Sorry to bombard you folks, but here's a topic on drugs.

[Durandal]

So you like putting words in people's mouths Durandel? :rolleyes: I didn't say ban the medical applications of the drug. We need to be careful to make sure that the people who get them need them, which is pretty tight so far.

That's a nice backpedal. Here's what you really said.

I hate drugs with a passion, only moronic idiots would use or ever try them.

Gee, old people with glaucoma try marijuana, don't they?

Marijuana has the same effects as beer. If you don't believe this check out an 8th graders health book from your local middle school.

Really? So, beer causes lung damage? Marijuana causes hangovers?

Marijuana, despite what you say does lead to harder drugs, its a gateway. You get peer pressured into marijuana then into crack then heroin, etc. I know a person who ruined his life over drugs.

ROTFLMAO! So, you take one example of this and hold it up as a standard? I'll let you in on a little secret. I've actually smoked marijuana and got high. It's not addictive. My friends didn't pressure me into crack or heroine.

Furthermore, you haven't explained why doing heroine is wrong.

They destroy our society by causing crime, increase our prision population, and make people moronic idiots in the process.

The first two are simple results of the fact that they're illegal in the first place, which is entirely circular. The second is completely unbacked by anything but your delusional fantasies. Believe it or not, not everyone who has done or does drugs is an idiot.

Yes, I agree with you on irresponsible parents, but that is only half the issue. To destroy drugs we have to destroy the suppliers. I'm talking about large military aide to the Columbians, direct or indirect. Its the Columbian rebels and drug lords supplying a lot of this countries drugs. We also need to make sure countries like Afganistan don't start producing opium again.

How about this? We make them all legal and tax the fuck out of the imports? People need to get their fix, and if the industry is government regulated, the government gets tax money from it. Hell, we already sell cigarettes like that, and the tobacco industries are still raking cash in.

I'm getting the sense that you're a freshman in high school who's probably not very popular, so you lash out against anything indicative of popularity. I know, because I was the exact same way. Then I actually met some people and started socializing. There's a whole different world out there beyond what your DARE officer tells you. I'm not saying that you have to go out and do drugs, but don't be so quick to pass judgment on everyone who does.

[NecronLord]

I would not regard that as a good idea, think of everyone who smokes, now think of them on Heroin Morpine Crack Ketamine and meth-amphetamines. Not a good Idea in my opinion.

Whoops, strawman. What makes you think that everyone who has the opportunity to use drugs will do so? The Government will make sure to inform everyone of the nasty effects and addiction related to each drug, and trust the public to make an informed choice. That's what we called 'regulation.' Smokers are making a bad decision, but I don't think that most of them are stupid enough to do the truly hard drugs.

My opinion on the drugs is this:
Marijuana should be legal, because it really doesn't hurt anyone. They are only slightly more harmful to the user than cigarettes, and a pothead is generally too docile and unmotivated to do much of anything wrong. Of the marijuana smokers who I have met, I would consider much less dangerous than a non-user.

Ecstasy should be studied, and then an informed decision made about it. So far we have not found any serious side effects, and most of the danger resulting from X use now is a result of its illegal status--drug dealers sell what they purport to be X, but what is actually PCP or GHB or even Drano. If the government would regulate it, then we could cut down on this problem.

The harder drugs are harder to solve, but we should hit the problem at the source. Why do people grow opium and cocaine and sell it to the USA? Because they can make more money doing that, than growing foodstuffs. There are two ways to solve this: Destroy the Market, or make foodstuffs more lucrative. The current policy of arresting middlemen and consumers has proven a total failure, so we need to look at other options.

NO. People aremostly idiots who will largely belive what they are told, despite the well documented dangers of cannabis, such as it contanins three times the Tar of the strongest Ciggerttes, and is known to reduce IQ, they still say it is harmless. If you legalise drugs then the groups most likely to go into production are the tobacco companies. They would probably first produce 'cannabis-smokes' or something similar. With people beliving the information they are given on this they would most likely be ready to accept any new craze such as Heroin-morphine-opium derivetives, probably renamed. And Crystal Meth, also probably renamed before marketing. And yes potheads are generally docile, as are alcoholics. However when they are deprived of their 'shit' they will become desperate and dangerous.

