illumine wrote:
personally I would try drugs but only those I can get completely naturally from scratch, such as certain mushrooms and plants. I never have taken drugs and that includes smoking, I drink coffee maybe once a month and consume alcohol even less. I would not be able to trust buying illegal drugs, hence harvesting them myself, leaving it down to me to put myself at risk. I dont believe drugs are wrong, as Fistinglover said certain animals do. Cats love catnip which is known as the kitty version of speed and deer eat rotten fruit to get themselves drunk. Its a dodgy topic though, both my parents and my brother have taken them long term and it has affected them, in a BAD way.
And again - there are certain mushrooms that can shut down your liver function and kill you in twenty four hours. Sounds fun! Don't get me wrong, I'm a bit of a hippy but the argument that nature is benign, beneficial and cuddly is absolutely untenable (and possibly dangerous) and is utterly irrelevant to the question of drug use.
Theodora wrote:
Lady.Gasm.X wrote:
My thoughts on cannabis are simple. The side effects are very minimal... yes you are prone to paranoia in SOME cases but when people are high they are much more in control of themselves than if they had had a drink. I think cannabis should be legalised because yes it does have benefits and these out weigh the side effects. Also it is not addictive and does not damage your body. Plus is it a natural substance! My opinion on other recreational drugs are that they are illegal and should stay illegal. Nobody knows whats in them anymore and they have several side effects.
I do wish people would stop trotting out the 'it's a natural substance' argument in relation to drug use. Cyanide, strychnine and arsenic are natural substances but I don't see anybody recommending their recreational use.
Arsenic doesn't have the ability to get you high either..
I think the argument being brought across is that with something synthetic you don't know what you're getting, it could be cut with all sorts of..well..poisons..whereas for the best part especially with bud as oppose to resin you're getting something that really comes straight from the plant to your papers, and if you're going to take a drug it'd rather be one you know what you're getting.
I don't really see your point...pure ethanol will kill you...but people don't drink pure ethanol just like they don't smoke cyanide or ingest killer mushrooms
TTurtle wrote:
Theodora wrote:
Lady.Gasm.X wrote:
My thoughts on cannabis are simple. The side effects are very minimal... yes you are prone to paranoia in SOME cases but when people are high they are much more in control of themselves than if they had had a drink. I think cannabis should be legalised because yes it does have benefits and these out weigh the side effects. Also it is not addictive and does not damage your body. Plus is it a natural substance! My opinion on other recreational drugs are that they are illegal and should stay illegal. Nobody knows whats in them anymore and they have several side effects.
I do wish people would stop trotting out the 'it's a natural substance' argument in relation to drug use. Cyanide, strychnine and arsenic are natural substances but I don't see anybody recommending their recreational use.
Arsenic doesn't have the ability to get you high either..
I think the argument being brought across is that with something synthetic you don't know what you're getting, it could be cut with all sorts of..well..poisons..whereas for the best part especially with bud as oppose to resin you're getting something that really comes straight from the plant to your papers, and if you're going to take a drug it'd rather be one you know what you're getting.
I don't really see your point...pure ethanol will kill you...but people don't drink pure ethanol just like they don't smoke cyanide or ingest killer mushrooms
I don't agree that that is necessarily the argument. Most of the time the argument is "it's natural so I trust it more" when in reality we can know as little, or even less about natural substances as we do about "synthetic" and even then synthetic is often produced by chemists and then the actual "drug" form is created elsewhere so that the compound is synthetic doesn't matter in the slightest. Cannabis is "natural" but it can still be filled with poisons.
Yes - Illumine's argument was valid (IMO) because she implied she wanted it to be natural so that she can produce it herself removing the trust element but *generally* the "it's natural" argument is not intended this way.
Adx
many of the most powerful toxins known are completely natural, plants and animals are good at poisoning one another, even LSD is a naturally occuring substance which has been synthesised
On the question. If cannabis were legal and regulated - I'd try it. I suffer with chronic pain and a type that is incredibly difficult to treat. THCs would be another option I'd be willing to try if it were available. I've looked at the research, it's generally pretty safe - it's psych effects are largely only in people who are already prone, it's not particularly addictive and it's pretty difficult to OD. It's long term effects are pretty small and it's a good painkiller so yeah, I see no scientifically valid argument for its illegality. But each drug should be individually assessed. Heroin probably should be illegal - it has a very high OD rate in users and is clearly highly addictive. Alcohol and tobacco would probably be illegal if they were discovered today, they can be incredibly dangerous and are in many cases. That said, I take alcohol recreationally (understanding the risk) so it seems silly that cannabis would be illegal as long as people are well aware of risks.
As people have said - it would probably reduce use of "harder" drugs as it's only a gateway drug because dealers will offer you owt. It exposes you to people selling the harder stuff so take it away from dealers and you protect a lot (not all of course) people.
In short - I think law should be based *largely* on evidence so each drug should be individually assessed. I don't see why alcohol can't be used as a benchmark - anything more dangerous/with a larger impact on society as a whole should be banned and less dangerous to be legalised but regulated.
