NATA5HA Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Phan can I come on a night out with you please? I get the feeling it would be memorable I think we need to seperate these drugs into the addictive drugs like heroin and crack, and the lesser drugs like exctasy. I do wonder why there is such a furore over people taking E's?? Its all over the paper if somone dies but millions of people take it every week and no one on an E will ever start a fight or rob or steal! It seems the press want to make it out as the drug of satan but all those who have tried it will testify that its an incredible experiance were you just feel love and want to be nice! Ok some people can take it and die, but you can die from eating peanut butter for the first time!! Nat xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 You're right Phan; all of Canada does have a major grow op problem and when found the police will tear these house's or fields apart,The law can be a little strange because on doctors orders for people in pain,M.S ,Cancer ,A.I Ds etc the goverment will supply cannabis along with the complaints from the use'er on its strength.Most police will not charge anyone found with pot for personal use,but in a losing battle the police &courts are quite ruthless when dealing with traffic'ers. I found this on the BC cannabis industry The British Columbia (BC) marijuana growing industry generates about $6 billion per year in hard currency profits; this allows people like BC Hardcore and those above him to amass personal fortunes and political power. Everyone gets a piece of the marijuana cultivation money-pie – hardware stores, car dealerships, electricians, real estate agents, police officers, money launderers, attorneys, bankers, and retail stores. Some police officers grow, sell, and smoke pot. Prosecutors and judges do too. Technicians who work for BC Hydro, the main electricity supplier, often help growers get enough electricity in ways that won't be detected by BC Hydro's partnership with anti-marijuana police, who seek to identify grow ops based on unusually high energy consumption. And at the top of the food chain, people take a million a year in profit, without running the risk of getting busted or doing the hard work of keeping crops alive. The industry doesn't run on trust, good intentions or so-called "marijuana consciousness." It runs on one mutual interest: to make as much money as possible, as soon as possible, with as little risk as possible. Not being judgemental but have seen the effects of heavy long term use with memory all shot ,i do have my qualms,Isuppose its the same with the drink and we would'nt want to ban that.Which leads us to the question."What is a Drug"? Not an easy question to answer. What common characteristic do all drugs share? None that I can think of, is Vitamin C a drug? Sugar? But basically put, prohibition compounds the dangers of any drug with the (usually much greater) danger of being involved in criminal activity. Phan can I come on a night out with you please? I get the feeling it would be memorable I don't often go out at night, I find things are more interesting in daylight; these excursions are infrequent and as you guessed, unforgettable. I think we need to seperate these drugs into the addictive drugs like heroin and crack, and the lesser drugs like exctasy. I think it makes even more sense to not lump any drug in with any other drug. I don't think ecstasy is a lesser drug though - it's extremely potent psychologically. It does not, however, lead to physical dependency. I do wonder why there is such a furore over people taking E's?? Its all over the paper if somone dies but millions of people take it every week and no one on an E will ever start a fight or rob or steal! Never is a bit strong! It seems the press want to make it out as the drug of satan but all those who have tried it will testify that its an incredible experiance were you just feel love and want to be nice! That could be quite a few different substances that do that. And that is the real trouble with ecstasy in particular. Take a look at this page http://www.ecstasydata.org/results.php?A=List&OldSort=DTD&NewSort=&Start=0&Max=100&=Col1A you will get some idea of how many other dangerous and revolting adulterants are added to these tablets. What you see is almost certainly not what you get when it comes to E. Most other drugs are bulked out with adulterants, but very few are messy drug cocktails like your average E tablet. Ok some people can take it and die, but you can die from eating peanut butter for the first time!! More people die taking paracetamol every year (excluding attempted suicides) than die taking Ecstasy tablets. But death is not the only negative outcome that needs to be guarded against... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSparkle Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I found this on the BC cannabis industry Not an easy question to answer. What common characteristic do all drugs share? None that I can think of, is Vitamin C a drug? Sugar? But basically put, prohibition compounds the dangers of any drug with the (usually much greater) danger of being involved in criminal activity. I don't often go out at night, I find things are more interesting in daylight; these excursions are infrequent and as you guessed, unforgettable. I think it makes even more sense to not lump any drug in with any other drug. I don't think ecstasy is a lesser drug though - it's extremely potent psychologically. It does not, however, lead to physical dependency. Never is a bit strong! That could be quite a few different substances that do that. And that is the real trouble with ecstasy in particular. Take a look at this page http://www.ecstasydata.org/results.php?A=List&OldSort=DTD&NewSort=&Start=0&Max=100&=Col1A you will get some idea of how many other dangerous and revolting adulterants are added to these tablets. What you see is almost certainly not what you get when it comes to E. Most other drugs are bulked out with adulterants, but very few are messy drug cocktails like your average E tablet. More people die taking paracetamol every year (excluding attempted suicides) than die taking Ecstasy tablets. But death is not the only negative outcome that needs to be guarded against... Excellent and well-measured post, Phan. It does worry me when people seem to think you can't equate taking Ecstasy with taking Cocaine or Heroin. It really concerns me that some people appear to believe Ecstasy isn't as much of a drug as those other two, and therefore is safer to take. Ecstasy is a potent drug psychologically as Phan said - make no mistake about that. Certainly long-term use of it can cause changes in brain chemistry, to the extent that modern anti-depressant drugs (the SSRI drugs such as Prozac) may well have no effect on relieving depression or anxiety in a long-term user of Ecstasy. I believe the thinking on it (I'm just an interested lay-person, not any sort of expert by the way), is that Ecstasy can seriously damage the serotonin receptors in the brain. Personally speaking, I would NOT like to be in the situation of suffering from depression, and finding my brain did not respond to an SSRI. As Phan so rightly says, death is not the only negative outcome to guard against..... StarSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NATA5HA Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Okay swap Mdma for E's, but if they were legal people would not have to worry about other substances. Dont get me wrong StarSparkle, anything is bad in large doses. My approach to everything is moderation. I dont drink too much, I dont take E's every week. Im sure Phan will correct me but by allowing time between each drop I am allowing my seratosin receptors time to recuperate thus largely negating any longterm damage. Nat xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Excellent and well-measured post, Phan. It does worry me when people seem to think you can't equate taking Ecstasy with taking Cocaine or Heroin. StarSparkle Ta. I don't think you can equate taking ecstasy with anything else other than taking ecstasy. I believe the thinking on it (I'm just an interested lay-person, not any sort of expert by the way), is that Ecstasy can seriously damage the serotonin receptors in the brain. Personally speaking, I would NOT like to be in the situation of suffering from depression, and finding my brain did not respond to an SSRI. StarSparkle The main research that was used to support the view that MDMA was neurotoxic seemed to indicate that the main site of permanent damage was the Substantia Nigra, and that the damage was related to the dopaminergic system Unfortunately, it turns out the test samples supplied to the lab carrying out the research actually had methamphetamine in them. No surprises that it caused damage then... Recent research has indicated that it has pretty low neurotoxicity, it certainly has value as a therapeutic drug, and that there are encouraging results when it is given to victims of Parkinsonism or Parkinsons Disease... The data on serotonergic damage is simply not available. There are several issues related to MDMA neurotoxicity: 1. Do persistent reductions in serotonin levels in humans result from taking MDMA? If so, from what doses and frequency? 2. If there are persistent reductions, are they temporary or permanent? 3. If there are persistent reductions in serotonin levels in humans under any circumstances, do these reductions have any functional or behavioral consequences? In other words, does MDMA cause lowered serotonin levels and, if so, does it matter? The answer to the first question is that there is some suggestive evidence that there are serotonin reductions in a group of people who have taken MDMA an average of 90 or more times [1,2,3]. However, this evidence is not conclusive, since MDMA users were compared to matched control groups, which may or may not be matched on all factors that impact on serotonin levels. The most persuasive evidence would come from studies in which MDMA-naive subjects were tested, then given multiple exposures to MDMA, then tested again. Unfortunately, no studies of