Ecstasy is a superior and safer party drug than Alcohol!

[Gnu Ordure]

So, in the places where heroin has been somewhat legalized, who makes the heroin and who distributes? Is this purely a government run operation or is it private sector with government oversight?

In Britain, we import the raw materials from places like India and Tasmania, and the diamorphine is produced by MacFarlan Smith, a private company which controls a third of global diamorphine production, and has been making it for 100 years.

British farmers are currently being encouraged to grow poppies themselves, as are farmers in other European countries.

Newspaper background here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2289283.ece).



most of the research concludes by stating that it is unclear if heroin is the cause or the other things in the cocktail that is street heroin.


Madurobob, this bit can't be right - or, it's only right as far as research into street heroin usage is concerned.

Tons of research must have been done on pure heroin, because it's been used in the UK extensively for decades, as well as through two world wars. That's where the research will have been done, on thousands of people, and only using pure stuff.

And this research must have been done, because every drug that doctors prescribe in the UK is subjected to rigorous testing to establish its effects and relative safety, before it can be licensed for use.

Unless they're lying to us.

Gnu.

PS How's your head, Ed ?

[Space_Ed]

Yeah not too bad. We all had a lecture today and felt groggy but its all good really. I only managed three hours sleep too. Woke up feeling like lameness and instantly thought of the internet rant. Luckily I think I managed to save face by keeping it blatently not totally serious. I can be a violent drunk though but I try my best. Last night was quality though. You just got me at my peak of alcohol induced disillusionment at 5am. Theres a big rave on the 13th but I might be going to one tonight so you guys might be in for a treat.

[madurobob]

In Britain, we import the raw materials from places like India and Tasmania, and the diamorphine is produced by MacFarlan Smith, a private company which controls a third of global diamorphine production, and has been making it for 100 years.
Exactly what I suspected. I have no idea if the UK is as lawsuit happy as the US, but if there were a similar set-up in the US I would expect to see "wrongful death" suits filed against the manufacturer and/or the person who sold it as soon as the first new recreational user OD'd on the legal stuff. Are MacFarlan Smith immune to such suits in the UK?

Madurobob, this bit can't be right - or, it's only right as far as research into street heroin usage is concerned.
Nearly all of the pubmed hits I got were really meta-analyses of health data related to heroin users. This almost by definition is a look into street heroin, not the pure stuff. Thus the disclaimers in the conclusions.

PS How's your head, Ed ?
My head? Ugh - not so good. And the damn meth addicts have made it damned difficult to get the pseudoephedrine that I need to fix it!

[Gnu Ordure]

Are MacFarlan Smith immune to such suits in the UK?


Sure, and in the US as well, since the US buys it from them (Probably. North America consumes 55% of the world supply of poppy-based medicine. As far as I can make out, they import all of their supplies).

What is interesting is that the US makes a clear distinction in law (though spurious in medical terms) between morphine and diamorphine (which are pharmacologically identical, because diamorphine changes into morphine soon after entering the body).

Diamorphine/Heroin is a Schedule 1 Substance, meaning it cannot even be prescribed. As a schedule 1 drug, this also means that diamorphine "(B) ... has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" (wiki)

Morphine is a Schedule 2 Substance, meaning it can be prescribed as a controlled drug. As a schedule 2 drug, this also means that morphine "(B) ... has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. "

Which is illogical. Morphine and diamorphine are functionally the same.

(You can trace the illogicality back to the legislation enacted in the 1920s, in the US and the UK, which was fundamentally flawed in terms of science, but which is still the foundation for current drug policy).


Anyway, the situation now in the States appears to be identical to the UK, except that the US licenses morphine, but not diamorphine, and they import it rather than manufacture it.

So we already have a 'similar set-up', madbob.

Morphine and heroin are used in controlled hospital conditions by doctors in both countries. Nobody needs to sue the manufacturer, because the drug is benign under these conditions and nobody need overdose.

And you couldn't sue anyone for becoming addicted in hospital. As long as your doctor tells you the facts, you either give informed consent to the treatment offered, or not, and accept the consequences.

Gnu.

[madurobob]

Anyway, the situation now in the States and Canada is identical to the UK, except that the US licenses morphine, but not diamorphine, and it imports it rather than manufactures it.

So we already have a 'similar set-up', madbob.

