Thoughts on (illegal) drugs...

Off-Topic Chat
41

In Portugal all drugs are decriminalised - note: not legal - you are still prohibited to use them but anyone caught doing so will not be hit with a criminal punishment such as prison but a rehabilitation program instead.
Britain has some of the toughest laws on drugs in Europe.
Which of the two countries has the highest rate of drug addicts? It's not Portugal...jus' sayin'

Britain should adopt this strategy as try hard as you like but you won't get rid of drugs by making them illegal. All drugs should be decriminalised and rehab programs put in place..send a heroin addict to jail and give them methadone, they leave jail and start back on heroin again. I realise there are rehab programs in place but they are not enough - stop wasting money, time and jail space sending these people to prison and get them proper help. The only snag in this is if an addict commits crime to pay for the addiction but even then they should be put in to rehab and serve community service etc. once they are clean.

However no politician will stand up in parliament and say this as they will be castigated and most likely be made to resign.

Now on to the what should be legal and what shouldn't.
Alcohol by all intents and purposes should be illegal - many scientists agree were it made illegal it would be put in the class A bracket and it's not hard to see why, one example being you can fairly easily overdose and die as a direct result of ethanol poisioning. You'd have to smoke a ridiculous amount of marijuana to die as a direct result and even then it'd be carbon monoxide poisioning.

Anyone who feels marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol in both the long and short term is kidding themselves. I'm not (yet) saying marijuana is the lesser of two evils but based on health effects, alcohol will fuck you up just as much..and in some cases depending upon the person worse - who did you ever hear of who died a marijuana addict? And how about an alcoholic? I completely agree that abuse of any substance WILL cause you problems including marijuana..you smoke the chronic every day you're setting yourself up for problems..you drink 5 pints a day, same thing.

But lets set up a parameter of social moderation..2 nights out a month. A night out for me will typically be about 4-5 pints so that's 10 pints of alcohol per month. Based on previous experiences in Amsterdam, a night out would be 3-4 doobies so lets say 8 per month. Now sorry but unless you have some underlying condition, provided you live your life in a generally sound manner at all other times, get your exercise eat healthy etc. I see no reason at all why either of these would cause me major problems in the long run.

Alcohol is a pretty dirty social drug..you think about it - its very easy to have too much, it causes all sorts of short term mood swings (drunk on the floor saying you hate your life, we've all been there), unexpected behaviour, and worst of all the dreaded hangover. Smoke 3 joints, feel happy, relaxed, talkative then go to bed and wake up the next morning feeling amazingly relaxed and well slept. As a social drug, marijuana is absolutely the better choice of the two.

What makes me laugh quite a bit though and just highlights how retarded this countries laws are for example marijuana is illegal but I can walk into a shop 5 minutes down the road from me and buy a substitute that contains a synthetic THC derivative which is currently completely legal and beats the crap out of weed for potency...

I have more to say but I cba

42

TTurtle wrote:

What makes me laugh quite a bit though and just highlights how retarded this countries laws are for example marijuana is illegal but I can walk into a shop 5 minutes down the road from me and buy a substitute that contains a synthetic THC derivative which is currently completely legal and beats the crap out of weed for potency...

I have more to say but I cba

there's legislation coming to stop legal highs - unfortunatley laws must be done carefully and take time to research and construct, whilst development of legal highs is seemingly quick

43

Ork wrote:

so if there arguement is so good how has the law not been passed yet?

Because the government hire knowledgable experts like David Nutt, and then fire them when their evidence and actual research goes against their 'popular' opinions.

44

sweetlove666 wrote:

TTurtle wrote:

What makes me laugh quite a bit though and just highlights how retarded this countries laws are for example marijuana is illegal but I can walk into a shop 5 minutes down the road from me and buy a substitute that contains a synthetic THC derivative which is currently completely legal and beats the crap out of weed for potency...

I have more to say but I cba

there's legislation coming to stop legal highs - unfortunatley laws must be done carefully and take time to research and construct, whilst development of legal highs is seemingly quick

hahahahaha as if, its took the government years to stop one - an analog of ketamine - and 2 months later a new one is out to replace it. how are you meant to bring in a law to stop legal highs when new ones are made all the time? its the structure of the drug that gets made illegal, so you modify it slightly and ta daaaaaaa. this is the reason why the government said theyre revising drug laws, because they understand that they have failed majorly

If you want any evidence that drugs have won the drug war, you just need to read the scientific studies on legal highs.

