just isn't something that appeals to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Personally I would decriminalise the possession and open use of all ‘drugs’ within society and licence the premises where they could be sold. Maybe an extension to the tobacco or the pub licensing act would suffice. Nature could then take its course and those who wanted to float off into eternal oblivion and in so doing remove themselves from the gene pool (hopefully before they had reproduced) could do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Over a (hopefully short) period of time we would see a reduction in the number of congenital addictive personalities as the appropriate genes dried up not to mention a marked lack of ‘glamour’ and ‘rebellion’ aspects that illegal drugs presently have. Most kids knowing that ‘snorting a line’ would result in an early death would shy away and those that would not we would be well rid of anyway. Added to that the extortionate high prices would fall so reducing the imperative for the druggies to engage in crime to get the wherewithal to buy their next totally and uniquely selfish indulgence. As for the sentences on drug dealers – whilst certain drugs are declared to be illegal to possess or use unless under medical direction in society then I would very much like to see real draconian sentencing for dealers with a mandatory 20 years without parole for a third offence and mandatory rehab for first offender drug users followed by mandatory jail plus rehab for subsequent offences. Remember, it’s not just the taking of illegal substances that is the issue, it’s what the inadequate self indulgent scum get up to in order to get the funds to purchase the drugs that must be considered. Things that very often can not be directly linked to simple possession. That being said my preference would be legitimisation. It would make a massive impact on the rest of the crime that takes place. personally i would do no such thing, given what is known about cannibis and freinds, it does irreversible harm to the human mind and body. equating drugs with tobacco is quite diingenuous, because if tobacco was still illegal now given the culture at the moment to ban smoking from public places would it be wise to legalise that. cannibis is foar more harmful than tobacco. so on those grounds alone it should remain wer it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbieh Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 WRONG drugs are not negative, they are very positive for most, why else would anyone use them? they give you a good time and you don't get a hangover the next day. most people don't have any problems with them. get some facts before you comment otherwise you look like a dickhead The affect is negative, When people take drugs they don't notice the affect on their bodies, They only take notice of say the hallucinations, which they find exciting and fun but are actually damaging and affecting you normal bodily reactions. And that's what I meant - your body will be affected in a negative way, or are you trying to tell me that the use of cocaine, ciggies, or ecstasy has any health benefits? And as to "you don't get a hangover the next day" - ever asked an ecstasy user how he feels on a Monday after a heavy weekend? Or a coke snorter on how his mood swings are? 95% of the time i'm fine, thanks for asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 95% of the time i'm fine, thanks for asking Then you are both unaware of your real state and in denial as well. Without being nasty you need help, get it NOW before it is too late. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 95% of the time i'm fine, thanks for asking Then you are both unaware of your real state and in denial as well. Without being nasty you need help, get it NOW before it is too late. Seriously. Aren't you the same Rog who thinks homosexuality is an illness or something like that? You should go and get help instead. Er, did you actually read the link on that post? If you had then you (or at least anyone with a higher IQ than the number of teeth in their head) would have recognised it as a piss take of those who DO think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Jesus, most people who are recreational users are just fine, just like most people who drink alcohol are fine. They don't NEED HELP NOW. A post-high bout of being down, to the extent it happens, is just considered an acceptable consequence of getting the high in the first place - just as it is with booze. There are, of course, a number of Daily Mail-reading reactionary imbeciles for whom it is an item of faith that no recreational substance (except of course alcohol, because that's legal and therefore acceptable within their rigid mindset) can be taken without some form of Chicken Little "sky falling in" effect takes place. In DailyMailWorld, the thousands upon thousands of people who take disco biscuits or smoke a joint at the weekend do not don their suits and go back to their jobs in the City on Monday, but instead line the streets with the other homeless people, surrounded by used needles and an odour of helpless decay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbieh Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 95% of the time i'm fine, thanks for asking Then you are both unaware of your real state and in denial as well. Without being nasty you need help, get it NOW before it is too late. Seriously. 