PDA

View Full Version : DRUGS


Gymnotide
July 23rd, 2011, 01:56 PM
ITT: I don't know if this thread exists yet.

How do you feel about drugs? Are some drugs more "okay" than others?

G.U.Y.
July 23rd, 2011, 02:04 PM
Well, my belief is that all drugs are bad. Tobacco (obviously), alcohol, you name it.

But, I don't like contradictions in the law. That..is my number one problem with government, full of contradictions. Tobacco is horrible for your health, especially with all the added chemicals. Alcohol just makes you stupid, then it makes it so you can't really control what you're doing when you're drunk.

Then the government, in the U.S. that is, just goes on a massive trolling rampage and outlaws weed. Lolwut? Weed is far less lethal than both of those. Weed has virtually no health risks when you compare it to cigarettes (yes there are some, I'm not saying there are none.) While when you're high, at least you know what you're doing so you can know when not to do stuff. :/ All you do is laugh at stupid crap and eat a lot.

Hell, it's even used as medicine. So why is it illegal? Because of myths. All of them have been proven wrong - at least all the ones that caused it to be illegal. The only real reason why it is illegal is because it was found out that it out-produced lumber in the paper industry, and hemp has a variety of other uses. So, the lumber industry created a fear campaign that remains today.

Would I ever do it? No. But I think it should be legalized - and very heavily taxed.

To be completely honest, I don't see why the government gives one single crap about what we put in our body.

Lashh
July 23rd, 2011, 02:12 PM
Yay, a topic I can relate to!

Anyways, the way I see it is not how I feel about drugs, but about certain ones. Personally, I love smoking that dank err'day, so my biased opinion is that the herb is okay. But then again, this is also the opinion of many other people in the United States, and even fact for those with medical cards in legal states. The reason why I think marijuana is okay is because it honestly presents no harm to anyone but the kitchen. No one has died from it, people can benefit form it, shoot, people like me have fun with it. So that's all I can say about weed, though I could honestly go on all day about it, haha.

As for harder drugs, this is where opinions begin to differ and beneficial facts are ruled out, as there are one with harder substances. It is my opinion that harder drugs are okay to use, but only in moderation, that's how I do em'. Like cocaine for instance, an upper that gives you that wonderful rush when it goes up your nose. I like doing it every now and then, but I would never think about doing as much of it as I do marijuana. While I would find that fun, it would be bad for health in the long run. The same goes for ecstasy and shrooms, drugs which I also have had fun experiences with, but only do once in a blue moon for the sake of my health.

However, the hardest substances are the ones I stay away from, like heroin, crack, and meth. I've only had an experience with the last one mentioned, and that was the only time I'll ever do it. These three drugs are ones I would never recommend doing and ones I'll sure as hell won't do. You see, with the substances less harder than these ones I previously mentioned (pot, cocaine, ecstasy, etc.), I've never seen anyone go overboard just to get them, and I've never seen them flat out screw up someones life like meth or heroin would. These hardest substances are the most self destructive ones, and they screw up someones life the most.

So, there's my opinions, that some drugs are more okay than others. Do please take note that I'm not denouncing anyone's opinions if they are against the use, so don't denounce mine, ya dig homie?

AZ boy out.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 23rd, 2011, 02:14 PM
Er, drugs aren't inherently "bad" per se, it just makes the people who do them become dependent on them or make them do stupid things. I think most drugs have their place somewhere, like alcohol itself is not bad if used in a religious ceremony, or marijuana in cancer patients.

Drugs ARE dangerous to people though, especially considering said people tend to overdose on some drugs in order to get a more intense high or quicker effects. So I do think there should be some sort of regulation on them. But some drugs, like Marijuana, shouldn't be illegal in my opinion because it simply isn't self destructive enough to warrant that. Drugs like Heroin or LCD though should never be legalized because they're either so extremely addictive and dangerous that they shouldn't be used (Heroin) or they have absolutely no real positive effect and effects are random and have much variability (LCD).

Bluerang1
July 23rd, 2011, 02:17 PM
Whyufr i should have made this while I had the chance xD

I see drugs as bad since they can be harmful and the government says so. I haven't have close experience with people or things related to drugs so I don't have a strong conviction against it. I do think drug traffickers shouldn't be so harshly penalized.

2Cool4Mewtwo
July 23rd, 2011, 03:55 PM
I'm against the use of most, if not all drugs, because not only they impair people who use it, short-term and long-term, but it can also harm others as well. (ex. Drunk driving, second-hand smoking)

Shining Raichu
July 23rd, 2011, 06:41 PM
I love it when people can reach their full potential in life, and any drug is really an inhibitor to that. They dull the mind, which is our greatest gift. I can't stand drugs, at all. Any type of recreational drug, legal or not.