[Mr Bean]

as are alcoholics. However when they are deprived of their 'shit' they will become desperate and dangerous.

Acutal compare the number of people who kill other people while Stoned to those that kill while Drunk and you find a nice 5000:1 Figure in Favor of people killing others While Drunk

[NecronLord]

as are alcoholics. However when they are deprived of their 'shit' they will become desperate and dangerous.

Acutal compare the number of people who kill other people while Stoned to those that kill while Drunk and you find a nice 5000:1 Figure in Favor of people killing others While Drunk

True, but Alcoholism is more widespread, in addition it is consumed socially, maning when drunk there are more people around to kill. Particularly one or two pot smokers are less likely to be able to do something than 20 rowdy drunks. Also you have what i will henceforth call the 'broken bottle factor'

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Ecstasy should be studied, and then an informed decision made about it. So far we have not found any serious side effects, and most of the danger resulting from X use now is a result of its illegal status--drug dealers sell what they purport to be X, but what is actually PCP or GHB or even Drano. If the government would regulate it, then we could cut down on this problem.

Actually ecstasy is not that bad. I use them alot during party time but still, I haven't been addicted so far. I say let's legalize ecstasy!!

[Mr Bean]

True, but Alcoholism is more widespread, in addition it is consumed socially, maning when drunk there are more people around to kill. Particularly one or two pot smokers are less likely to be able to do something than 20 rowdy drunks. Also you have what i will henceforth call the 'broken bottle factor'

Achoisim is indeed wipe spread but theres a simple diffrence between the two. When you light up a joint, you sometimes(since its not 100% studys have show and personal experance can teach you the same thing) and imdetly there after your brain begins producing a chemical similar to the ones used to induce sleep so you get tired, Also produced is the chemicals that cause the class hunger. But through-out the same thing is clear, Your reaction times are slowed greatly and you feel tired. This is why there is a 5000: 1 Figure not just because its more widepsread but its similar to the number of people who kill others while ASLEEP its hard to kill somone while you can be stoped by a some-one lightly pushing you over, Nearly all cases of accidents while smoking Pot where because the Driver was smoking it while in the car.

Alcoholics however when they drink get three things, 1. A Sense of Power and Being in Control, 2. Increase susbility to emoitions such as anger and rage, 3, Slowed and Delayed Reaction times., The sleepness is cause by your body slowing down after you start posioing yourself baddly and for many people it takes more than a few beers to put them under the table

FYI Always check your info

such as it contanins three times the Tar of the strongest Ciggerttes, and is known to reduce IQ, they still say it is harmless.

It helps to do a bit of work, Here are some fun-links true its from pro-canabius websites but I also inculded two neutral ones for benfit

http://www.schmoo.co.uk/cannabis/facts.htm

http://pdxnorml.org/Dr_Mikuriya.html

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v99/n160/a02.html

And a third thing, desite the extra tar(which some of the information I found says its not that much) Can you provide me with one cases of anyone getting cancer from smoking that nasty Pot?

[NecronLord]

Achoisim is indeed wipe spread but theres a simple diffrence between the two. When you light up a joint, you sometimes(since its not 100% studys have show and personal experance can teach you the same thing) and imdetly there after your brain begins producing a chemical similar to the ones used to induce sleep so you get tired, Also produced is the chemicals that cause the class hunger. But through-out the same thing is clear, Your reaction times are slowed greatly and you feel tired. This is why there is a 5000: 1 Figure not just because its more widepsread but its similar to the number of people who kill others while ASLEEP its hard to kill somone while you can be stoped by a some-one lightly pushing you over, Nearly all cases of accidents while smoking Pot where because the Driver was smoking it while in the car.

Strawman, I said when deprived of It, not while using

FYI Always check your info

such as it contanins three times the Tar of the strongest Ciggerttes, and is known to reduce IQ, they still say it is harmless.