If you’re not keeping track of the ‘legal high’ scene it’s important to remember that the first examples, synthetic cannabinoids sold as ‘Spice’ and ‘K2′ incense, were only detected in 2009.

Shortly after amphetamine-a-like stimulant drugs, largely based on variations on pipradol the cathinonesappeared, and now ketamine-like drugs such as methoxetamine have become widespread.

Since 1997, 150 new psychoactive substances were reported. Almost a third of those appeared in 2010.

Last year, the US government banned several of these drugs although the effect has been minimal as the legal high laboratories have over-run the trenches of the drug warriors.

A new study just published in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology tracked the chemical composition of legal highs as the bans were introduced.

A key question was whether the legal high firms would just try and use the same banned chemicals and sell them under a different name.

The research team found that since the ban only 4.9% of the products contained any trace of the recently banned drugs. The remaining 95.1% of products contained drugs not covered by the law.

The chemicals in legal highs have fundamentally changed since the 2011 ban and the labs have outrun the authorities in less than a year.

Another new study has looked at legal highs derived from pipradol – a drug developed in 1940s for treating obesity, depression, ADHD and narcolepsy.

It was made illegal in many countries during the 70s due to its potential for abuse because it gives an amphetamine-like high.

The study found that legal high labs have just been running through variations of the banned drug using simple modifications of the original molecule to make new unregulated versions.

The following paragraph is from this study and even if you’re not a chemist, you can get an impression of how the drug is been tweaked in the most minor ways to create new legal versions.

Modifications include: addition of halogen, alkyl or alkoxy groups on one or both of the phenyl rings or addition of alkyl, alkenyl, haloalkyl and hydroxyalkyl groups on the nitrogen atom. Other modifications that have been reported include the substitution of a piperidine ring with an azepane ring (7-membered ring), a morpholine ring or a pyridine ring or the fusion of a piperidine ring with a benzene ring. These molecules, producing amphetamine-like effects, increase the choice of new stimulants to be used as legal highs in the coming years.

New, unknown and poorly understood psychoactive chemicals are appearing faster than they can be regulated.

The market is being driven by a demand for drugs that have the same effects as existing legal highs but won’t get you thrown in prison.

The drug war isn’t only being lost, it’s being made obsolete.

45

I'm not sure on this but I think they were looking at making a kind of blanket law on psychoactive chemicals but can't remember and that wouldn't work either. This is the stupid thing about the whole situation..because people are seeking alternatives to the real deal, unquantified and potentially very dangerous yet completely legal derivatives are being produced - if naturally grown weed was sold in an offlicense then why would there be the need for all these research chemicals? none.

Also the gateway argument in case someone raises it..complete BS..weed is a gateway drug simply because people have access to other drugs through the dealers they are buying weed from..were it sold in an offy or a cafe you wouldn't be offered heroin or crack a the same time would you

46

If weed was that safe surely the government would be allowing sales in shops anyway and taxing it to high heaven being the greedy people they are. They would have no reason not to.

47

morefun wrote:

If weed was that safe surely the government would be allowing sales in shops anyway and taxing it to high heaven being the greedy people they are. They would have no reason not to.

They would have lots of reasons not to. Don't get me started..but really do you honestly think the government give a crap about our health? ha

48

TTurtle wrote:

I'm not sure on this but I think they were looking at making a kind of blanket law on psychoactive chemicals but can't remember and that wouldn't work either. This is the stupid thing about the whole situation..because people are seeking alternatives to the real deal, unquantified and potentially very dangerous yet completely legal derivatives are being produced - if naturally grown weed was sold in an offlicense then why would there be the need for all these research chemicals? none.

Also the gateway argument in case someone raises it..complete BS..weed is a gateway drug simply because people have access to other drugs through the dealers they are buying weed from..were it sold in an offy or a cafe you wouldn't be offered heroin or crack a the same time would you

research chemicals are everything from 'ecstasy' to 'valium' to 'ket', not just weed.

