Drug Policy

[Deciduous]

What about the man in the story i posted before, who stabbed his mother to death while under the effects of LSD.
Was his mother not to be protected from him?

[Leshy]

There are many cases where person A stabbed person B to death while not under the influence of LSD.
There are many cases where person A remained completely unharmed despite person B being under the influence of LSD.

As such, there is no connection between using LSD and stabbing people to death.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

So if a child wants to but alcohol, drugs, firearms, have sex and watch pornography that's cool.

Quite clearly it's easier to imagine a system of laws for allowing sale of cannabis, Ecstacy, LSD, etc for people over a certain age - since the same laws exist for alcohol/tobacco. This is hardly complicated.

Same with firearms.

I've no idea what you're talking about the minimum wage since that's not about protecting an individual harm. It's a restriction on business to openly offer wages below a certain level, nothing more.

Speeding is a victimless crime

I'd prefer if we are going to have private motor vehicles if things were reduced much more to an issue of contract. Quite clearly speeding (or dangerous driving, whatever) is only a crime when undertaken on the public highway. If you own 500 acres of land and drive around it at 200mph no-one cares particularly (excluding issues of noise perhaps). Formula One drivers aren't arrested at the end of a race, for instance.

On the public highway the implicit agreement you have entered into is to obey the rules of the road, one of which is speed restrictions. Since the government has a monopoly on roads (basically) you can argue about the realism of such an agreement, but that's the situation as it stands.

Driving at high speed on a public road is hardly the same to taking drugs in your own home.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

On the public highway the implicit agreement you have entered into is to obey the rules of the road, one of which is speed restrictions. Since the government has a monopoly on roads (basically) you can argue about the realism of such an agreement, but that's the situation as it stands.

Driving at high speed on a public road is hardly the same to taking drugs in your own home.

The minimum wage issue is "why shouldn't someone be allowed to accept less money for working if they want to". If they did that the employer could be prosecuted.

Surely you have entered into and impicit agreement to obey all the laws of the land. This isnt the same as agreeing with them is it. Speeding itself is a punishable offence and the only victim in such a case is, well, noone.

OK you get your way and firearms are available to all, for whatever reason.
If someone were to stand in the middle of town firing a shotgun, would it be a crime (like speeding), or would it take someone getting killed for it to become a crime?

[Deepflow]

deciduous, would you mind awfully addressing my argument on the safety of ecstacy (the end of the last page, you may have missed it) as you were the one who incited me to make such an argument in the first place.

if you would rather bow to my logic, thats fine too.

[Deciduous]

in 2001 40 people died as a result of taking ecstasy, not 4.
I can't find the page again but I came across something which quoted statistics of 1 in 10000 deaths, which is a touch higher than your figure
The fact that people die at all as a result of taking it would suggest that it is dangerous.
Why are you so keen for me to justify your own use of drugs?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

in 2001 40 people died as a result of taking ecstasy, not 4.
I can't find the page again but I came across something which quoted statistics of 1 in 10000 deaths, which is a touch higher than your figure
The fact that people die at all as a result of taking it would suggest that it is dangerous.
Why are you so keen for me to justify your own use of drugs?

It was 72 in 2002.

Oh, and assuming that the 300,000 users every week are DIFFERENT every week is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen*.


*Since it's generally a reaction at the first time the drug is taken that results in death, only the number of people taking it, not the number of peoplenights it's been taken, applies. 500,000 would, as you said before, be a good estimate.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

in 2001 40 people died as a result of taking ecstasy, not 4.
I can't find the page again but I came across something which quoted statistics of 1 in 10000 deaths, which is a touch higher than your figure
The fact that people die at all as a result of taking it would suggest that it is dangerous.
Why are you so keen for me to justify your own use of drugs?

it does appear i was wrong regarding my statistics.

however, http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/risk.php seems to think its 1 in 100000 not 10000. It also compares it to other drugs and puts E in the same level as the contraceptive pill and prescription drugs. I would say this is still a negligible risk. Also observe that alchohol, the drug most would probably be taking were they not using ecstacy is in the 1 in 10,000 category.

http://www.ecstasy.org/info/DAWN.html has info for deaths from ecstacy use in the US, sadly no information for number of users is available. However, although ecstacy is rarer in the US than the UK, the increased population probably makes up some of the difference. And the numbers of deaths are shockingly low as you can see.

http://www.ecstasy.org/info/dangers.html also makes an interesting comparison between ecstacy use and fishing. Both apparently have the same risk of death. It also gives a nice overview of the kind of media rubbish and propoganda you are spouting.

some references from you now please

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

however, http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/risk.php seems to think its 1 in 100000 not 10000. It also compares it to other drugs and puts E in the same level as the contraceptive pill and prescription drugs. I would say this is still a negligible risk. Also observe that alchohol, the drug most would probably be taking were they not using ecstacy is in the 1 in 10,000 category.