Morphine and heroin are used in controlled hospital conditions by doctors in both countries. Nobody needs to sue the manufacturer, because the drug is benign under these conditions and nobody need overdose.

And you couldn't sue anyone for becoming addicted in hospital. As long as your doctor tells you the facts, you either give informed consent to the treatment offered, or not, and accept the consequences.
My bad - what I intended to ask was about the distribution of heroin in a legalized scenario. I need to catch up on non-US laws - heroin was legal to purchase as a user in the UK at some point, right?

So, the question of a lawsuit comes up when heroin is dispensed to the individual, who then goes home (or wherever) and administers it to himself (or others). Thats where the addiction and overdose issues rear their heads because the people are no longer under the direct care of medical professionals.

FWIW, I've had a couple of compound fractures that required multiple day stays in hospital... and a morphine drip. Those visits would have been significantly worse experiences without the morphine. So, what I had was really heroin (same stuff, different name)?

[Gurdur]

My bad - what I intended to ask was about the distribution of heroin in a legalized scenario. I need to catch up on non-US laws - heroin was legal to purchase as a user in the UK at some point, right?
Correct. It still is legal, actually, but only under extremely limited conditions.

Beforehand, it was much easier to get, up to around 1964 / 1966. The British attitude changed.

This brings up another point. Today, you can't simply prescribe heroin; experience with the methadone program has shown that addicts will often take the drug without using it and sell it later to others, and use the cash to get what they want to get; an addict may for example get some pure heroin on prescription, sell the stuff and use the money to get more but adulterated stuff, with all its attendent risks. This is quite a common experience with methadone programs.

That means if you start prescribing heroin for addicts, basically the prescriber will have to inject the addict themselves to forestall any such abuse. That kind of thing of course massively blows out all associated expenses, which leads us to the very pertinent question, just who is going to pay for all the reckless libertinism?

FWIW, I've had a couple of compound fractures that required multiple day stays in hospital... and a morphine drip. Those visits would have been significantly worse experiences without the morphine. So, what I had was really heroin (same stuff, different name)?
Not necessarily. Both are used, but I am not used to the UK medical general rules. However heroin under the name diamorphine is commonly medically used in the UK.

Heroin is metabolised in the body into morphine. Owing to its slightly different molecular structure, heroin is absorbed faster, and so in practical terms is roughly one-and-a-half times to twice as "potent" as morphine, and more quickly absorped, so it makes sense to use heroin instead of morphine. It is however much the same thing once actually metabolized.

[Gurdur]

.....Please answer my question which you ignored. .......

Oh dearie me, do you think you should be treated with full respect when time and time again you have ignored very pertinent points, constantly raised?

Let me summarize, since I'm getting bored with your constant evasions:

You and Keven Lowe continually pretend heroin is "benign". Your word. This is of course just ************. The stuff is psychologically addictive to those at risk if they start using it, which is around 10% of any population anywhere at risk.

You continually avoid that, by using the fact that IF it is used very carefully and well, the bad physical effects (though not the the psychological effects) of an addiction will be minimised.

But that is exactly what doesn't happen with many addicts.

So your further evasion is to then further pretend that the bad effects of heroin addiction are only owing to criminalization.

Any actual experience with addicts shows you false. Addicts are quite often little twats who will litter a gathering place with used syringes -- and that in semi-legalized situations; they will often prostitute themselves, inject themselves with the most amazingly idiotic things, and simply live lives of all-round moronic self-destructiveness. And that destroys your little theory that it's only criminalization which causes the bad effects.

Tellingly, one point you have very obviously continually and dishonestly evaded is that alcohol is fully legal, is completely benign when taken within medical guidelines, is socially accepted and easy to get, and yet there are still massively bad effects, both social and personal, from alcohol addiction where it occurs. Which really puts the final knocker on your little assertion, doesn't it?

Amazingly enough, these are all facts; and they are all facts which you refuse to deal with. This only makes your point of view not only stunningly boring because of its repetitive evasiveness, but also dreadfully irrelevant to the real world.

In the real world, abuse of heroin is often criminlaized, and then for exactly the reasons outlined; the behaviour of heroin addicts, the social effects that such behaviour causes, and the effects upon the addicts themselves.

All these effects cost money in the end. Who is going to pay for it?