49

fistinglover69 wrote:

TTurtle wrote:

I'm not sure on this but I think they were looking at making a kind of blanket law on psychoactive chemicals but can't remember and that wouldn't work either. This is the stupid thing about the whole situation..because people are seeking alternatives to the real deal, unquantified and potentially very dangerous yet completely legal derivatives are being produced - if naturally grown weed was sold in an offlicense then why would there be the need for all these research chemicals? none.

Also the gateway argument in case someone raises it..complete BS..weed is a gateway drug simply because people have access to other drugs through the dealers they are buying weed from..were it sold in an offy or a cafe you wouldn't be offered heroin or crack a the same time would you

research chemicals are everything from 'ecstasy' to 'valium' to 'ket', not just weed.

I know, I was just using it as an example. My thoughts on MDMA, Heroin, Crack etc. differ slightly simply for the OD potential, bad pills etc. and the only chemically produced drug I have tried is a small amount of cocaine and would not do so again (along with shrooms..no sir to me they were baddd news). On a slightly interesting note, freshly ground nutmeg in high doses has psychoactive properties..trust me..been there done that completely fucks you up for the next 12 hours..don't try it at home kids.

50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

I ♥ David Nutt

51

morefun wrote:

If weed was that safe surely the government would be allowing sales in shops anyway and taxing it to high heaven being the greedy people they are. They would have no reason not to.

All political parties, whether in Government or not aren't going to do anything that will turn voters against them. Regardless of the amount of tax it would produce, they wouldn't risk not staying/getting into power at the next election.

52

fistinglover69 wrote:

sweetlove666 wrote:

TTurtle wrote:

What makes me laugh quite a bit though and just highlights how retarded this countries laws are for example marijuana is illegal but I can walk into a shop 5 minutes down the road from me and buy a substitute that contains a synthetic THC derivative which is currently completely legal and beats the crap out of weed for potency...

I have more to say but I cba

there's legislation coming to stop legal highs - unfortunatley laws must be done carefully and take time to research and construct, whilst development of legal highs is seemingly quick

how are you meant to bring in a law to stop legal highs when new ones are made all the time? its the structure of the drug that gets made illegal, so you modify it slightly and ta daaaaaaa. this is the reason why the government said theyre revising drug laws, because they understand that they have failed majorly

actually there can be temporary class drug orders, which is the one that they used for mexxy (is this the one youre talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/28/legal-high-drug-methoxetamine-banned

and they are using it. this is a way to control substances while research is done. all they need is for the drug to have the potential of misuse and harm. it's not out of govermnental control. new chemical balance - another temporary class drug order. 1/2 a day in parliament if that - no more problems for a year

this is the order for mexxy http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/deleg1/120521/120521s01.htm

legislation may be able to keep up, but policing and the cps cant

53

I disagree with all chemicals that significantly alter peoples behaviour and having been on the recieving end of canabis enduced paranoia/ speed enduced rage and worked in forensic mental health where addiction to some kind of stinulant legal or otherwise is pretty much blanket across the patient range (with the exception of sociopaths) just NO, I don't do it and I don't want it near me. It makes me feel anxious and unsafe if I know someone is taking something around me. It's imposibleto avoid completely but I no longer take and legal stimulants in anything more than very small quantities.

54

i think alot of people agree that cannabis should be legalised and im am with them, how many people do you see smoking a joint then going out fighting or smashing up the high street, i think it should be alcohol that is illegal.

55

Ork wrote:

I take it a "gateway" drug is like a sort of say for example you start with something like weed and it opens the door to more things as you experiment etc?

Correct - and weed is no more a gateway drug than alcohol is, it's just that when you currently buy weed most likely you're gonna have other substances on offer because you're buying from a drug dealer whereas when you buy alcohol you go to the off license or tesco or something.

laurawalker wrote:

i think alot of people agree that cannabis should be legalised and im am with them, how many people do you see smoking a joint then going out fighting or smashing up the high street, i think it should be alcohol that is illegal.