But I also believe people should be allowed to do what they wish with their own bodies.

Myles
July 23rd, 2011, 09:29 PM
I think tobacco and alcohol need to be illegalised. Caffeine discouraged, but legal. Clinical drugs are fine as far as I'm concerned.

Well, my belief is that all drugs are bad. Tobacco (obviously), alcohol, you name it.

But, I don't like contradictions in the law. That..is my number one problem with government, full of contradictions. Tobacco is horrible for your health, especially with all the added chemicals. Alcohol just makes you stupid, then it makes it so you can't really control what you're doing when you're drunk.

Then the government, in the U.S. that is, just goes on a massive trolling rampage and outlaws weed. Lolwut? Weed is far less lethal than both of those. Weed has virtually no health risks when you compare it to cigarettes (yes there are some, I'm not saying there are none.) While when you're high, at least you know what you're doing so you can know when not to do stuff. :/ All you do is laugh at stupid crap and eat a lot.

Hell, it's even used as medicine. So why is it illegal? Because of myths. All of them have been proven wrong - at least all the ones that caused it to be illegal. The only real reason why it is illegal is because it was found out that it out-produced lumber in the paper industry, and hemp has a variety of other uses. So, the lumber industry created a fear campaign that remains today.

Would I ever do it? No. But I think it should be legalized - and very heavily taxed.

To be completely honest, I don't see why the government gives one single crap about what we put in our body.

Actually the marijuana conspiracy is made up. It is very bad for us and just because tobacco is worse doesn't mean marijuana should be legal, but that tobacco should be illegal. As someone once said: legallising concealed guns for 12 year olds would kill less people than tobacco. Even though hemp has a lot of uses, they're generally very bad for that and their alternatives are better. That's why even before it was illegalised, most people didn't use it for those purposes. And lots of countries have it legal right now and it's really not that good. Here is some more info: Link 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5674412&postcount=28), Link 2 (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 02:37 AM
Regarding the pro-weed propoganda... In the words of John Cheese: People want to get high, and I just wish they'd come out and say it. Of all the arguments I've ever heard, I've never had a solitary person step up and just say with unmasked honesty, "I want to get stoned without the fear of being arrested." Which is ironic to me because it's the only argument I've ever heard that makes sense. It's the only one that's even remotely logical.

I'd link to the rest of his article, but he holds far less punches than I find appropriate.



Anyway...

I've no interest in doing drugs or being around people on drugs. That includes people drinking alcohol. As long as they stay away from me and out of my way while they're on their substances I'm satisfied. Unfortunately they kind of don't as it stands currently. *Glances towards public smokers and drunks*

I honestly cannot see the appeal, which is odd because clearly there's appeal somewhere. Others on them tend to just annoy, scare, or disgust me.

lollypop1997
July 24th, 2011, 04:35 AM
Drugs are bad...and i think alcohol and ciggaretes should be gotten rid of!!No body in my family smokes or drinks and whenever i smell the smoke(i.e standing near someone whos smoking)i get sick,seriosly the smell if awful!!!

Guy
July 24th, 2011, 05:42 AM
There's two things you hear the most growing up as a kid.

"Stay in school" and "Don't do drugs."

Lol, I remember I was in the second grade, we were getting involved in "Drug-free Week" and I thought it meant getting drugs for free. Gosh, I was so naive then. How embarrassing.

But honestly, one can waste their entire life away on drugs, alcohol, and yes, even cigarettes. It's a fatal addiction, and not everyone can find their way out of it. It takes a lot from someone to overcome their addiction to drugs and all within that time it can slowly shorten their lives and kill their insides. It's a drug in itself (if that makes any sense at all), and I am wholeheartedly against it. Unlike other things, taking drugs is a choice and you can say no. I strongly believe in fighting against peer pressure. Just because others are doing it, doesn't mean you have to do it to too. If you're stressed, don't jump to drugs or alcohol, talk it out with someone. No matter how embarrassed you are, talking with someone who you can reside in is much better than going for the liquor or popping any pills.

To put it simply, "Don't do drugs kids."

lahishendeeir
July 24th, 2011, 08:05 AM
yes, they're okay if your talking medicine wise.
but the demons that killed one of my favorite artist (amy winehouse), no!
it doesn't matter how good of a person you are or how well you think you can handle the situation, because you know, amy was amazing, she was dopeee! -& once the demons got to her, she was done.

lmao. people who make drugs should be behind bars, they're technically killing people. -_____-

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 10:03 AM
I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own home. Don't do them in public, though.