The kind of libertine sociopathy view that you and Kevin Lowe push is wildly irrelevant to society at large, and wildly irrelevant to exactly why heroin is criminalized. All this has been said before in this thread; you have continued to evade it. I couldn't care less what you think accomplishing on this thread --- if you or Kevin Lowe are mad enough to think that a thread can be "won" and that that would be somehow magically significant if it did happen, then it would be an insanity I do not share.

To point out yet again: you have continually and dismally refused to deal with the reasons of exactly why heroin abuse is criminlaized. Since you're only endlessly repeating yourself without dealing with the facts, then this will be my last word on that particular sub-subject, and I will simply ignore any further such twaddle, and constrain myself to talking about anything new and interesting, let alone relevant, in this thread. Cheers.

[Gnu Ordure]

I've had a couple of compound fractures that required multiple day stays in hospital... and a morphine drip. Those visits would have been significantly worse experiences without the morphine. So, what I had was really heroin (same stuff, different name)?


If you were in the States, madbob, you would definitely have been given morphine.

If you were in the UK, you would probably have been given diamorphine/heroin, which immediately converts to morphine within the body anyway, after which the experience and effects are identical.

So, yes, madbob, you have had the heroin experience, as near as makes no difference.

You may have missed out on the euphoric aspect of the experience, on account of the compound fractures, which do tend to be a bit of a bummer, euphoria-wise.

And note that your doctors had no problems with prescribing you a highly addictive drug, because you weren't going to take it for long enough for that to be a problem.

And they gave it to you as a new user, with the appropriate dosage, in complete safety, while achieving the primary aim of pain relief.

Because heroin/morphine is benign.

As you have experienced yourself.


Gnu.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Gurdur, your last post is not only confused, it completely fails to respond to what I have been saying.

You are arguing with a straw man, and continuing to do so in a rude and less than constructive fashion.

I'm happy to continue this discussion if you respond to what I actually posted, and do so reasonably politely.

[Space_Ed]

Hello world :D

Tonight was absolutely fantastic.
Zahra is so amazing and i love her.
My mates are brilliant. Im so lucky. The world is beautiful. Night is wonderful but so is day. Wars could be ended like this. We are all so lucky to be here. What is at the edge of the universe? What is infinity? If the universe is infinate then every drama on television is happening somewhere in the cosmos. It is important that everyone stays together and makes the most out of life. The people who make this stuff can't be viscious. It takes too much to make this properly to be an ignorant fool. The female major ecstasy dealer in Amsterdam crossed the border with tulips. She looked cleverer than all my science teachers. Everything looks fantastic. Music is one. We are all together. Smile and enjoy. If I was stabbed to death tomorrow night then I'd know I had made a good go of it. We could all be losers under Rome or victors over Carthage. See the light see the truth see everything and make the most out of it. Now I am going to drift away to the ebbing beauty of music. Mans truely phenomenal invention. Better than maths, religion, drama.... it tells us all how to feel. We learn.

If anyone here thinks i might be on class A drugs then yeah **** i should go to prison... and get beaten up for having the cheek to challenge the law. I am such a terrible person.

[RandFan]

Well that is one thread that went to hell that I didn't have a hand in *********** up.

I was really enjoying this thread.

[Space_Ed]

If you want to share....

www.myspace.com/spaceed

[Solus]

OK... somebody needs take the ecstasy out of this thread. This is pretty ridiculous, don't expect to win a debate by being drunk.

[Space_Ed]

Investigation into the subjective psychological narcotic effects of ethanol and MDMA:

Aims- To expose deep rooted beliefs and how the effects of both drugs skew perspective. The two intoxicated soliloquies cover similar topics i.e. attitudes towards other people and the subject himself. The topics covered were designed to expose whether or not the claim that ‘ecstasy is a superior and safer party drug than alcohol’ has any factual basis in relation to the subjective effects of both drugs and how the changes in attitude and alterations in opinion could potentially lead to physical harm to anyone including the user. The claim of ‘superior’ is a hard claim to find hard evidence for as superior, in this sense, implies an overall more enjoyable experience. In scientific investigation it is important to have repeats to ensure that the data collected is more likely to be a true representation of, as in this case, the common alterations in attitude and thought patterns. No such repeats are present here. Control is also important in scientific investigation so the changes in brain state under the effects of drugs can be compared to the non-intoxicated brain. A control will be involved to help improve the validity of the results. The investigation would be more valid if specific identical questions had been asked to the user, however no outside sober questioner was present.