Given it puts cocaine (a drug which has been proven to increase the risk of heart disease/attacks about 25 times) on the same level as the contraceptive pill (40% of women suffer mild reactions in their first 3 months), I suspect it's talking bollocks.

As to the 2nd one, it only goes up to 1995.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It was 72 in 2002.

Oh, and assuming that the 300,000 users every week are DIFFERENT every week is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen*.


*Since it's generally a reaction at the first time the drug is taken that results in death, only the number of people taking it, not the number of peoplenights it's been taken, applies. 500,000 would, as you said before, be a good estimate.

im not certain either way whether its largely first time users who die from ecstacy, source please.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

im not certain either way whether its largely first time users who die from ecstacy, source please.

Looking, but the internet is crap for this kind of search.

Also, you bias in favour of the drug. If you took the average number of people out drinking (or having one at home) on a weekend, and multiplied it by 52, you'd get a similarly low figure.

Risk of death = deaths/users; your way is risk of death from any given tab.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Given it puts cocaine (a drug which has been proven to increase the risk of heart disease/attacks about 25 times) on the same level as the contraceptive pill (40% of women suffer mild reactions in their first 3 months), I suspect it's talking bollocks.

As to the 2nd one, it only goes up to 1995.

i believe its risk of death on the time of usage rather than long term effects. As ecstacy does no long term damage to your chances of living, it may damage the brain, but not to an extent which threatens your mortality.

Just because it only goes up to 1995 doesnt mean that it is not accurate research, and neither MDMA nor the human race has changed significantly since then, although the use of the drug has, the tiny death rates still likely count for a lot.

anything to say about the 3rd one?

[MrL_JaKiri]

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionst...uest0824p3.asp <--- Example of how ecstasy can kill without dehydration involved.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Looking, but the internet is crap for this kind of search.

Also, you bias in favour of the drug. If you took the average number of people out drinking (or having one at home) on a weekend, and multiplied it by 52, you'd get a similarly low figure.

Risk of death = deaths/users; your way is risk of death from any given tab.

tab is LSD man, get with the lingo.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i believe its risk of death on the time of usage rather than long term effects. As ecstacy does no long term damage to your chances of living, it may damage the brain, but not to an extent which threatens your mortality.

Just because it only goes up to 1995 doesnt mean that it is not accurate research, and neither MDMA nor the human race has changed significantly since then, although the use of the drug has, the tiny death rates still likely count for a lot.

Tiny death rates in a tiny sample space say little, statistically. The strange thing is that I posted the link containing a partial counterargument before I saw your post.

Originally Posted by Deepflow

anything to say about the 3rd one?

tl;dr.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

tab is LSD man, get with the lingo.

Sorry, duder. Oh, and that site which you quoted earlier had the estimated deaths for first time users between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 10,000.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Looking, but the internet is crap for this kind of search.

Also, you bias in favour of the drug. If you took the average number of people out drinking (or having one at home) on a weekend, and multiplied it by 52, you'd get a similarly low figure.

Risk of death = deaths/users; your way is risk of death from any given tab.

i would dispute that similarly low figure talk actually, it would be lower than the one previously given, still, probably higher than ecstacy. + alchohol does more long term damage than E, or indeed any other common drug, except perhaps tobacco.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and re: first time deaths: 'Ecstasy is a stimulant and causes the heart rate to rise as well as the blood pressure.This can push an undiagnosed heart condition to the limits, resulting in a sudden but rare death.Deaths have occurred after between one and five tablets.'

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Tiny death rates in a tiny sample space say little, statistically. The strange thing is that I posted the link containing a partial counterargument before I saw your post.



tl;dr.

i dont think entire usage of MDMA in the whole of the US is a tiny sample space tbh.

and i didnt read it either, i skimmed it, its a skill i would have thought possessed.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i would dispute that similarly low figure talk actually, it would be lower than the one previously given, still, probably higher than ecstacy. + alchohol does more long term damage than E, or indeed any other common drug, except perhaps tobacco.

Given that the only 2 common drugs are alcohol and tobacco, that's not saying much.

And there are 5,000 deaths directly from alcohol each year. For the same ratio to apply as ecstacy, there would need to be about 20 million drinkers each week, which isn't too high, given alcohol's existance at all levels, and ages, in society.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

If someone were to stand in the middle of town firing a shotgun, would it be a crime (like speeding), or would it take someone getting killed for it to become a crime?