this sort have been conducted. But it is not stretching the truth to say that there are far more dangerous drugs available over the counter at Boots, than MDMA. The clubber's problem is whether the pill contains any MDMA at all, and whether there's any amitriptyline, fentanyl or the lovely 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine Monohydrochloride in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Im sure Phan will correct me but by allowing time between each drop I am allowing my serotonin receptors time to recuperate thus largely negating any longterm damage. We don't know. There is no data, epidemiological or experimental. That is the problem. Again, prohibition - which makes research very difficult - compounds the dangers. Anecdotally, millions seem to be happily popping pills every weekend without having any more problems than the millions who get intoxicated by ethanol. But, answer me this: an open question to anyone reading this - if you took ecstasy in 1988 how many did you take on a typical 'night out'. And if you took ecstasy in 2006, how many did you take on a typical night out? And how much did you pay per tablet. My suspicion is that the sinking price and strength of tablets means that tablets have less mdma in them and more cheap psychoactives than ever before. Until we know what the "youth of today" are actually necking then there's no way to predict the outcomes. Thanks again, to prohibition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSparkle Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 The clubber's problem is whether the pill contains any MDMA at all, and whether there's any amitriptyline, fentanyl or the lovely 3-Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine Monohydrochloride in it... I guess the problem of not knowing exactly what it is you're buying and ingesting is an instrinsic problem of having to obtain your illegal drug(s) of choice from a necessarily illegal and therefore unregulated source..... I would imagine that this is one danger of taking drugs that would no longer exist if drugs were legalised. This is one of the main reasons why I think drugs should be legalised, so that the substances that are actually in them will be controlled. StarSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I guess the problem of not knowing exactly what it is you're buying and ingesting is an instrinsic problem of having to obtain your illegal drug(s) of choice from a necessarily illegal and therefore unregulated source..... I would imagine that this is one danger of taking drugs that would no longer exist if drugs were legalised. This is one of the main reasons why I think drugs should be legalised, so that the substances that are actually in them will be controlled. StarSparkle Exactly. Of course some substances are absolutely unmistakeable, and passing off of other substances or adulterants is rare. Cured cannabis flowers, for example, are rarely tampered with. Cheap hash, on the other hand will probably contain animal dung, vinyl, vegetable oil, shoe polish, even gravy browning.... Sometimes the dangers come with the route of administration: Heroin,Cocaine and Cannabis are prime examples. Injecting yourself intravenously is always risky, and repeated intravenous injection will inevitably cause damage to blood vessels. Snorting highly caustic local anaesthetic (cocaine) up your nose may make you feel godlike, but because of its anaesthetic prooperties, you can't feel the cocaine eating away at your mucous membranes. Cannabis, when smoked, especially with tobacco, causes irritation, deposits petrochemicals in the lungs and increases the risk of cancer. Unfortunately, due to prohibition, any harm reduction advice suddenly takes on the appearance of active encouragement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 But if we have potentially life-saving cheap drugs tester kits in nightclubs, and free advice to everyone about how to look after their friends on a night out, won't that mean that the government condones drugs? Won't that make everyone start taking ecstasy all the time, even at work, and potentially harbour thoughts of killing their own children?!?! What about that, you pro-drug junkie chem-heads!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestphoto Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think it will certainly encourage people to take more risks, they'll feel safer (if thats possible) about taking drugs. It will lead to an influx in young people dabbling in drugs, what might start with one ecstasy tablet could progress rapidly into a dangerous addiction soon followed by death. I think that if this does happen crime rate may also increase, as would the number of people working in the sex trade. There is already an increase in violent crime, thats the reported stuff. Think of all the victims that there WILL be if drugs become legal and common place. Any government that supports, aides or legalises the taking of drugs is acting against the best interests of the country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.