Stu Peters Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Matt - so I'm told! I'm a generally law-abiding sort of bloke and avoid things that could give me a police record, but I'm also increasingly disenchanted with a nanny state that tells me lies and allows me to kill myself with noxious substances as long as it generates lots of tax for them to waste. I'm not pro-drugs - as a father of three I warned all my kids of the dangers but in the realisation that if I could get them to adulthood they could make their own minds up about anything, drugs included. I've tried cannabis a number of times over the years and can take it or leave it - maybe because a 'friend' once gave me a spliff and only told me later it had been laced with something else, which gave me a bad trip and feeling very ill. I also tried it in Amsterdam once and it was too strong...again, might have been fun but I was unprepared for the effect and didn't enjoy it. Reading the book last night and one government (Dutch? Belgian?) offers a service where you can take any drug to hospital without fear of arrest or confiscation and they'll test it to tell you exactly what it is, what the effects are likely to be and what to do if it goes wrong. It allows them to monitor what people are using and deal with the threats to people and society as a whole, and it strikes me as a much more pragmatic approach than elected idiots foaming at the mouth about 'Cake' or 'Baby Bio' and predicting armageddon unless SWAT teams are mobilised to deal with the menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Unfortunately policy is not based on scientific research. See also IRIS project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinkle Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm reading David Nutt's book on drugs at the moment, on loan from my pal Shelly at DASH. He was the government drug adviser sacked by Labour for criticising the reclassification of cannabis, and saying that booze was FAR more dangerous to society (and people) than cannabis or ecstacy. It's a fascinating read (albeit hardly a Jack Reacher page-turner) and the relative danger of legal and illegal drugs - in every measurable sense - is an eye-opener...to the point that had I read it 10 years ago I would maybe have tried ecstacy (I was offered it a couple of times but the official medical position and media frenzy at the time convinced me that I'd die within seconds). He also makes the great point that rather than governments banning recreational drugs and wasting billions in the unwinnable war on drugs, a fraction of that money could be spent on education and harm reduction - as an earlier poster cited about Amsterdam. Professor Nutt (great name) is pretty disparaging about politicians - he suggests many drug policy decisions are taken without any understanding by our elected representatives on the basis that 'being tough on drugs' wins easy votes. Oh, and politicians are owned by the booze and tobacco companies and totally dependent on the taxes and duties raised from the legal sale of their killer products. The world is a mad place isn't it - we're all aware that global (and local) policies are being decided by idiots for all the wrong reasons yet feel powerless to do anything to change it. good post, i've ordered one myself and shall use same as reference book to educate my grandchildren on the realities of using drugs,or not using drugs, i personally believe alcohol,and nicotine are thr worst drugs available,bar none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Professor Nutt agrees with you. Neither would be allowed to market if introduced today. But they raise so much government income they're allowed, whilst the authorities just pay lip service to their dangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Like I said before, Hemp is probably the one which should be legalised, unfortunately it won't because it affects too many influential people, particularly in the bio-diesel industry. For thousands of years, humans have used parts of the hemp plant for food, textiles, paper, fabric, and fuel oil. Today, modern processing technologies have made it possible to create alternatives to gasoline, plastic, and other petroleum products that can help the human race lessen its reliance on polluting and expensive fossil fuels. The hemp plant is a renewable resource that can be produced domestically. It grows quickly, naturally resists plant diseases, requires little weeding, thrives in most climates, and enriches the soil it grows in............ Today, hemp oil can be used to create biofuels to replace gasoline for diesel engines. Unlike fossil fuels, biofuels are renewable and produce less of the greenhouse gas carbon monoxide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yeah, but what if somebody sold some biofuel to a child and they poured it over their heads and set fire to it? Where would it all end? Mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Yeah, but what if somebody sold some biofuel to a child and they poured it over their heads and set fire to it? Where would it all end? Mental. I'm presuming that your stance is against all drugs as per Government policies which is fine, although I'd like to know as to how or why you made that decision? I'm not trying to catch you or others out either, as this seems like a repeating question on the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I fully accept that alcohol does quite a few people a lot of harm and some of those are so harmed they die but I'm not too sure about this harm comparison with other drugs. You are born with an enzyme to breakdown the very simple compound C2H5OH but you do not have an enzyme to break down MDMA or THC which are complex compounds. The big problem with alcohol is it's available easily and cheaply everywhere and therefore has considerably more potential for abuse. Only when all drugs are as easily available could you begin to make a decision on their comparative potential to harm. I know probably dozens who have used weed for years and been fine but one of those has been very damaged by it. That's a small (but significant) %age of the people I know