Gold warehouse
July 24th, 2011, 10:57 AM
Depends on what you're taking, how often you're taking it and how well you can handle it.

As always; as long as you're not having a negative impact on others, then it's your body, your choices.

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 11:07 AM
All natural drugs = OK (weed, tobacco)

Synthesized drugs = Bad (Meth, tobaco used in mass produced cigs)

I wrote a speech about making marijuana legal for speach class a few years back. If I can find it, i'll post it.

Myles
July 24th, 2011, 11:15 AM
That's a bit of a generalisation and it falls into the appeal to nature fallacy. Cocaine is commonly considered one of the worst drugs, comparable to meth, and it's natural.

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Regarding the pro-weed propoganda... In the words of John Cheese:

I'd link to the rest of his article, but he holds far less punches than I find appropriate.


Link to the rest of the article. For all we know, you could have just picked the one part that speaks agenst medical use of cannibis.

As for medical marijuana in general, this is one of the most unbiased sources of information that I have found.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

Lastly, for every subject there are are pro's and con's, and even some pro's and con's that contridict each other.

As for cocaine, i've heard more people say that meth is worse then cocaine. Ultimently its up to each person, individually, to decide what they beleive to be better or worse.

Myles
July 24th, 2011, 11:06 PM
That link treats it like a debate of opinion instead of valuing scientific evidence. Rather then give evidence, it gives opinions and credentials, which is an appeal to authority. The fact that the pros and cons are complete contradictions shows this. Science doesn't have contradictions. Everything is either right, wrong, or misinterpreted.


I would caution against this assumption due to the lack of consistent, repeatable scientific data available to prove marijuana's medical benefits.
vs
The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS

[T]here is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk.
vs
3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.

etc.


These things are clearly contradicting what evidence is available; someone is lying and 'quoting people that are lying' isn't balanced. It should provide the evidence; the peer-reviewed journals. The burden of proof lies with those that wish to prove it has a viable medical use.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 12:05 AM
For all we know, you could have just picked the one part that speaks agenst medical use of cannibis.

That there be a straw man... The article is not "against medical use of cannibis". Neither am I. It just debunks popular bad arguments that undermine the speed of the legalize marijuana movement.

Also, in-case I was too subtle I did not find the rest of article appropriate for linking due to excessive coarse language and potential for starting flamewars. There's nothing more I can do.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 07:33 AM
In that case, don't quote articles unless you are willing to link to them.

Anyway, Myles, as for science not having contradictions... Do you have any idea just how many scientific discoverys that were supposed to be good for you health were later found out to be bad for your health? It isn't the best comparison for what you said but it does show that science isn't always correct, and what is good/bad today can be bad/good tommarow.

Myles
July 25th, 2011, 08:54 AM
That's due to science's form as proving hypotheses false, not true. Hypotheses are elevated to theory status if they manage to stand strong through rigorous attempts at proving them false, so as to make it most likely they are right. But science self-corrects, given enough time.

But that isn't what's going on here. The contradictions here are:

- A says X is true.
- B says X is false.

Science can't actually prove that something is both true and false. If it does, then that means the methodology must have been wrong. In the case of medicine what is usually happening is:

- X has the benefit of Y.
- (Then later, this is discovered) X has the disadvantage of Z, which far outways any benefit Y would have been.

Either that or evidence could be shown that the study that proved X has the benefit of Y was done improperly. Which is the point of peer-revision.

Nuke
July 25th, 2011, 09:02 AM
I wouldn't consider smoking or doing an illegal drug but I think if people want to smoke (weed or tobacco) then they should be entitled.

A lot of inspiration has came out of it, I mean a lot of songwriters will use it to write masterpieces.

I would draw the line at the harder substances though. Obviously cocaine, meth etc. do more harm than good.

It makes sense for the government to legalise it too, people are going to do it anyway, so why not gain some money from taxing it?

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 09:43 AM
Essentially, weed is like any other synthisized medicine. It helps with some symptoms, but has both proven and unproven negative effects. Well, I take that back. Weed is natural, most medicines aren't.

Myles
July 25th, 2011, 09:59 AM
The FDA disagrees on the benefits part. In places where it has been legalised for medical purposes anyway, it's usually massively abused. And the, serious, proponents of it are only really suggesting that it helps with nausea and similar anyway. Which is a bit ridiculous considering we have much better drugs for such things that don't have all the side effects. There's just no way the FDA could justify approving marijuana with its massive list of symptoms, if it weren't for its wide public support.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 11:45 AM
There are other medicines with a even larger list of symptoms that have been approved. Anyway, just so you know, there are no documented cases of a person overdosing on natural cannibis... Unlike some of your 'safer' and synthetic medicines derived from cannibis.