It helps to do a bit of work, Here are some fun-links true its from pro-canabius websites but I also inculded two neutral ones for benfit

http://www.schmoo.co.uk/cannabis/facts.htm

http://pdxnorml.org/Dr_Mikuriya.html

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v99/n160/a02.html

And a third thing, desite the extra tar(which some of the information I found says its not that much) Can you provide me with one cases of anyone getting cancer from smoking that nasty Pot?

I'm looking into it. I'll get you a reference.

[NecronLord]

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/m ... /lungs.jsp

Thrre times deposition of tar, and the same amount of tissue damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/141891.stm

"Marijuana damages DNA at least as much as tobacco and may have a link to lung cancer, according to a study of mothers and their new born infants.
Researchers in America have found that blood from marijauna smokers has nearly three times as many DNA mutations as that of non-smokers."


http://www.health.gov.au/pubs/drug/alc_hand/alc_ch7.htm

"Lung cancer:
-risk comparable to smoking tobacco
-since cannabis smoke is inhaled deeply, held for much longer and contains more tar than tobacco, the adverse effects are greater. As a result, smoking 2-3 cannabis cigarettes may carry the same risk of lung damage as smoking a whole packet of tobacco cigarettes."

[Mr Bean]

From the first link

The similarity may seem puzzling given that the marijuana smokers were consuming so much less plant material. But there are good reasons for it, says Tashkin. The first is that joints yield up to three times the tar of cigarettes because they are more loosely packed and don't have filters. The second reason is that marijuana smokers inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer.

Not they have three times as much tar rather they are unfiltered, and they stay much longer in the lungs, Not the same thing as 3x the Tar

There's some good news, though, for dope-smoking cricketers and footballers: marijuana smoke won't lead to blocked airways or emphysema. Despite all the cellular changes noted by Tashkin's team, the researchers found that even heavy smoking of marijuana had no impact on any physical measure of lung function. In fact, among their subjects, smoking three joints per day caused no greater rate of decline in lung capacity and the ability to breathe than smoking no marijuana per day.

Speaks for itself
Second Link

Dr Ammenheuser said: "We can't actually make statements about cause and effect from our study, but we can say that marijuana smoking probably increases your risk of getting things like lung cancer, in much the same way that we know that tobacco smoking increases this risk.

Note the probably, IE they don't have proof yet

"I think it is because marijuana smokers hold the smoke in their lungs for longer and do not use low tar, filtered marijuana joints.

Another thing they Compared un-filtered marijuana and not filtered(The kind generaly legel in the few places it is) to filterd cigs? Well thats a well desined study for you


And the third link is redicuiouls

http://www.health.gov.au/pubs/drug/alc_hand/alc_ch7.htm

No studies sited, No evidance provided infact its nothing more than Austrilian Deparment of Heath and Aging and does not cite any sources anywhere infact

Found on the disclamer page section

Quality of information - always check the information
The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing makes every effort to ensure the quality of the information available on this website and updates the information regularly. Before relying on the information on this site, however, users should carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing can not guarantee and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information.

They won't even stand behind the information they post up there


Now then would you like to provide some acutal proof?
And I'm still waiting on a cause of Pot smoker getting cancer
*check

[Mr Bean]

Oh and an addition from one of the sites you provided

Smoking cannabis does not have a long-term effect on intelligence, say researchers in Canada who have followed volunteers from before birth to early adulthood.

Heavy pot smokers did experience a dip in their intelligence quotient (IQ). But people who had once smoked heavily and then given up were right back up to normal, the study found. Light smokers appeared no different to non-smokers.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/m ... dented.jsp

So much for the IQ lowering thing care to concede that point?(just that one that it does not indeed lower IQ permantly)

[Lagmonster]

I think the human conscience is such that most people don't care what you do in your home (well, minus a handful of religious and political nuts) - they just don't want to see you do it publicly. Drugs, drinking till you heave, smoking, dancing like you are trying to shoot a pickle out your ass, praying to the Giant Bearded Wierdo in the sky, having sex: Do them in your home, most people say, and no one will bother you. Take drinking, smoking, sex, shooting up, moronic flagellations completely out of tune to the music you're listening to, yelling that people are sinners - do that in a public park and you are probably annoying someone who has a habit that *you* don't want *them* to do in your public space.

