Minnie Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Classification of drugs The Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) is the major Act controlling drugs. It divides drugs into categories (A, B and C) depending on how dangerous the drugs were thought to be at the time of legislation. The home secretary can usually add new drugs on to those controlled under the original 1971 Act without referring to Parliament. Class A drugs include: Cocaine, coca leaf, dicanol, heroin, LSD, mescalin, methadone, morphine, opium, PCP, pethadine, poppy straw, psilocybin, STP, ecstasy and cannabinol except where it is contained in cannabis or cannabis resin. Class B drugs become class A drugs if they are prepared for injection. Class B drugs include: Amphetamine, codeine in concentrations above 2.5%, DF118, ritalin and barbiturates. Class C drugs include: Methaqualone, cannabis, benzodiazepines (valium etc). Taken from http://www.urban75.org/legal/drugs.html Not sure how up to date it is??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Blah, blah, blah......Historically, cannabis was only ever criminalised as a result of International Opium objectives primarily dealing with opiates but within which Egypt wanted cannabis included, despite there being no case studies supporting that it's use was detrimental. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Classification and criminalisation of recreational drug use dates way back using historical frameworks I believe - you may like to start by looking up "International Opium Convention, signed at The Hague, 23 January 1912" for a starting point if you are interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purrrrrrrrrrry Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 Concrete - if a pharmaceutical grade medicine was capable of as much damage as E, there would be an outcry that it was still available, and multiple suings. But tell people that it's illegal and exclusive (right!!) and there they are, clambering over each over on their way (out of the shallow end) of the gene pool to buy some.... It's soooooo predicable it's not even sad any more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 But tell people that it's illegal and exclusive (right!!) and there they are, clambering over each over on their way (out of the shallow end) of the gene pool to buy some....It's soooooo predicable it's not even sad any more.... comments like that are sad, tell me that valium, methadone, barbituates, tranquilisers aren't as harmful then, go on i dare ya. these drugs can be both addictive and lethal on a higher scale than E, E is not addictive FACT, it can be harmful, yet not really the drug itself more the way it is used, don't get many E overdoses do you? whilst i am not condoning the use, nor am i against its use, it is a part of life, it is a part of much more than half of this decades and the last decades youths weekend intake. to tens of millions of people all over the world it is as normal as having a poo, grow up, don't comment on something you have no idea or experience of, please, you're just making yourself look thick with comments like that. E-takers are not smack-heads, FACT. every decade has had its drugs, LSD and cannabis in the 60s, speed heroin and glue in the 70s, the eighties were rife with cocaine, in the 90s exstacy came along. these drugs have come into society along with trends, hippys, punks, new-romantics and miami vice, and dance culture in the 90s, this is going to continue whether you like it or not. i'm not saying embrace it, just realise that people who do E are normal people, lawyers, accountants, builders, even cat lovers. these people don't want to drink all night, get in a scrap, end up in hospital or whatever, they just want good times, whats wrong with that? what makes them a stain on your precious gene-pool? like i said before, look next to you, more than likely the person sat next to you loves nothing more than having a tablet at the weekend, dancing all night, making new friends and getting on with people. by trying to alienate these people it is you that are sad, and you that would contaminate the gene-pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I don't think purrrrry's comments are sad and I certainly don't think her comments make her look thick. What is sad is people who feel the need to take illegal drugs in order to have a good time and make new friends. Of course E takers are not smackheads but they are drug takers nonetheless, they break the law and are potentially risking their lives. You say it's not the drug itself which causes the problems but more the way in which it's taken, but if people didn't take the drug in the first place there would be no danger. "What is certain is that taking MDMA can prove fatal. A few people are particularly chemically sensitive to the drug and just one dose may be enough to kill them. Some of those who have suffered liver failure have required liver transplants, but the transplants have not always been successful. Other fatalities associated with MDMA have been due to an overdose, the signs of which include vomiting, dizziness, head pains and strong muscle cramps. The most common cause of MDMA-related death, however, is due to the drug inducing a rise in body temperature to the point of hyperthermia (overheating)." http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/e_guide.html I disagree that E is not addictive. It's not addictive in the same way as heroin etc but to quote you, mo, "more than likely the person sat next to you loves nothing more than having a tablet at the weekend, dancing all night, making new friends and getting on with people." These people obviously look forward to taking the drug, they feel they can't have a good time without it, to me that's a kind of addiction. Valium, tranqulisers etc are obviously dangerous and can be addictive if misused or used by people to whom it's not prescribed. Those sort of drugs are supposed to be regulated, medically prescribed drugs which can be of great help to people who really need them. It's when they get into the wrong hands and are misused that they become harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 E is not addictive FACT It's a well known FACT [sic] that anyone who finds it necessary to insert 'FACT' in capital letters is usually talking out of their arse. E-takers