That said, there are studies suguest that cannibis provides short-term relief for glaucoma (By reducing blood flow it reduces pressure on the IOP)

The main reason why there is a lack of proven medical knowledge on non-synthisized forms of cannibis is due to it being illegal. Cannibis should be moved down to Schedule II or III, at least temparorly, to allow for medical research on it to proceed unhidered.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 03:50 PM
In that case, don't quote articles unless you are willing to link to them.

First of all, your dismissal is completely unwarranted. Kindly think of a non-fallacious reason for dismissing my quote before you work up the gall to start telling me what to do. I simply quoted an opinion I agreed with. That being said, I'm pretty sure no such non-fallacious reason exists, as the original reason you stated was shown to be a straw man fallacy.

There are other medicines with a even larger list of symptoms that have been approved. Anyway, just so you know, there are no documented cases of a person overdosing on natural cannibis... Unlike some of your 'safer' and synthetic medicines derived from cannibis.

This is one of those popular arguments the article I mentioned debunks. I'm just going to go ahead and do it myself.

You see, bringing up death tolls is a good argument for why both these drugs should be illegal, not the other way around. Y'know what else would /probably/ kill less people than alcohol? Passing a law that lets 12 year olds bring firearms to school.

They're both dangerous. Hence, this argument is moot.

That said, there are studies suguest that cannibis provides short-term relief for glaucoma (By reducing blood flow it reduces pressure on the IOP)

See, while the integrity of this argument is sound, the problem is that when we try legalizing marijuana for medical use we wind up having all the junkies lying out their ears trying to get ahold of it for abuse. It looks /really/, /really/ bad to the people we're trying to convince to legalize the stuff. What I'm saying is I honestly don't think it's strong enough to convince them.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Your second point is moot.

What I said was related. Unlike synthetic THC, all natural THC (Weed) has caused no documented deaths.

Can you, please, explain just how alchol and 12 year olds bring guns to school are related? I must not be looking at this correctly, or lack the correct (Or perhaps incorrect) mindset to see how these two examples are related.

As for junkies... How is a stoner lying through his teeth about medical conditions to get weed any worse then the druggie who breaks into pharmacy's to steal oxycotyn, codene, vicodin, or their pill of choice?

Also, my dismissal IS warrented. You posted a quote to a article. I asked for proof that this article existed. You didn't provide the link. Therefor, as you are unable to show what article you quoted then the article doesn't exist.

Also, what are your thoughts on my final point of my previous post? You know, about temparory rescheduling to allow for more medical research?

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 05:14 PM
I think marijuana should be legalized, but like alcohol, I think that there is a chance for abuse. The majority of medical associations say that marijuana can be addictive. I should be able to make any decision for yourself, but obviously you should not coerce anyone to take a substance.

With that being said, if anyone using a substance is causing public/private disruption, they should not be thrown into prison, they should be coerced into a rehabilitation center because they should not be in society if they are causing others problems, because the overreaching into someone else's liberty. Same with second-hand smoke; you put yourself at risk of cancer, not me!!! lol

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 05:15 PM
@Mr X: ...It's relevant because it points out the huge flaw in the logic of the argument. If we're basing what's legal on what's more or less dangerous than alcohol, we might as well start legalizing everything in sight because chances are it's less dangerous than alcohol. Obviously things do not work that way.

People keep making this sort of argument, but it's not going to get weed legalized. That's the problem with it. If people stopped making arguments like this and just stuck with a simple argument that /works/ and united to push that single argument (See: It's our right to harm our bodies), there would be a much better chance of weed ever getting legalized.

By beating around the bush with all these other arguments people think up, some of which get proven horribly wrong, we're basically making the movement easier to dismiss.

Also, my dismissal IS warrented. You posted a quote to a article. I asked for proof that this article existed. You didn't provide the link. Therefor, as you are unable to show what article you quoted then the article doesn't exist.

The supposed existence or non-existance of the original article holds no bearing on the integrity of the opinion the words convey. None at all. I could be making that entire quote up, and it will still be just as legit an opinion. I only quoted out of respect for the author from which the opinion originated, nothing more.

Also, what are your thoughts on my final point of my previous post? You know, about temparory rescheduling to allow for more medical research?

I've no problem with your conclusion. I think the simple fact that people want to hurt themselves by smoking something without fearing being arrested is good enough reason to legalize weed altogether, let alone for medical uses.