Causing excessive noise affects others peaceful enjoyment and so would generally be illegal anyway (same if you went to a town centre and played a stereo excessively loudly too). Even if it was a silenced weapon there is still the issue of reckless endangerment of life (as with speeding). Again, a reasonable assesment of danger is needed.

Kicking a football around COULD injure someone, but in most cases it's seen as reasonable to do so. Kicking a football against a wall right next to an OAP's head wouldn't be treated the same way. These types of issues are patently obvious and we can think of hypothetical scenarios all day but they really aren't difficult. The liberty principle is basically sound on these issues.

And I don't support the minimum wage in a general sense, it's an artificial restriction on contracts.

And you can hardly be said have "implicitly agreed" to laws by being born. By going to the effort of getting a licence is a different matter however with driving (although I'd favour a complete change in the law, as I've said). Speeding is about a massively increased chance of endagerment to third parties, which is why it's outlawed (more generally, but as I say, I'd prefer a contract type law anyway). As I've said though - speeding is not a crime per se, since there are plenty of places you can speed with no legal consequences.

And once again, WHY are we still going on about harm? Cigarettes, boxing, alcohol & poor diet all can cause short and long-term damage. The state is not our mother for god's sake. We have critical faculties you know.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i dont think entire usage of MDMA in the whole of the US is a tiny sample space tbh.

It depends how many users there are.

There are also other factors, like the US's general preferrance for things other than clubs.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Given that the only 2 common drugs are alcohol and tobacco, that's not saying much.

And there are 5,000 deaths directly from alcohol each year. For the same ratio to apply as ecstacy, there would need to be about 20 million drinkers each week, which isn't too high, given alcohol's existance at all levels, and ages, in society.

obviously by common drugs i included well known illegal drugs, as i included ecstacy in that field in my statement.

are you using the statistic of 72 ecstacy deaths for that? i dont know where your ratio of ecstacy deaths comes from. It says on the page where it had 72 deaths cited that other drugs were often found in the system. Whereas that 5000 deaths are those directly related to alchohol (if you are using the site that put it at around 4500 and rounding up.

(this whole argument is awfully awkward with no statistics that are generally accepted and so many different sources with different answers available, oh well)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

obviously by common drugs i included well known illegal drugs, as i included ecstacy in that field in my statement.

are you using the statistic of 72 ecstacy deaths for that? i dont know where your ratio of ecstacy deaths comes from. It says on the page where it had 72 deaths cited that other drugs were often found in the system. Whereas that 5000 deaths are those directly related to alchohol (if you are using the site that put it at around 4500 and rounding up.

(this whole argument is awfully awkward with no statistics that are generally accepted and so many different sources with different answers available, oh well)

I found a governmenty quotey site (it might have been from a newspaper though) that said 5,000.

[Deepflow]

what about the 72?

THERE ARE TOO MANY STATS ON THE NET!

[LHC]

How legal are the supposed legal alternatives to marijuana by the way?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

what about the 72?

THERE ARE TOO MANY STATS ON THE NET!

An observer piece. I think I quoted the link.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And once again, WHY are we still going on about harm? Cigarettes, boxing, alcohol & poor diet all can cause short and long-term damage. The state is not our mother for god's sake. We have critical faculties you know.

From what I recall cigarettes were once marketed as being good for you.

We do all (well mostly) have critical faculty, but I think the point is, that when you're on psychotic drugs you lose that faculty. People on LSD in particular have been known to kill other people or themselves while hallucinating, but how can anyone tell what will happen in any administration of a particular drug to a particular person. Alcohol makes some people calm, while others get more aggressive the more they drink.

[Deepflow]

ive lost critical faculty before when just delirious from the flu... had hallucinations etc. i dont believe i should have been locked away though

also, MOST acid users put themselves in a safe setting before taking the drug. Obviously there are exceptions though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

People on LSD in particular have been known to kill other people or themselves while hallucinating, but how can anyone tell what will happen in any administration of a particular drug to a particular person

Well, exactly - how CAN we tell how people will react to any substance? A very small number of people may react badly (and I'd need to see more details on each case before commenting further) - but that could be said about various things. As I've said elsewhere, one person I knew wasn't allowed to eat red meat or drink alcohol because it used to make him incredibly agressive. Do we ban these substances for everyone because a very small number would lose their critical faculties?

