Jump to content

Change Mode

ectasy rising


hydrotaoist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ouch... my liver rolled over just reading this thread.

If your reading this and considering taking a chemical

in pill form to , "feel so good", talk to your family

physician first. Seriously..he/she will explain the whole

process to you in great detail.

Think about 20 years from now! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deppression as an after effect seems to be quite common among the SSRI drugs (I am not sure if MDMA is a similar mechanism), your brain needs to rebalance it's chemistry.

 

When you consistantly force a particular part too work overtime it eventually wears out... on an elbow or a knee you can wrap it or support it or get surgery.

 

They haven't figured out brain transplants just yet. (Doc's been looking for volunteers though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I really wonder.

 

In its current form, it's potentially mixed with other stuff, it's sold by shady dealers, and it's...?expensive?...(I don't know. Maybe someone can enlighten me.)

 

Government is against it because amongst other things they're not getting any money out of it.

 

Suppose, that if this drug was made available at all retail chemists (drug stores) for a cheap price with warning labels, just like tobacco, would it make things better?

 

1. The government can control the purity.

2. It eliminates the shady dealer in the corner of the club.

3. The price reduction means a person doesn't have to resort to crime to pay for outlawed amphetamines.

4. Takers are well informed of the potential risks, just like all the smokers out there today.

 

Watching the video, what really riled me up was Mrs Reagan. It sounds to me like she just has a personal vendetta against drugs, leaving logic aside, and ignoring peoples life choices. She's dragging religion into it by saying "to see it (life) in the vivid colours that God gave us", then making it policy and forcing everybody to abide by it.

 

EDIT: Grammar Check

Edited by inedibleshoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I really wonder.

 

In its current form, it's potentially mixed with other stuff, it's sold by shady dealers, and it's...?expensive?...(I don't know. Maybe someone can enlighten me.)

 

Government is against it because amongst other things they're not getting any money out of it.

 

Suppose, that if this drug was made available at all retail chemists (drug stores) for a cheap price with warning labels, just like tobacco, would it make things better?

 

1. The government can control the purity.

2. It eliminates the shady dealer in the corner of the club.

3. The price reduction means a person doesn't have to resort to crime to pay for outlawed amphetamines.

4. Takers are well informed of the potential risks, just like all the smokers out there today.

 

Watching the video, what really riled me up was Mrs Reagan. It sounds to me like she just has a personal vendetta against drugs, leaving logic aside, and ignoring peoples life choices. She's dragging religion into it by saying "to see it (life) in the vivid colours that God gave us", then making it policy and forcing everybody to abide by it.

 

EDIT: Grammar Check

 

 

Mrs. Reagan does indeed have a personal vendetta against drugs. That is clear and I am confident that she would not deny that...she would be proud of it. She is extreme to the point of naive on the matter.

 

As far as controlling purity, that is only one aspect of the danger. The drug itself is dangerous.

 

As for the money, I don't believe that the fact that the government gets no money out of it has anything at all to do with it being illegal. That is counter-intuitive and a contradiction. If they wanted money out of it they certainly wouldn't make it illegal...they would tax it.

 

Although I understand your position, I don't agree with it. I don't believe that decreased price and increased availability would result in anything but an increase in abuse and an increase in healthcare costs (deaths, injuries, dependency), as well as detrimental effects on society in general.

 

As far as the street prices it ranges, but anything is expensive. The expense isn't measured in dollars, it is measured in lives, quality of life, and damage to society. Just consider the high proportion of people who already use recreational drugs that do not actually have the disposable income to do so. What is the actual impact on their lives?

 

Using tobacco and alcohol as a model is flawed I believe. It justifies and legitimizes their use. I believe that the current legal status of alcohol and tobacco and their prevalence in our society is to be seen as a problem not a solution. The current situation with those drugs is something to be resolved, not use as a model for other drugs.

 

As it stands we have a higher proportion of people becoming parents in this country than graduating high school. I see that as both a problem itself and an indication of greater problems. Recreational drug use is, I am convinced, part of that equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good arguments there Chopdoc.

 

The percentage of risk is quite a debatable point. We have one government funded study that shows one extreme, then we have another study that says the complete opposite.

 

What needs to happen is more study, to bring conclusive evidence to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can be difficult. Science can take a great deal of time reaching precise conclusions in such matters. The problem is very present.

Nonetheless I do support continued research of course.

 

 

What do we do in the mean time?

 

I think it comes down to some essential questions for society. Who are we? Who do we want to be?

 

This is big picture stuff.

 

 

Obviously people have the right to be self actualized. People should have their liberty. What does society have? How do those things relate?

 

 

For me the ideal would be that nobody uses drugs recreationally, that nobody even wants to. I understand that is very idealistic. The realistic application is to promote anything that moves in that direction.

For me legalization, legitimization of use, and other such things simply move in the wrong direction. All of this is regardless of what the research says, regardless how exactly how damaging or dangerous any drug might be. There simply are no drugs safe enough for something as frivolous as recreational use in my view. Will there ever be? Good question. I don't deny it is possible.

 

With this in mind by default any drug in recreational use is undesirable. It should be illegal by default. If it is potentially "safe enough" for recreational use, the burden of proof is on those who assert it is safe enough.

 

All this is the sort of philosophical side for me of course.

 

 

 

 

Speaking of the science. Yes, there are strikingly conflicting results. But that is science. We don't discard data just because we don't like it. We certainly don't toss out an entire body of knowledge because part of it may not be accurate. I understand that such a situation frustrates people and causes them to swing to extremes and disparage any and all science on the matter and conclude that their desire, whatever it might be, is correct by default just because it's what they want and "science is stupid".

 

Even without precise scietific conclusion we can make certain reasonable assumtions and/or extrapolations and move forward with them.

 

I can say that the drug is dangerous and not fit for reacreational consumption without hesitation. I have no fear that I might be wrong. I am simply confident in that. The body of knowledge available supports that I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legalizing E would be a horrible horrible mistake. No thank you. :tdn:

 

...gotta wonder why everyone is being so hard on hydro though, he didn't promote doing the drug. He understood the potential consequences, took measures to limit said consequences, and made a personal choice to take the drug. He found out first hand its affects and shared his experience and gave that to us with a personal warning about it along with a video. Why is everyone so judgemental here?

Edited by Neo X1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people are being too hard in general.

 

Presenting the approach of using a test kit only promotes use. Even with a warning etc I see it as promotion.

 

I think the discussion has been reasonable.

 

 

Judgemental? Perhaps, yes. Why is it that judging something or someone has become necessarily a bad thing?

 

Trying such a thing is not a "good" thing. I make that judgement. I am comfortable with it. Attemting to minimize risk with a test is not a wise thing, though it is somehow advanced as demonstrating some wisdom. I believe it is promotion and not a "good" thing. I make that judgement and I am comfortable with it.

 

 

 

Judging that people are "judgemental" is itself judgemental. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...