Just because I support the conclusion though does not mean I will not argue against arguments on the basis that they happen to support it, however.

backpackomg
July 25th, 2011, 06:29 PM
op, i like to think there are two classes of drugs. those that are okay to take, and those that you should probably avoid. :) weed, alcohol, cigarettes, shrooms, lsd and mdma are things i would consider okay to use drugs, after taking into consideration all the out cons. i am a bit iffy about mdma, considering it does have a high risk of abuse and even toxicity in a small percent of people, but ultimately i think it's an enlightening experience that done with restraint can be life changing.

things like cocaine, meth and heroine are what i'd classify as not okay to take. none of them offer an experience you can carry on through the rest of your life in the way hallucinogens can, and they're all too detrimental to be classified as soft drugs like the others i mentioned in the above paragraph, weed, cigarettes and alcohol.

tl;dr i think drugs okay in moderation, as long as they aren't hard drugs!

2Cool4Mewtwo
July 25th, 2011, 06:59 PM
op, i like to think there are two classes of drugs. those that are okay to take, and those that you should probably avoid. :) weed, alcohol, cigarettes, shrooms, lsd and mdma are things i would consider okay to use drugs, after taking into consideration all the out cons. i am a bit iffy about mdma, considering it does have a high risk of abuse and even toxicity in a small percent of people, but ultimately i think it's an enlightening experience that done with restraint can be life changing.

things like cocaine, meth and heroine are what i'd classify as not okay to take. none of them offer an experience you can carry on through the rest of your life in the way hallucinogens can, and they're all too detrimental to be classified as soft drugs like the others i mentioned in the above paragraph, weed, cigarettes and alcohol.

tl;dr i think drugs okay in moderation, as long as they aren't hard drugs!
Just to clarify... Hallucinogen, LSD, and Ecstasy are definitely NOT "soft drugs"... They are classified as Schedule I drugs, which means they have high potential for abuse, are deemed to be unsafe, and most likely illegal as well. And believe it or not, cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroine. I think you need to research more on drugs if you want to have your own opinion...

backpackomg
July 25th, 2011, 08:28 PM
Just to clarify... Hallucinogen, LSD, and Ecstasy are definitely NOT "soft drugs"... They are classified as Schedule I drugs, which means they have high potential for abuse, are deemed to be unsafe, and most likely illegal as well. And believe it or not, cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroine. I think you need to research more on drugs if you want to have your own opinion...

well i don't mean to sound anti establishment or anything, but just so you know marijuana is in the schedule you just mentioned. :/ don't just say that i'm wrong because they are to. like i know you can't find me an article with proper references that says shrooms are addictive or dangerous, because they're like the exact opposite, speaking from firsthand experience and what i've read. speaking of what i've read, i remember a particular lab study that found them to be quite pleasant in regards to experience. most participants noted the experiences as one of the best in their lives, and had dramatic decreases in anger and depression after the fact.

as for lsd and ectasy, while i didn't note lsd, i mentioned both the fact that ecstasy can be both addictive and dangerous. it is solely my opinion that the pros of it outweigh the cons, and i was only answering the original poster's question. and lsd, well, i'll take your word for it for what it's worth. but if this turns into a 'who has the best link' and i'm persuaded into looking i somehow believe that on top of proving the rest of this post right, i will as well find out that lsd isn't as dangerous as you'd have me think.

long story short, please don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about. it hurts my feelings because i have researched. :'(

2Cool4Mewtwo
July 25th, 2011, 08:48 PM
well i don't mean to sound anti establishment or anything, but just so you know marijuana is in the schedule you just mentioned. :/ don't just say that i'm wrong because they are to. like i know you can't find me an article with proper references that says shrooms are addictive or dangerous, because they're like the exact opposite, speaking from firsthand experience and what i've read. speaking of what i've read, i remember a particular lab study that found them to be quite pleasant in regards to experience. most participants noted the experiences as one of the best in their lives, and had dramatic decreases in anger and depression after the fact.

as for lsd and ectasy, while i didn't note lsd, i mentioned both the fact that ecstasy can be both addictive and dangerous. it is solely my opinion that the pros of it outweigh the cons, and i was only answering the original poster's question. and lsd, well, i'll take your word for it for what it's worth. but if this turns into a 'who has the best link' and i'm persuaded into looking i somehow believe that on top of proving the rest of this post right, i will as well find out that lsd isn't as dangerous as you'd have me think.

long story short, please don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about. it hurts my feelings because i have. :'(

I don't mean to be so matter-of-fact and stoic about this, but it is NOT okay to do illegal drugs. If the law says it's not okay, then it's not okay. Regardless of whatever experience it brings.

Also, what's your "pros and cons" of using those drugs? I'd like for you to be more specific about it.