I know what I'll do. I'll build 'Freedomland' amusement parks. People dressed up as giant syringes and beer bottles will greet you at the door and caper in amusing fashions. You will be assigned a go-kart that looks like a ferrarri and a giant foam middle finger at the door. All the rides will be people walking through a thick cloud of some mind-altering drug and then jumping past a bunch of funky spotlights into a pit. Every third building will be a XXX motel. At night there is no fireworks display, because nobody can move. Religious people will pay double fare to preach there. It'll be great for them - all the sinners in one place.

I'll make billions.

[NecronLord]

Oh and an addition from one of the sites you provided

Smoking cannabis does not have a long-term effect on intelligence, say researchers in Canada who have followed volunteers from before birth to early adulthood.

Heavy pot smokers did experience a dip in their intelligence quotient (IQ). But people who had once smoked heavily and then given up were right back up to normal, the study found. Light smokers appeared no different to non-smokers.

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/m ... dented.jsp

So much for the IQ lowering thing care to concede that point?(just that one that it does not indeed lower IQ permantly)

Saw that did you? Damm

I think I speak for everyone here when I say, We know that IQ means.

and now to quote that page

What the researchers do not know is if decades of pot-smoking could have a more lasting impact. Looking at long-term users in their 30s and 40s could show different results, admits Peter Fried, at Carleton University in Ottowa, who led the study. "Perhaps the nervous system isn't as flexible then," he says.

Note the Prehaps, reserch in this feild has yet to come to fruition, and is often contradictory.

Back to the point of the thread, would you argue for the Legalisation of Crack Cocaine, or Heroin?

[Mr Bean]

I know all see all Necron, If you provide evidence I never take it at face value and always back-check it to at least two levels(Whats quoted and what that is) sometimes I go further and back-check the lab or instiution

What the researchers do not know is if decades of pot-smoking could have a more lasting impact. Looking at long-term users in their 30s and 40s could show different results, admits Peter Fried, at Carleton University in Ottowa, who led the study. "Perhaps the nervous system isn't as flexible then," he says.

Prehaps smaps, Maybe if one where to live on nothing but bannais for thier entire life they might suddenly mutate into a fifty foot tall gorilla twenty years and six seconds in?

If you don't have the proof, speculation is just that, speculation

*checkmate

Back to the point of the thread, would you argue for the Legalisation of Crack Cocaine, or Heroin?

Most fatitites of Herion and Cocanine come either from over-dosing or bad drugs, That said, I'd like a little more reasurch done on the two as unlike Pot which has been looked at up and done both of these drugs are largly un-explored, So for the moment no I would not support Leglisation of either of those untill we have more inforamtion on them

[NecronLord]

I know all see all Necron, If you provide evidence I never take it at face value and always back-check it to at least two levels(Whats quoted and what that is) sometimes I go further and back-check the lab or instiution

What the researchers do not know is if decades of pot-smoking could have a more lasting impact. Looking at long-term users in their 30s and 40s could show different results, admits Peter Fried, at Carleton University in Ottowa, who led the study. "Perhaps the nervous system isn't as flexible then," he says.

Prehaps smaps, Maybe if one where to live on nothing but bannais for thier entire life they might suddenly mutate into a fifty foot tall gorilla twenty years and six seconds in?

I don't think so, there is no evidence of short term banana induced apeifying.

If you don't have the proof, speculation is just that, speculation

*checkmate

Back to the point of the thread, would you argue for the Legalisation of Crack Cocaine, or Heroin?

Most fatitites of Herion and Cocanine come either from over-dosing or bad drugs, That said, I'd like a little more reasurch done on the two as unlike Pot which has been looked at up and done both of these drugs are largly un-explored, So for the moment no I would not support Leglisation of either of those untill we have more inforamtion on them

If you don't have the proof....

[NecronLord]

Just on your know all and see all point, How much change is there on my desk now?

[NecronLord]

I amost forgot

*Tips chess board over and jabs bean in the eye with a bishop

[Mr Bean]

*Bean laughs as the bishop is harmlessy are delfected by the free googles he got at Evil Con last month

You have at this very moment no change on your desk as you picked it all up to count it and transfered it to an adjustating table.