In the short term or in usual moderation yes - it is very easy to distinguish in Amsterdam those who have been out drinking and those who have been smoking, it's just if weed use becomes widespread, people will abuse it and smoke too much and it will start causing more problems socially

56

sweetlove666 wrote:

fistinglover69 wrote:

sweetlove666 wrote:

TTurtle wrote:

What makes me laugh quite a bit though and just highlights how retarded this countries laws are for example marijuana is illegal but I can walk into a shop 5 minutes down the road from me and buy a substitute that contains a synthetic THC derivative which is currently completely legal and beats the crap out of weed for potency...

I have more to say but I cba

there's legislation coming to stop legal highs - unfortunatley laws must be done carefully and take time to research and construct, whilst development of legal highs is seemingly quick

how are you meant to bring in a law to stop legal highs when new ones are made all the time? its the structure of the drug that gets made illegal, so you modify it slightly and ta daaaaaaa. this is the reason why the government said theyre revising drug laws, because they understand that they have failed majorly

actually there can be temporary class drug orders, which is the one that they used for mexxy (is this the one youre talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/28/legal-high-drug-methoxetamine-banned

and they are using it. this is a way to control substances while research is done. all they need is for the drug to have the potential of misuse and harm. it's not out of govermnental control. new chemical balance - another temporary class drug order. 1/2 a day in parliament if that - no more problems for a year

this is the order for mexxy http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/deleg1/120521/120521s01.htm

legislation may be able to keep up, but policing and the cps cant

mxe was around for about 3 years before this, and it's already been replaced by 2 seperate analogues, with a third to follow soon

they'd have to be sending out these temporary orders every single day to even keep pace with the development of new drugs, and they do not have the manpower or the funds - and thank god for that

you're never going to win any battle against market forces, that's why you need to turn the drugs over for the markets to regulate

57

Avrielle_Aniko wrote:

Hello. Lot's been said and haven't really read any of it, though I'm sure there is a split division down the middle who agree and disagree over drug use.

I'll put in my penny's worth though.

I recently smoked some cannabis pollen. As pure as you can get, and know the source. And I have to say that it really helped with my chronic pain. It was lovely! A couple hours of full pain relief that is more than I have had in the last 2 and a bit years since my accident!! Beautiful!

To actually have that pain relief (though I must not take advantage of it because if I walk normally and do things before it wears off then it hurts immensly later on) I would say it was probably worth the negatives of smoking it! Just to have that bit of pure relief! Heaven!

I want to point out that if you consider or if you do smoke cannabis, then please be careful of what you are getting. My friend and I noticed the dramatic price increase since we last used to smoke it when we were teenagers. But it is often quality over quantity.

When we were teenagers, there used to be an infamous dealer in our town who was there for anyone who wanted to buy from him. Thing is, he was rather stingey, and a number of other cannabis dealers popped up in the area for a while, who sold purer and nicer stuff, for better prices. So obviously, the main dealers buisness dropped a bit. So, what he did, instead of being a "trustworthy/honest" dealer, he actually laced his cannabis with scraps of other drugs he had. Crack, Heroin, miscillanious dust and resin! So while you cannot get addicted to cannabis (as in it is not an addictive drug, no evidence has ever been found that it is addictive. There are no withdrawel symptoms. People who smoke a lot tend to be from habit, not from addict.) his customers did actually become addicted to the drugs he laced it with and so kept coming back!

There is much more I could add to this subject, but I'm sure it has already been covered here.

heroin is destroyed by direct flame contact, the confusion comes from people talking about smoking heroin, when they actually mean vapourising.

58

TTurtle wrote:

morefun wrote:

If weed was that safe surely the government would be allowing sales in shops anyway and taxing it to high heaven being the greedy people they are. They would have no reason not to.

They would have lots of reasons not to. Don't get me started..but really do you honestly think the government give a crap about our health? ha

To a point, of course they do. If we are incapable of working they don't get their taxes, if they don't get taxes they don't get their flashy cars, expensive holidays and second homes. Not that they actually care if we are unhealthy for any reason beyond that I wouldn't think.

59

Alcohol and smoking reduce life expectancy and contribute to the tax take. In a country that has too many old people to support and is bancrupt I am surprised the government dont encourage drug use or even make it compulsory lol

60

I could do with a joint for breakfast...