As for Marijuana being on Schedule I, I find it to be really odd, because it's not as addictive or "severe" as other drugs on that schedule, and now it's available as a prescription drug. Though if you intended to use it to prove your point, then fair enough.

Actually, Scratch that. I'll just pull out the facts from this webpage. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000812----000-.html)

(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Nothing in here mentions addiction. Maybe ecstasy or "shrooms" aren't as addictive as cocaine is. However, it has higher potential of abuse and it has no medical uses, therefore making it illegal. Before Marijuana was legalized in some states, Schedule I was probably where it belonged, if it had as same potential of abuse as ecstasy.

If you think addictiveness is the only deciding factor in whether a drug is more "powerful" or not, I think you should think twice, and think about what impacts it might have on your body.

But besides pointing out the facts, I can't directly force you to stop using drugs. If you think it'll make your life more fun, then go ahead and keep using it. I was just trying to have a discussion and this is what this thread's about. What I don't want though, is more tragic tale related to drugs. It's truly sad to see people ruin their lives (and others) because they've abused drugs.

And if I misjudged your understanding on all this, then I apologize.

Myles
July 25th, 2011, 10:08 PM
What I said was related. Unlike synthetic THC, all natural THC (Weed) has caused no documented deaths.

Of course, it's notoriously hard to overdose on it. No one is suggesting that. It doesn't mean it's not really bad for you.

backpackomg
July 25th, 2011, 11:48 PM
I don't mean to be so matter-of-fact and stoic about this, but it is NOT okay to do illegal drugs. If the law says it's not okay, then it's not okay. Regardless of whatever experience it brings.

well that's where our opinions differ. i recognize these drugs as illegal just as you do, but that doesn't make them inherently bad. if you want to be picky, jay walking is illegal, but as you can see it is recognized by most as an outdated and silly law, therefore it is widely ignored. would you consider a jay walker a bad person? likewise, is somebody bad for going to a college party and smoking a joint? it's simply illogical, alcohol was once illegal, explain how you apply your logic to it now. do you believe that when the government said it was bad it was, but now it's okay because they say it's alright to have? you can have your own opinion about it.

Also, what's your "pros and cons" of using those drugs? I'd like for you to be more specific about it.

i only mentioned pros and cons about mdma, while emphasizing that it can be addictive if abused and possibly lethal. however there are still studies questioning its lethality, and even more suggesting it can be very helpful in psychotherapy and creating empathetic feelings in otherwise void of emotion people. as i've said my considering of mdma as a less harmful substance than a lot of others comes from personal use and medical benefits. if you'd like me to expand on other substances i've listed let me know, but right now i'm a bit strapped for time. it's kind of 3 in the morning right now.

Nothing in here mentions addiction. Maybe ecstasy or "shrooms" aren't as addictive as cocaine is. However, it has higher potential of abuse and it has no medical uses, therefore making it illegal. Before Marijuana was legalized in some states, Schedule I was probably where it belonged, if it had as same potential of abuse as ecstasy.

i'm sorry but this almost makes me mad. you just told me ecstasy and shrooms have no potential medical benefit because they're listed as schedule 1, which in itself is ignorant, but on top of that you said it after you already admitted that marijuana shouldn't be there, therefore throwing its plausibility out the window. you then say before marijuana was legalized in some states it deserved to be schedule 1, which is hands down one of the most "silly" things i've ever heard. you need to stop basing everything you think on what the government says. you sound as "silly" as them, well actually sillier and i'll tell you why after, when you repeat their words as the word of god.

the government and united states as a whole used to spread false propaganda about marijuana and claimed it had no medical benefits, we know now that this was wrong, however they as a collective have come to this conclusion over a period of time longer than me and you combined. you made the assumption that it was bad before knowing now that they were mistaken when you knew they were mistaken? i can't even make sense of what you're trying to convey.

If you think addictiveness is the only deciding factor in whether a drug is more "powerful" or not, I think you should think twice, and think about what impacts it might have on your body.

i don't think that. i don't even know how you came to that conclusion, because in every instance i mentioned the word addictive in my previous post it was shortly followed by dangerous. but to play along, one could say a drug that is less addictive has less chance to effect your body negatively. almost every drugs negative effects can be ignored if it were assumed to be non addictive, because most long term negative effects come from the fact that they're addictive and have the chance to repeatedly intoxicate your body.