Control-

Hi everyone :D. I can’t believe that one post I put up a few weeks ago has turned into doing something like this lol. Okay… People are flawed. People have the potential to be good or bad although good or bad is also down to moral perspective and in no way is it possible to really justify the reasoning that murder is a bad thing. Not beneficial certainly but a bad thing to humanity or to the world is hard to explain based on anything other than emotional response. What is one less individual in 6 billion? There is no threat to the species. I disagree entirely with violence of any sort and it is not an acceptable means to an end. Occasionally there is no other way other than violence to ensure personal survival and/or group survival. However this should be strongly avoided and the tools of reason, empathy and negotiation should be employed until, within all sensible reason, violence is the only method of protection from harm. As for girls, not that bothered generally just take it as it comes but don’t try too hard or get too emotionally attached. I like Zahra quite a lot but I wouldn’t lose any sleep if she went off with someone else. You guys seem like generally reasonable people (with a few exceptions… Joe). I’d probably get on with you all in non-internet communication. Humanity has done very well to somehow manage to not destroy itself. Humanity is actually doing very well on the whole when one considers propensity towards violence and selfishness. Although highly critical of myself I would not self-harm or spend too much time on focusing on my weaknesses. A better outlook is to improve strengths and strengthen weaknesses.

Ethanol-

“right

we need love
we dont need hate
we need nice
we dont need nasty
we need not telling ur mate to *********** die because if he looks at me like that again ill *********** kill him and rip his ****** spleen out
we need not vandalising propety
we need not insulting taxi drivers in languages they wont understand
we need not saying tu est un enculer et tu m'enerve
we need not saying du gist mir auf die nerfen
we need open minds
we dont need pig headed pigs being rude wankers
we dont need scumbags becoming coppers
we dont need idiots calling themselves space ed ranting in a pissed stupor to the whole worl because hes a drunk idiot and wishes society wasnt such a ****
we need to kill all the jews
(not really)
we need to ban space ed for this foolishness and to blow his house up for losing all faith in humanity
we need to laugh at ourselves
we need to shag zahra
we need to stop reading this drunk mumbling crap

if ur lucky u might get an ecstasy love message but 4 now you can all *********** burn in hell u *********** dirty **** heads. ill gut you like a fish then **** on your grave. dig up your body then make your grieving mother eat it.”

MDMA-

“Hello world

Tonight was absolutely fantastic.
Zahra is so amazing and i love her.
My mates are brilliant. Im so lucky. The world is beautiful. Night is wonderful but so is day. Wars could be ended like this. We are all so lucky to be here. What is at the edge of the universe? What is infinity? If the universe is infinate then every drama on television is happening somewhere in the cosmos. It is important that everyone stays together and makes the most out of life. The people who make this stuff can't be viscious. It takes too much to make this properly to be an ignorant fool. The female major ecstasy dealer in Amsterdam crossed the border with tulips. She looked cleverer than all my science teachers. Everything looks fantastic. Music is one. We are all together. Smile and enjoy. If I was stabbed to death tomorrow night then I'd know I had made a good go of it. We could all be losers under Rome or victors over Carthage. See the light see the truth see everything and make the most out of it. Now I am going to drift away to the ebbing beauty of music. Mans truely phenomenal invention. Better than maths, religion, drama.... it tells us all how to feel. We learn.

If anyone here thinks i might be on class A drugs then yeah **** i should go to prison... and get beaten up for having the cheek to challenge the law. I am such a terrible person.”

Results:

Control/Ethanol/MDMA

Use of violent imagery-
No/Yes/Yes

Tendency towards violent thoughts-
Low/High/Low

Propensity to goad and provoke-
Low/Very High/Low

Tendency towards unfair self criticism-
Medium/High/Very Low

General outlook on people as a whole in relation to their moral standing-
Neutral/Negative/Positive

Empathy capabilities-
Good/Severely Impaired/Extreme And Unusual

Coherent and easily comprehensible message-
Yes/No/Yes

Sex oriented thoughts-
Medium/High/Low

Range of thoughts-
Wide/Narrow/Expansive

Logical Cohesion of thought patterns-
Good/Poor/Variable

Mood-
Content/Despairing/Euphoric

Conclusions:

Violent behaviour is only exhibited in the alcohol induced brain state and interestingly enough when under the influence of alcohol the user actively invites violence and confrontation. When sober or on E the user actively tries to avoid violence. There is a strong suggestion that MDMA is ‘superior’ when the effects on mood are noted. Self-harm appears highly unlikely in the sober and ecstatic state unlike alcohol where both self-loathing and violent thoughts are noted. Desire for sex is massively increased under the influence of alcohol and this could lead to an increased chance of obtaining a sexually transmitted infection especially when the lack of logic demonstrated could very well lead to not using ‘protection’, this effect on sexual attitude could incidentally also lead to a higher chance of pregnancy- although this is not an issue that has anything to do with safety although one could argue that an unwanted child can lead to psychological damage. To all intents and purposes this flawed investigation does at the least give a strong indication that the psychological effects of alcohol can pose a serious risk to safety whereas the sober and ecstatic states do not.

[Space_Ed]

I hope this justifies the odd behaviour. I wouldn't usually behave like this but I thought it could be an effective method of teaching. I promise you noone I know would read this conversation as it would be so embarrassing. I don't mind making myself look like a weirdo to people online aslong as it does not effect my real life and I hope will help change incorrect, dangerous and fascist social attitutes.

[Space_Ed]

Addicts are quite often little twats who will litter a gathering place with used syringes

Lol. True though. Twats, thoughtless and selfish might I add?

[Lonewulf]

I hope they ban coca cola.

There's twats that have littered some good streams and lakes and good spots by throwing empty coca cola bottles in.

[Space_Ed]

Gnu Ordure... have you taken heroin? You sound like you might have. If you are American don't admit to it but if you don't live in America you won't get busted for admitting it here. Gurdur is right though neither you or Kevin have really addressed the addiction problem. Yeah what you're saying is right but you do not appear to be taking the whole issue into account. Do you think that legality would mean no addicts? I think if tobacco was illegal we'd have a lot fewer addicts to that. Which is also highly addictive too but, I feel, considerably less damaging than heroin. Lol i am impressed we found out hospitals prescribe heroin. I didnt think diamorphine was heroin. Amazing.

[Space_Ed]

I dont think theres much likelyhood of getting AIDS or any other disease transmitted infection through blood from a coke can. Also if i was going to design a method of deliberately infecting people I might leave needlelike objects with the pathogens on them in public places such as parks.

[Lonewulf]

If we make tobacco illegal, then there would people getting their fix by buying illegally made tobacco, which would be made stronger and more deadly without regulations and restrictions.

[3point14]

If we make tobacco illegal, then there would people getting their fix by buying illegally made tobacco, which would be made stronger and more deadly without regulations and restrictions.

Just thinking, but if tobacco had been illegal over the past few decades, then it may be just a little less harmful now as the vast amount of scientific researc done into how to make tobacco more profitable (making sure it doesn't go out, for starters) would not have been funded.

Or not? Just guessing.

[Lonewulf]

Just thinking, but if tobacco had been illegal over the past few decades, then it may be just a little less harmful now as the vast amount of scientific researc done into how to make tobacco more profitable (making sure it doesn't go out, for starters) would not have been funded.

Or not? Just guessing.

I'm not sure. How many illegal drugs have become safer for being illegal?

For that matter, how many filter less cigarettes are in production?

[Space_Ed]

If we make tobacco illegal, then there would people getting their fix by buying illegally made tobacco, which would be made stronger and more deadly without regulations and restrictions.

Thats right. Criminalisation would not be a good idea.

[Space_Ed]

Oh I did hear that cigarette companies put extra nicotine in cigarettes to increase the addiction potential. I am not sure if this is true but if it is how can they sleep at night?

[RandFan]

FWIW, the experiment is of no scientific value.

[Gnu Ordure]

Gurdur said:
You like to pretend that somehow the evidence on heroin somehow magically "disproves" the psychological addiction side.
So I asked :
OK, your turn: where I have I (or Kevin) pretended that ?
Gurdur replied:
Oh dearie me, do you think you should be treated with full respect when time and time again you have ignored very pertinent points, constantly raised?


I have given up hope of being treated by you with even politeness, let alone respect, Gurdur. My question remains.


You and Keven Lowe continually pretend heroin is "benign". Your word. This is of course just ************.

I repeat my earlier quote:

Listen, for example, to Dr Teresa Tate, who has prescribed heroin and morphine for 25 years, first as a cancer doctor and now as medical adviser to Marie Curie Cancer Care. ... < snip > ...Contrary to the loudly expressed view of so many politicians, this specialist of 25 years' experience told us that when heroin is properly used by doctors, it is "a very safe drug".