95% of the time after using substances I felt very little effect so much that I would class as feeling fine, far greater percentage than after drinking alcohol. I have a good degree and I have a good job and a great partner, but I have in the past used drugs at weekends - sorry if that doesn't fit in with the stereotypical ecstasy user. I don't encourage drug use but I would rather take advice from people that actually know about it. Seriously, and I don't mean to be nasty, do you actually know anything at all about recreational drug use apart from "bad, bad, bad, burn in hell, evil drugs"!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Always seems to be a hot topic the "drugs" debate. The views usually seems to split between the vocal "drugs are very bad" and "drugs are great" sides of the camp, and not an awful lot of middle ground. I've experimented a bit in my not too distant past, and can say I really don't think or feel I have done myself any serious long term damage, although I have seen people who have had bad reactions/or personality disorders from what I would call "abuse". I don't beleive occasional drug use is particularly harmful (nicotine & alcohol inclded), the problems arise because of drug abuse, doing too much of anything can be very harmful. I'm with Rog and a few others with the idea that everything should be, if not legalised, then "decriminalised". If the government supply these substances, it can be taxed, and the proceeds to help people that have major problems with any of these substances, by doing this, it totally removes the dealer, and the criminal elements involved with the drugs black market, I read a few years ago that is was costing the NHS around £2.50 to supply a herion addict with enough methadone for the day, compared to them having to rob/steal/mug £200 worth for their "fix" from a dealer, without the user having any idea of the quality, or origin of what they would be buying. Alcohol and nicotine are drugs, just as harmful if not more so than many of the other illegal drugs, yet these are socially acceptable (well maybe not tobacco use so much recently) and the government make a fortune out of the taxes on these. People will take drugs (including booze & fags) whether they are illegal or not, so why not as people have said, bring it out into the open, remove the criminal element, and use the proceeds from the taxes raised to help people who have problems with some of these drugs??? Prohibition didn't work at all, the so-called "War on Drugs" isn't working either, it's way past time that we should look at trying something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Jesus, most people who are recreational users are just fine, just like most people who drink alcohol are fine. They don't NEED HELP NOW. A post-high bout of being down, to the extent it happens, is just considered an acceptable consequence of getting the high in the first place - just as it is with booze. There are, of course, a number of Daily Mail-reading reactionary imbeciles for whom it is an item of faith that no recreational substance (except of course alcohol, because that's legal and therefore acceptable within their rigid mindset) can be taken without some form of Chicken Little "sky falling in" effect takes place. In DailyMailWorld, the thousands upon thousands of people who take disco biscuits or smoke a joint at the weekend do not don their suits and go back to their jobs in the City on Monday, but instead line the streets with the other homeless people, surrounded by used needles and an odour of helpless decay Sorry! Little late seeing this but I wanted to comment. I think the 'recreational' users should be made to live next door to 'serious' users and then see how sympathetic they are to drug use. Tappings at the doors (front & back) at all hours of the day & night; urinating/defecating youths in the street; abusive language if anybody questions them about 'anything'; noises & shouting thru the walls......oh yes & a real odour of helpless decay emanating out of the drink & drugs den! Meanwhile the glorious Manx Police force does?.........little! Good luck with your recreational use - hope you see the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchy Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I think the 'recreational' users should be made to live next door to 'serious' users and then see how sympathetic they are to drug use. a fine idea with only two minor drawbacks. 1. there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of recreational drug users and far less 'serious' users so there is not enough to go round 2. there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of recreational drug users and far less 'serious' users so there is not enough to go round now I realise that technically speaking this is only one reason, but its such a big one I thought it needed mentioning twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Well Catchy & Mupster - thanks for your learned contributions. Maybe if everybody takes drugs nobody will notice society turning to s***! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I think the 'recreational' users should be made to live next door to 'serious' users and then see how sympathetic they are to drug use. a fine idea with only two minor drawbacks. 1. there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of recreational drug users and far less 'serious' users so there is not enough to go round 2. there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of recreational drug users and far less 'serious' users so there is not enough to go round now I realise that technically speaking this is only one reason, but its such a big one I thought it needed mentioning twice Ooooh spot the RD fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.