But besides pointing out the facts, I can't directly force you to stop using drugs. If you think it'll make your life more fun, then go ahead and keep using it. I was just trying to have a discussion and this is what this thread's about. What I don't want though, is more tragic tale related to drugs. It's truly sad to see people ruin their lives (and others) because they've abused drugs.

i wasn't trying to to stop you from having a discussion.... i was the person you responded to, and i've given you quite the handful if i do say so myself. :P

all i've got to say is the fault of one is not the fault of another, you can't tell me i'm going to be a drug addict because i've tried a drug. i understand your frustration in seeing drug addiction, but... most drug addiction is in what i've already classified as the don't do drugs, and the other two i didn't being alcohol and cigarettes, are legal, and under your logic okay.

also, if you'd like the links i had posted in this, you'll have to send me a message because i couldn't post them here. i need 15 posts.

deoxys121
July 26th, 2011, 08:21 AM
My stance on drugs: Since it's been proven that marijuana does less damage than cigarettes and alcohol, I honestly believe it should be made legal. Where I live, Michigan, marijuana is already legal for medical purposes. People do abuse this system, but I think the whole dilemma would be ended if it were just made legal. Hell, the government could tax it and make more money than ever. For those of you who say "No, that means they should make cigarettes and alcohol illegal," my counter-argument is that, first of all, during prohibition, more alcohol was consumed than ever before. The same would occur today, in my opinion, with alcohol and cigarettes. Those who smoke would not simply drop the habit. It's not that easy. I know this because I've lived around smokers all my life, though I'm not one myself, and I've seen these same people try to quit because they know what they're doing to themselves. But, it's extremely difficult due to the withdrawal symptoms. An example of this is my mom, who is 38 and has been smoking since she was 14. It's not as simple as just stopping smoking. She needs to be weened off of smoking to gradually get off the addiction.

As far as other drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, these have been proven to have sometimes deadly consequences. Therefore, I believe they should remain illegal. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Well that's my opinion. What do you guys think? (Please don't be rude, as people have been to me in the past when I have expressed my full opinion.)

Mr. X
July 27th, 2011, 12:47 PM
@Mr X: ...It's relevant because it points out the huge flaw in the logic of the argument. If we're basing what's legal on what's more or less dangerous than alcohol, we might as well start legalizing everything in sight because chances are it's less dangerous than alcohol. Obviously things do not work that way.


No, its not relevant. I've explained why my comparison is relevant. The two subjects are related. Im comparing a all natural substance to its synthetic counterpart.

Your comparing two entirely diffrent things and trying to pass off that comparison as valid as mine is.

So, i'll state it for every one. Children being allowed to carry guns in school and Alchol being legal are NOT RELATED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.

Now, if you wish to try this arguement again then ensure that the topics you are comparing are alike.

Anyway, Doctor Oz is having a show about legalizing medical marijuana. It might be interesting to watch. You might now have the channel its on, or it might be over (due to timezones) but as it is a somewhat controversial topic you'll proably be able to find it on youtube.

G-Virus
July 27th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Drugs and the plant that they come from aren't necessarily bad, it's mankind that uses them for wrong purposes. MArijuana and the like all have medical purposes, but people use them for getting high and stuff.

Deerling
July 27th, 2011, 08:25 PM
I've only ever agreed with medical drugs (or caffine). Anything else seems a waste of my money, time and health. Weither it is legal (alcohol, et cetera) or illegal, I'd rather just buy myself a new game or console. My life is hard enough without addiction, unneeded socialising (I was always a bit of a loner) or otherwise.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 28th, 2011, 01:43 AM
No, its not relevant.

I'm sorry, I hear a conclusion but it's not based on anything. Refusing to acknowledge the point of the comparison does not make it irrelevant. You're also avoiding giving attention to other parts of the argument as if the entire argument depended on the validity of the comparison to begin with, which it didn't.

To demonstrate, I'm going to take away the comparison altogether and represent the argument to you.

Arguing that something should be legal because it's safer than alcohol is a terrible argument because not only is alcohol insanely unsafe (Meaning saying it's safer isn't saying much) but the argument actually works to say that alcohol should be illegal too, not the other way around. Y'know why? Alcohol is not legal because of how safe it is.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 02:01 AM
All drugs should be legalized. What you and I chose to put in our bodies is no business of the government's.

marz
July 29th, 2011, 02:09 PM
I smoke weed, I have for a while now. I really see no problem in letting loose and having a little fun. I hate the amount of taboo and prejudice linked against marijuana. It's exactly like the Alcohol prohibition of the late 20s, except that was much shorter lived. And it's for that reason that I think the marijuana prohibition in the US and Canada will stop as well, in our lifetime.

Personally, I don't smoke cigarettes. I don't drink alcohol (not more than a few beers, anyway), I don't do any harder drugs and have never been addicted to anything. I think it's stupid to let yourself go that far. But take it from an avid pot smoker, marijuana is not addictive -- all you need is self-control. If you don't have any of that, how can you possibly blame marijuana? That's a personal issue.