[Deciduous]

But we aren't talking about a small number are we. We're talking about substances that intentionally make alterations to the way we think.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

But we aren't talking about a small number are we. We're talking about substances that intentionally make alterations to the way we think.

The number of people who would become violent after taking LSD I'd imagine is very low. And the same argument certainly applies to alcohol.

"Changing the way you think" isn't a bad thing at all. It's only if it makes you violent that we should be concerned. For instance, if a drug makes you deliriously happy, and you sit giggling, why would society want to supress that?

[Deciduous]

We're talking in very vague terms here aren't we.
I don't have any facts to hand that suggest people are any more likely to be happy than violent or vice versa.
I'm just thinking that maybe we shouldn't find out what millions of people's capacity for violence is while on mind altering drugs by just legalising them and letting everyone run loose.

Have to go to bed now cya

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

I'm just thinking that maybe we shouldn't find out what millions of people's capacity for violence is while on mind altering drugs by just legalising them and letting everyone run loose.:

Well, as Nodrog has noted blanket banning everything is hardly a good way to find out.

But these are hardly a new phenemonon anyway. Opiates have been around for well over a century, and there are literally tens of thousands of users of ecstacy (etc) in clubs every weekend. Clubbing isn't that a dangerous activity, and where it is, it's almost always alcohol related.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It was 72 in 2002..

"ecstacy related deaths" is meaningless, due to be being so incredibly vaguely defined. Does this mean 'as a direct result of MDMA poisoning", "as a result of taking a dodgy pill, which is the fault of the government", "were found dead with ecstacy in their system", "were killed by someone on ecstacy", or what?

Can you at least attempt to make sensible statements in this thread? Your emotive trolling is pointless.



edit: I think I've already called you on your "instant death syndrome" bullshit before actually. Are you going to actually ever back this up?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh, and re: first time deaths: 'Ecstasy is a stimulant and causes the heart rate to rise as well as the blood pressure.This can push an undiagnosed heart condition to the limits, resulting in a sudden but rare death.Deaths have occurred after between one and five tablets.'

"Rare"

How "rare"? As "rare" as people dying from peanuts? 1 in 100? 10000? 10000000000?

[Deepflow]

if this actually works in getting him to make meaningful arguments... you get a xmas present this year.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

"Rare"

How "rare"? As "rare" as people dying from peanuts? 1 in 100? 10000? 10000000000?

How the hell should I know, I don't subscribe to The Lancet

[Deciduous]

Yes, yes we have

[queball]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Have we even covered the whole issues of "it's irrelevent if drugs harm you or not as long as they don't affect anyone else its your choice, ie victimless crime." yet?

No, people are still repeating it.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

How the hell should I know, I don't subscribe to The Lancet

maybe you should stop making the claim then if you dont have a clue what youre talking about.

[Deciduous]

In the absence of independent, unbiased research, working from practical experience is not unreasonable.
Though many of the sources differ a little as to statistics, the sentiment of most is the same.
If you have some hard evidence to dispute these claims then do us a favour and present it instead of acting like a ****

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is there anyone on this forum who regularly uses drugs* (except for SbOlly who is a coke whore)



* No Dace and Rohypnol jokes please.

i regularlly use cannabis and ecstacy and recently dabbled with mushrooms with a view to take more powerful hallucinogenics in the near future.

this of course in no way affects my views on the matter of drug use. I was pro legalisation of E and cannabis before i even took any.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The problem here is largely caused by lingustic misconceptions. The phrase "illegal drugs" (or even 'drugs') does not signify a concept that you can make meaningful statements about, other than in a very narrow context (ie legal).

Well, the issue is usually phrased in terms of law.
Certain drugs are deemed illegal. This might not be done perfectly, but nothing is perfect. In a way it's a bit like age of consent - you can disagree with the specifics but it's not really fair to say the policy is bad because of banning too much. And then there's "better safe than sorry".

And harm is relevant, but not just physical harm. Rat poison is legal because rat poison isn't a social problem. If eating rat poison became popular maybe rat poison would be banned.

I seems totally silly that LSD, ecstacy, cannibasabis, etc are banned, and I guess that's more to do with moral outrage and hysteria and stuff, but for discussing the pure "individual vs. state" argument it's useful to use the category of substances that the state bans and thinks are harmful (sorry to personificate), whether there is physical harm or not.

[SbOlly]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is there anyone on this forum who regularly uses drugs* (except for SbOlly who is a coke whore)

See, and I'm the one of the greatest blokes ever.

I'm a walking pro-drug rally!

(And yes, I know this thread is old, but I got bored and searched for my nick. To find my flat mate telling the world my business!)