are not smack-heads, FACT.See? just realise that people who do E are normal people, lawyers, accountants, builders, even cat lovers. these people don't want to drink all night, get in a scrap, end up in hospital or whatever, they just want good times, whats wrong with that? what makes them a stain on your precious gene-pool?like i said before, look next to you, more than likely the person sat next to you loves nothing more than having a tablet at the weekend, dancing all night, making new friends and getting on with people. I think that people who need to take a chemical stimulant to make them fun, interesting and good to be around must be real fking losers when they're not tripping out. Is 'E' suddenly a replacement for a personality, a sense of humour? Are you the type of person who's only fun to be with when you're high? If you answer yes, then you really need to look at your life, find out where the shortcomings are. If you can't find something to be happy about without having an alternate psychedelic view of the world, then you might as well kill yourself.... FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 Are you the type of person who's only fun to be with when you're high? If you answer yes, then you really need to look at your life, find out where the shortcomings are ans getting all Marje Proops on us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 Valium, tranqulisers etc are obviously dangerous and can be addictive if misused or used by people to whom it's not prescribed. Those sort of drugs are supposed to be regulated, medically prescribed drugs which can be of great help to people who really need them. It's when they get into the wrong hands and are misused that they become harmful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Idealistic statement and sadly, all too often not the case. These are frequently over prescribed and not monitored by GP's and the patients have a ready supply by way of handy little tick box repeat prescriptions. So it's not only in the wrong hands that these become harmful - worse still, people who are not clued up enough, can find themselves dependent on them, having been blissfully unaware of what they have been taking and feeling confident that because it was 'prescribed' it must be ok. Interestingly, MDMA has a legitimate medicinal value too, it has been used successfully in psychotherapy for victims of violent crime etc. etc. So Minnie, your point rests entirely on a point of law. People who take alcohol are taking drugs.... ditto nicotine.... even caffiene.. amongst many other legitimate and potentially lethal substances. I can't say with confidence that any one is particularly better than the other (the obvious ones like smack & heroin etc aside) and I do question how these decisions are reached having been born out of historical and potentially misinformed convention. I respect the law but that does not mean that I think it is without it's flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I think that people who need to take a chemical stimulant to make them fun, interesting and good to be around must be real fking losers when they're not tripping out. Is 'E' suddenly a replacement for a personality, a sense of humour? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that statement - but have a wander along the prom at the weekend and there are hundreds of people doing exactly the same thing - except with a harmful legal drug instead. Alcohol. I personally find it hard to make such a differentiation on personality based on a point of law alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 ans getting all Marje Proops on us! Nah, just people who need drugs and justify it by saying how much fun it is infuriate me because they don't see how much of a dullard they actually are without them. Losers, the lot of them. And they'll accuse you of being a party-pooper, a bore, a stick in the mud, when their own drug free reality is exactly that. Losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 lol, that's kind of a simplistic view on it. I see no "druggies" here accusing people of being boring, stick in the muds, in fact the only person resorting to insults appears to be you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 .........but have a wander along the prom at the weekend and there are hundreds of people doing exactly the same thing - except with a harmful legal drug instead. Alcohol. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nobody's disputing this fact, Observer, alcohol is obviously a huge problem too, but I was referring to Mo's points about ecstasy and illegal drugs in particular. And like ans said, people who feel the need to take drugs, whether it be ecstasy or huge amounts of alcohol, in order to have a good time and make their life "better" obviously need to take a step back and look at their lives to find out why they feel the need to do this. I don't believe any illegal drugs, no matter if they're deemed to be less harmful than another, should have any place in our society. People who take ecstasy shouldn't be looked upon as "normal" people, they are drug takers just like heroin/cocaine users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 Why have laws if we cant stick to them, Taking drugs is against the law, without laws what sort of life would we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 People always seem to need to justify their addictions. It doesn't matter if it's illegal drugs, ciggies, alcohol or 'Fun Size' chocolate bars! You often herar the "I work hard during the day/week so..." and "It's not harming anyone" "It's my body so..." Truth is ANY form of addiction IS harmful. The only difference between illegal and 'legal' drugs (ciggies etc) is just that - the legality. I suspect if tobacco had just been discovered they would make it illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 lol, that's kind of a simplistic view on it.I see no "druggies" here accusing people of being boring, stick in the muds, in fact the only person resorting to insults appears to be you. Perhaps you need to re-read Mo Beats' comments. I think I have every right to insult law breaking, chemical dependant losers to be honest. Sure, it's a simplistic view but anyone who thinks it's cool to take drugs must be pretty simple anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.