At the moment, I believe Dr Tate. I'm willing to change my mind, given the evidence.



Gurdur presents a little argument:

So your further evasion is to then further pretend that the bad effects of heroin addiction are only owing to criminalization.

Any actual experience with addicts shows you false. Addicts are quite often little twats who will litter a gathering place with used syringes -- and that in semi-legalized situations; they will often prostitute themselves, inject themselves with the most amazingly idiotic things, and simply live lives of all-round moronic self-destructiveness.

And that destroys your little theory that it's only criminalization which causes the bad effects.


Really ?

Well it seems to me that the three examples you give are entirely a function of the illegality of the drug.

Used syringes should be incinerated. Recreational users of illegal heroin don't have access to incinerators, so they dispose of their equipment unsafely.

Recreational addicts would tend not to prostitute themselves if they were simply prescribed the drug.

Recreational addicts are not in control of the purity of their illegal fix. Given the choice, they would tend not to inject other toxic substances.

So your evidence doesn't really support your conclusion.

(By the way, you say you're a psych nurse who has experience working with addicts, is that right ? ("Personal clinical experience, long-term, of having been a psych nurse dealing with addicts and alcoholics"). In which case, it does seem somewhat inappropriate to refer to your patients as "twats" and "morons". Or are those technical medical terms ?)



Tellingly, one point you have very obviously continually and dishonestly evaded is that alcohol is fully legal, is completely benign when taken within medical guidelines, is socially accepted and easy to get, and yet there are still massively bad effects, both social and personal, from alcohol addiction where it occurs.

Yes, and ?

What is your point here ?

Yes, alcohol is toxic in overdose, yes, it's freely available to alcoholics, so yes, there's lots of damage.

So what ?

Anybody would think that I had suggested that heroin should be made as freely available as alcohol. Which I certainly haven't.

Which really puts the final knocker on your little assertion, doesn't it?

What assertion ?

Gurdur also said in his last post:

constantly ... continually.... carefully ... very obviously continually and dishonestly ... completely... massively... Amazingly .... stunningly ... dreadfully... wildly..... dismally... endlessly... simply

We get the point, Gurdur.

You like adverbs of degree, and emotion-laded language.

Kevin and I are sticking with nouns, and reason.

[Gnu Ordure]

I do feel sorry for kids these days, where all their errors are recorded for posterity. Camera-phones, forums like this, and so on.

Ed, man, at the beginning of the thread you said:

I wouldnt be surprised if I was the most educated person here on these matters.

And you just said :

I am impressed we found out hospitals prescribe heroin. I didnt think diamorphine was heroin. Amazing.


What's with the 'we', Ed ?


But, while teasing Ed is entirely appropriate (because he's a student, and therefore deserves it), this does raise an interesting question. Why did he not know this fact ? It's not complicated or difficult to discover.

In the same way, why did madbob not realize that his morphine experience was the same as a heroin experience ?

In a word, propaganda.

At this moment, there are thousands of people in the UK on diamorphine. Some legally, some illegally. Most of those taking it legally, in hospitals or nursing-homes, do not realize that they are on heroin. Because they don't call it that in those places.

Just as Ed didn't realize that the legal version in the UK tends to be called 'diamorphine', while the illegal version is called 'heroin'.

This seems to me to be a good example of Orwellian doublethink.

A certain substance exists.

The government gives it one name, diamorphine, and declare its qualities under that name to be safe and benign.

They also give it another name, heroin, and declare that substance dangerous and malign.

And people forget they're talking about the same thing.

Thus Madbob 'forgot' he was taking heroin (as near as makes no difference).


Exactly the same doublethink is demonstrated in the 1924 US legislation which created the entirely false distinction between morphine and diamorphine, which exists to this day:

Diamorphine fulfilled the requirements for Schedule 1, absolutely illegal :

(A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


Morphine fulfilled the requirements for Schedule 2, available on prescription :

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.


But the distinction is legal (and/or political), not medical. The two drugs are pharmacologically identical. If morphine is medically useful, so is diamorphine. If diamorphine is unsafe, so is morphine.

But in terms of public perception, one was branded bad, the other good.

Propaganda, and very effective too.