My thoughts. I don't expect everyone to agree, and to each their own.

Cherrim
July 29th, 2011, 02:24 PM
I don't understand the appeal of drugs. :/ As someone who has to take a lot of painkillers (percocet is my mainstay) and thus deals with the loss of inhibitions and mental alertness quite often, I simply don't see the appeal of taking it recreationally. But then I guess anything is more fun when you don't have to do it. Apparently even I'm a hell of a lot more fun when I'm high but I hate hate hate hate hate it. So I'm definitely biased in that I think it's stupid to turn to drugs and alcohol to have fun or relax. I've blacked out nearly a whole month of my life straight because of painkillers; why do people do that sort of thing for a laugh? (I understand some things like pot are probably more like a buzz than actually being out of it but... I still have zero desire to try any of it. D:)

While I don't see the appeal, I also don't see a problem with people doing drugs recreationally. The harder, more dangerous things should remain illegal but opening the gate for pot would be fine with me. I can't really find many arguments against it aside from the fact that I hate the smell. So I suppose to each his own but I wouldn't know where to draw the line on what drugs are okay and what aren't. So long as people are safe with it and don't bother me, it's not really my business.

Myles
July 29th, 2011, 02:45 PM
I smoke weed, I have for a while now. I really see no problem in letting loose and having a little fun. I hate the amount of taboo and prejudice linked against marijuana. It's exactly like the Alcohol prohibition of the late 20s, except that was much shorter lived. And it's for that reason that I think the marijuana prohibition in the US and Canada will stop as well, in our lifetime.

The prohibition was removed because crime skyrocketed with people illegally obtaining it (among other problems that arose from it going from widely popular to illegal in an instant, instead of transitioning). Not because it merited being legal. Because of the marijuana taboo you mentioned yourself, it's not gonna happen.

twocows
July 31st, 2011, 12:56 PM
I don't mean to be so matter-of-fact and stoic about this, but it is NOT okay to do illegal drugs. If the law says it's not okay, then it's not okay. Regardless of whatever experience it brings.

The law says plenty of things that aren't tolerable are (like bank CEOs spending government bailout money on new jet planes) and plenty of things that are tolerable aren't (like doing marijuana in your own home where it doesn't bother anyone else).

The law is completely separate from ethics, please don't confuse the two.

-ty-
July 31st, 2011, 01:53 PM
What do you guys think about parents and drug abuse? There are laws that, of course, deal with neglect and abuse of children, but preemptively should there be any action. Mostly, I am talking about harder drug or severe drug abuse. Meth for example.
Also, what about pregnant women? Should they be allowed to smoke or drink, let alone use recreational drugs?

FreakyLocz14
July 31st, 2011, 02:25 PM
If I chose to use drugs, only I will suffer the consequences. Telling me otherwise in nanny state behavior.

-ty-
August 2nd, 2011, 12:59 AM
If I chose to use drugs, only I will suffer the consequences. Telling me otherwise in nanny state behavior.


So women who are pregnant should be allowed to drink alcohol and abuse drugs, even if it affects the child's health, and pose a threat to the child's life?

As a parent, you are responsible for your child's health. Every single study done through universities and governmental agencies state that drugs inhibit parenting, and are attributed with neglect and abuse of children.

These are some effects of Alcohol Fetus Syndrome.
http://www.moondragon.org/obgyn/graphics/fasface.jpg
Should a parent be able to do this to their child?

A study of children in foster care found that those whose parents had substance abuse problems were more likely to have suffered neglect, such as malnourishment, poor hygiene, having physical needs unmet, having been unattended or unsupervised, and having parents who had left the household with an uncertain return, than children whose parents did not have substance abuse problems (60.6 percent vs. 29.3 percent).

Children who have been exposed prenatally to illicit drugs are two to three times more likely to be abused or neglected than are children in similar social and economic circumstances, but whose mothers did not use drugs prenatally.


Most welfare professionals (79.6%) report that substance abuse causes or contributes to at least half of all cases of child maltreatment; 39.7% say it is a factor in over 75% of the cases. Are these welfare professionals incorrectly reporting?

You know, as well as I do, parental drug abuse affects children. As far as "nanny state" behavior goes, the government is the only buffer between children and parents. If parents are harming their children or neglecting their children the government needs to step in and protect the children.

keoni
August 2nd, 2011, 07:15 AM
K1Nw4jGjJGk
Oh... You don't mean Craig Owens sexy voice?

I feel that marijuana and alcohol aren't bad in smaller amount-ages... But it has to be under control.