(In referance to Herion and Cocanine)
If you don't have the proof....

That the point there is not proof, there is not anything on the subject resurch has been officaly, or un-officaly off limits for awhile now

[corporial]

The great thing about Marijuana is that you don't have to smoke it. They make these great things called Ganja Goo Balls, which are usually an assortment of cereals, some peanut butter and THC oil all baked together. You get all the good stuff without all that nasty tar!

[NecronLord]

*Bean laughs as the bishop is harmlessy are delfected by the free googles he got at Evil Con last month

Nice Goggles

[Graeme Dice]

So, you classify doctors who prescribe medical marijuana as "moronic idiots," even though marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms of glaucoma?

If they prescribe that a person should smoke it instead of ingesting THC in pill or other non lung-ruinign forms, then yes, they are morons.

[Jadeite]

Mr. Bean wrote:

War on Drug is a Buzz-word nothing more, How do you plan to stop it? By Declaring War on Countrys where its legel?

Round the Clock F-16 Flights over ever Inch of our Border with Weapons Free at all times?

16 inch shelling of suspected plant sites in American Citys?

lol, that would be kinda cool actually.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

IMHO, the best way to drive the drug lords outta business is to legalize drugs. The reason why drug is kinda expensive (and why the drug lord can enjoy such profit margin) because it is illegal.

Legalize the drugs, and now everyone can sell drugs, including your next-door drugstore (bad pun but I can't resist). Then we'll get free market on drugs, achieving price equilibrium. Maybe American farmers can grow their own coccaina too, driving Escobar out of business.

Back on 1930s, I think there were some idiots called 'Prohibitionist' who banned alchohol from the US. Then what happened next? Gangster like Al Capone were making happy profit from alcohol-smuggling business. If they had the brains to legalize alcohol, they probably wouldn't need Elliot Ness at all.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

If research shows dick about the effects of drugs, if supposedly nobody is absolutely certain about what drugs really do to your body, then why the fuck do you risk taking them just to get high? Getting high isn't the only thing in life, and as of now, it could be quite expensive. And don't forget that you don't know what it does to you. How would you like to have a kid years later that dies at birth or has some horrible thing happen to him or her because of your drug-taking, your polluting your body with shit?

[Lagmonster]

There's actually a fairly extreme field of thought on the topic of drugs. I recall reading somewhere (common news rag, like Time) that the War on Drugs was aiming to be fought on a biological level. That is, that there were certain parties that were looking to cause the actual extinction of the plants the South American drug lords are farming.

Now, knowing NOTHING about the production methods of such things (I assume there are artificial drugs, too, that are made in labs), I don't know anything about the feasibility of such a project. I'd be worried that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Then again, legalizing drugs in general isn't a good idea. You see, just knowing they're out there doesn't help. You need to CONTROL THE WAY PEOPLE USE THEM. If drugs were legal, I'd arrange it the same way 'safe' prostitution and alcohol use are done - brothels and bars. Both are business establishments that have methods to control and ensure the safety of their clients. If you legalized drugs, you shouldn't put it in any random store. You should require businesses that can serve, care for, contain, and help people who may become addicted to the habit, or at least, to keep them from hurting themselves overly much.

[Mr Bean]

And don't forget that you don't know what it does to you. How would you like to have a kid years later that dies at birth or has some horrible thing happen to him or her because of your drug-taking, your polluting your body with shit?

With that attidue how do you walk outside every-day?
There is evidance after all to suggest that all Cancer can be traced to spending any time in the sun not just for skin cancer but any time what-soever rasies your risk(based on studies of under-ground wild-life and the lack of tumors in animals such as bats)

The fact is Joe we don't know what ANYTHING does ten, fifteen years down the road and frankly it will be awhile before we do, You can't say you DO know with certanity that your kid won't die to SIDS because of that burrito you ate or the fly that flew in your mouth and you could not spit it out in time

Face it we live in a world were we know precious little about the very long term effects of ANYTHING(Besides lack of, like food and water thats generaly 100% know, you die, but besides that)