but to just say "it's harmless" isn't true. Its metabolites can be traced in your blood for around 30 days so one might wonder how hard the liver is working to get rid of them. I'm not against legalisation of some drugs as a lot of crime would disappear but let's not kid ourselves nobody would come to any harm if they abused 'whatever' often enough for long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I'm reading David Nutt's book on drugs at the moment, on loan from my pal Shelly at DASH. He was the government drug adviser sacked by Labour for criticising the reclassification of cannabis, and saying that booze was FAR more dangerous to society (and people) than cannabis or ecstacy. It's a fascinating read (albeit hardly a Jack Reacher page-turner) and the relative danger of legal and illegal drugs - in every measurable sense - is an eye-opener...to the point that had I read it 10 years ago I would maybe have tried ecstacy (I was offered it a couple of times but the official medical position and media frenzy at the time convinced me that I'd die within seconds). He also makes the great point that rather than governments banning recreational drugs and wasting billions in the unwinnable war on drugs, a fraction of that money could be spent on education and harm reduction - as an earlier poster cited about Amsterdam. Professor Nutt (great name) is pretty disparaging about politicians - he suggests many drug policy decisions are taken without any understanding by our elected representatives on the basis that 'being tough on drugs' wins easy votes. Oh, and politicians are owned by the booze and tobacco companies and totally dependent on the taxes and duties raised from the legal sale of their killer products. The world is a mad place isn't it - we're all aware that global (and local) policies are being decided by idiots for all the wrong reasons yet feel powerless to do anything to change it. Good post. Having been someone that in the distant past has tried most drugs out there that you can possibly imagine I can honestly say that the one that made me feel the worst afterwards and probably did the most harm to the body is alcohol. I've never smoked but after having a few cigarettes in my time as a non-smoker they also left the worst taste in my mouth the day after. Ecstasy made me want to hug people and made me think everyone was my friend (which when you are with others on it they are!). So they're clearly not what governments want as they want people at each others throats moaning over their tiny slice of the pie. So ecstasy bad. Cannabis made me chilled out and not worry about anything, again very bad if you want a nation of obedient work slaves. I could go on but suffice to say the only time I've felt violent, had a fight, been set upon by people in a similar state and had numerous stinking hangovers that now last days as opposed to hours is with the biggest tax earner for government. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulos Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 CYP2D6 [debrisoquine hydroxylase], one of the cytochrome P450 enzymes, is involved in the metabolism of MDMA. CYP2D6 activity is lacking in 5% to 10% of Caucasians, known as poor metabolizers. THC is metabolized mainly to 11-OH-THC by the body. This metabolite is still psychoactive and is further oxidized to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THC-COOH). In humans and animals, more than 100 metabolites could be identified, but 11-OH-THC and THC-COOH are the dominating metabolites. Metabolism occurs mainly in the liver by cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4. More than 55% of THC is excreted in the feces and ~20% in the urine. The main metabolite in urine is the ester of glucuronic acid and THC-COOH and free THC-COOH. In the feces, mainly 11-OH-THC was detected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Can't be such a bad thing that we've got another intellectual on the island who can cut and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Aye Paulos. Alcohol and its metabolite acetaldehyde (responsible along with dehydration for the hangover bit) mostly gone in 24 hours, THC and its metabolities still hanging around after 24 days says it all really. Just watched a stupid police program tonight with endearing coppers smashing up peoples houses, handcuffs on occupants and visiting relations etc up just to recover enough cannabis to fill an egg cup. If it was legalised they'd have to go and find some proper criminals to have a go at instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3allz Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Can't be such a bad thing that we've got another intellectual on the island who can cut and paste. Where else do you expect someone to get their information from, if they're not scientists themselves with the abilty to do experiments! Its perfectly acceptable to investigate via google; as with most things, someone else has already done a better job than you will ever do your self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Aye Paulos. Alcohol and its metabolite acetaldehyde (responsible along with dehydration for the hangover bit) mostly gone in 24 hours, THC and its metabolities still hanging around after 24 days says it all really. Just watched a stupid police program tonight with endearing coppers smashing up peoples houses, handcuffs on occupants and visiting relations etc up just to recover enough cannabis to fill an egg cup. If it was legalised they'd have to go and find some proper criminals to have a go at instead. So THC stays in your system is that good or bad? I have some vague recollection of their being a receptor in the brain that only 'holds hands' with cannabis but that could be dope head propaganda, it could also be to do with LSD, DMT, Shrooms or something else I have read about in the past, it's all a blur Yeah I hate those police shows, the American one "Cops" - oooooooooh I hate them. Smashing into peoples homes like robo cop, what is that all about? These coppers, they're like 23 years old, kids in hard man jobs they need their legs slapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.