Adx
when quoting alcohol it isnt only the drug but the culture, thge french and germans drink much more units than us without problems to the extent we have
gunther wrote:
when quoting alcohol it isnt only the drug but the culture, thge french and germans drink much more units than us without problems to the extent we have
Absolutely. I got to see a fantastic talk from Prof. David Nutt recently and he touched on this. Alcohol increasingly kills, but in France when they saw the increase they addressed it by altering prices of alcohol and managed to prevent the drastic rise in deaths.
Adx
The french drink socially usually as a family with food conviviality and humour, no one forces anyone and no one boasts about consumption, completely different experience and actually a different drug
drinking red wine isnt like drinking vodka
Alcohol is ridiculously cheap in france a cheap bottle of red is about £1.80
Ork wrote:
Alicia D'amore wrote:
gunther wrote:
when quoting alcohol it isnt only the drug but the culture, thge french and germans drink much more units than us without problems to the extent we have
Absolutely. I got to see a fantastic talk from Prof. David Nutt recently and he touched on this. Alcohol increasingly kills, but in France when they saw the increase they addressed it by altering prices of alcohol and managed to prevent the drastic rise in deaths.
Adx
But won't that just mean only the rich can drink them selves stupid? Also as the population increaes surely the rise in deaths would only go up naturally?
Studies and surveys tend to take things like that into account :)
Also - it's about doing it strategically. I don't fully understand the ins and outs of it but certainly France have targeted to drink problems much better than Britain. It doesn't stop the rich getting drunk but it does help the average waged people to drink more slowly and sensibly and it's the majority/average that are most important - once you've established that, it is no longer seen as "cool" to get leathered (as gunther suggested) so it's not fashionable and less desireable. It's a whole mix of complicated things but it can be dealt with better than we've dealt with it in Britain.
Adx
gunther wrote:
Alcohol is ridiculously cheap in france a cheap bottle of red is about £1.80
I presume in part to encourage people to replace the stronger/sweeter/easier to drink alcohol with alcohol that is better suited to responsible drinking. Not that I understand all of the details, only what Prof. Nutt briefly mentioned in his interesting talk.
Adx
France is cafe culture it isnt cool staggering about where there are old dears and young kids, besides outside the very big cities cafes and bars close early, if you want to see drunk frenchmen in rural france go in a cafe at 2 to 4 PM, but they arnt tired and they arnt violent ....just drunk
Alicia D'amore wrote:
gunther wrote:
Alcohol is ridiculously cheap in france a cheap bottle of red is about £1.80
I presume in part to encourage people to replace the stronger/sweeter/easier to drink alcohol with alcohol that is better suited to responsible drinking. Not that I understand all of the details, only what Prof. Nutt briefly mentioned in his interesting talk.
Adx
its because France is full of vineyards and wine is naturally produced. In Grmany the germans are prohibited from putting anything in beer apart from its natural ingredients. The beer we drink is more like a chemical soup, I never drink more than 3 pints and even with that it gives me a strange aggressive feeling and a bad head the next day
Dee_licious333 wrote:
MDgrape wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
american study, but the point is valid and has been backed up in other studies
I didnt mean about smoking necessarily, my dad had lung cancer and i know smoking kills, everyone does. I know it is very addictive, but never would I have thought it was more addictive than Heroin. Surely heroin is a far worse drug and not that easy to give up as some addicts will steal and rob just to get their fix.
Fistin also wrote ` caffeine is as addictive as cocaine'. Again i would like to see the research to back this up. I can give or take coffee, and I dont always need it in the morning as soon as I get up and I dont get withdrawal symptons if I dont have any for days.
Re: caffeine, I would agree with you, Dee. I know that sometimes my brother and sister get 'addicted' to caffeine (as it were), and it loses its effect, but they find it pretty easy to stop drinking it for a week or so and they're fine. The fact that they can give it up so easily (though my sister gets headaches and feels really tired) suggests that it can't be as addictive as cocaine, because cocaine addicts have lots of trouble giving it up (and most of them don't want to give it up). :|
But, meh, what do I know? That's only my personal experience. :/
After just watching trainspotting for the first time ever i can safely say i am staying the fuck away from heroin lol
Lucky I stay away from anything that isnt German beer or French wine
Ork when I started drinking it was in bars with very mixed clientelle the old guys kept the young guys in order, now kids drink bottles of vodka on the streets. there isnt the old regulation from elders
I started drinking in bars at 17 and there were a lot of us, the old guys kept us in order I cant remember the last time I even saw people under 20 yrs of age drinking in the same bars, except Christmas new year maybe
never had a drug in my life life unless a doctor prescribed it but ive recently thought about viagra for hubby
gunther wrote:
I started drinking in bars at 17 and there were a lot of us, the old guys kept us in order I cant remember the last time I even saw people under 20 yrs of age drinking in the same bars, except Christmas new year maybe
With alcohol prices rising, I've noticed that younger people tend to drink more at home/a friends house instead of a pub, so then when they leave, they head straight to clubs, and miss out the bars/pubs beforehand. This means that there's no one to keep them in order, and more of an atmosphere of obligation and competitiveness in terms of drinking.