Seems to have fooled Ed. ;)


As well as the millions of people who truly believe that heroin is the most dangerous of all dangerous drugs.... while the same drug is daily administered to hundreds of thousands of people in completely safety, under a different name.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well it seems to me that the three examples you give are entirely a function of the illegality of the drug.

Used syringes should be incinerated. Recreational users of illegal heroin don't have access to incinerators, so they dispose of their equipment unsafely.

In addition, being caught in possession of a syringe containing traces of heroin is bad for you. Addicts have good reason not to walk around carrying evidence that can land them in jail.


Recreational addicts would tend not to prostitute themselves if they were simply prescribed the drug.

You'd think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? Ah well.


Recreational addicts are not in control of the purity of their illegal fix. Given the choice, they would tend not to inject other toxic substances.

So your evidence doesn't really support your conclusion.


Well said.


(By the way, you say you're a psych nurse who has experience working with addicts, is that right ? ("Personal clinical experience, long-term, of having been a psych nurse dealing with addicts and alcoholics"). In which case, it does seem somewhat inappropriate to refer to your patients as "twats" and "morons". Or are those technical medical terms ?)


I did wonder about that.

Possibly Gurdur is somewhat younger than he claims to be, and his experience with heroin users has been personal rather than professional? It would explain quite a bit.

[Space_Ed]

FWIW, the experiment is of no scientific value.

Oh yes it has no real scientific value but at best it is a strong indication. There you are anyway. I thought it would be a good way of showing the difference and I think it has worked but in no way would that be acceptable in the proffessional world of science. I don't know what your definition of anecdotal is. Maybe it is anecdotal but I still think it helps to prove my point.

[Space_Ed]

What does FWIW mean?

[Space_Ed]

This seems to me to be a good example of Orwellian doublethink.

Like it.

[Space_Ed]

I don't know what your definition of anecdotal is.


anecdotal [ánnik dṓt'l]

adjective

1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on second-hand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation
anecdotal evidence

2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes

-anecdotally, , adverb

The investigation is neither based on anecdotes or hearsay. What I have done consists of firsthand knowledge and experience and a scientific investigation of sorts with questionable methodology and lack of alternative subjects for repeats.

To people reading this Randfan messaged me asking if I really was on drugs. I said I was and I said the reason why I am doing it is because it is real firsthand evidence of the effects both drugs have on the psychology of the user. He then replied no it is not- at the best it is anecdotal. Now going by the Encarta Dictionary definition of 'anecdotal' I do not think that what I did counts as merely anecdotal evidence. I do agree that it has no real scientific value but the evidence is stronger than purely anecdotal.

[Kevin_Lowe]

To you it is first-hand, Space_Ed.

To us it is anecdotal.

[Space_Ed]

So do you dismiss that type of evidence?

Most of the entire history of the world is based on second hand accounts with a few historical artefacts to help back them up. Shall we discredit all recorded human history as merely anecdotal?

[Gurdur]

To you it is first-hand, Space_Ed.
To us it is anecdotal.


This coming from Kevin Lowe. Kevin's only evidence given so far is what he thinks he remembers from one seminar. Talk about anecdotal, and talk about hilariously hypocritical.

[Space_Ed]

Hello. I have come up with the least socially damaging way of handling the drug situation I can think of, based on my own previous ideas, research and experience and the ideas and information put forward by you scumbags:

The first notable change is legalisation of all the major recreational narcotics including heroin and cocaine. Like Skepticybe’s idea in order to be able to take any drug you must first pass an exam on its effects. Exams are undertaken at the school level and will be as hard as is necessary for all the important facts about each drug to be known. At the school level students can choose which courses to take i.e. a reflection on which drugs they can imagine themselves wanting to take. After the school level if anyone wants to take a drug they are not qualified to take then they have to go to a certified retailer of recreational narcotics and get the necessary free information needed to swat up for the exam. This can be got around at the adult level by getting friends to buy the drugs for them- a flaw. However, at the school level purchase of these drugs will be very difficult due to age restrictions as is seen in people below 18 in the UK. So by the time they are old enough to buy the drugs they have been well educated in all the known relevant effects.

Going to the drug shop would probably be quite similar to going to an Amsterdam coffee shop or hippy shop. I imagine they would be stylised as this would help attract customers. However unlike in the above stated shops, shop owners and employees must pass all necessary exams and indeed be more qualified than someone who has passed all the exams needed for purchase. An international network of computers would be necessary to find out how often users are taking the drugs and what they are taking and if they are qualified to purchase the drug they want. ID cards would be essential to prove identity. This could be a provisional drivers licence. The management is required to refuse purchase to anyone taking any individual addictive or other drug over a specifically calculated rate which could well lead to physical or psychological dependence. Example:

I want a hit of heroin. Go to the shop. I am weighed. Deductions for clothes taken into account. Maximum dose based on previous usage and body weight calculated using formula on the computer network. I pay for the hit. Go into a private room and shoot up. This gets around all the problems associated with criminalisation included sharing of needles, dumping needles, bad quality heroin and risk of overdose.

This system would boost the economy massively. Reduce significantly the risks associated with addiction. Massively reduce organised crime, reduce problems associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption because, as we have seen, an increase in ecstasy consumption leads to a reduction in alcohol consumption which as we also have seen is more dangerous. Also when buying drugs the shop owners will be able to help out and advise unlike the average drug dealer. All of the drugs will be taxed and much of this tax can go towards the health service. All the money used for the war on drugs can also go to the health service. Win win.

[Gurdur]

................ Go into a private room and shoot up. This gets around all the problems associated with criminalisation included sharing of needles, dumping needles, bad quality heroin and risk of overdose. ........


Not quite. For the reasons already said, it would be necessary for a health-care to inject the addict, and not to allow the addict to theoretically do it for themselves.

[Space_Ed]

Oh ok well that makes sense. So what do you think? That is the best solution that solves as many of the problems with drugs I can think of at this moment in time. Can anyone see any flaws or put forward a strong argument that this would be more harmful than the current system?

[Gurdur]

Oh ok well that makes sense. So what do you think? That is the best solution that solves as many of the problems with drugs I can think of at this moment in time. Can anyone see any flaws or put forward a strong argument that this would be more harmful than the current system?

I think what you suggest (plus my addition) would be the best plan all round; I also think it would be very expensive. Who will pay for this? Addicts of course by and large are not famous for being financially and socially responsible.

And that is the major question. Who pays?

[Lonewulf]

Who pays for the current War on Drugs?

[Gurdur]

We don't all live in the USA, and the USA is not the measure of all things. D'oh.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that the USA was a major country that actually has some influence over the subject.

For all people in the USA or cares about the USA: Who pays for the War on Drugs, and would that money be better invested with the example given above?

If you aren't in the USA and don't care about the USA, go ahead and don't answer. I don't really care. However, I was under the impression that buying drugs illegally still gets you arrested in other countries.

And I was under the impression that, by necessity, laws, courts, and jails are all paid for by public money in almost any country.

But go figure, I must be entirely ignorant. There seem to be people in this thread that are SO much more knowledgable. I wish they would share in their imminent and all-powerful wisdom with us poor wretches.

[Space_Ed]

Lonewulf- Bist du deutsch?

[madurobob]

For all people in the USA or cares about the USA: Who pays for the War on Drugs, and would that money be better invested with the example given above?
I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

[3point14]

I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

If it could be proved that giving it away would cost less than the 'war on drugs' and as a result your tax bill would go down, would you view the plan more favourably?

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf- Bist du deutsch?

Nein, ich bin ein Amerikaner. Aber, ich liebt in Deutschland.



(Yes, I know that came out terribly. I'm trying to get better at my German).

I fully agree that the war on drugs is a massive waste of resources. I am completely against the spending of my tax dollars on it. I am also completely against using my tax dollars to buy heroin for junkies. Can't I just once see my annual tax bill go down without having to make another kid or buy another hybrid car?

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use. Why shouldn't heroin users have to pay a price for the drug that covers the cost of production and delivery?

Do you really want me to explain the economics, or do you mean the ethics? I'm not an economist, so I'm sure that anything I say will be faulty.

The thing is, do we let junkies rot, or do we try to help them? And how would we help him? I'm not sure that treating them like criminals helps much. Letting the minority of people that can't get their act together rot doesn't seem to be the solution, either.

I'm not saying that the only solution is injecting people with medical doses of heroin if they're addicted. Really, honestly, I just intended a rather snarky reply to someone that was snarky himself with the "Oh yeah? Who pays, then? Huh?"

We pay for druggies already. The question is, do we stop paying, or do we shift the payment? Even if we stop paying altogether, there's still the question of hospitals.

[RandFan]

Oh yes it has no real scientific value but at best it is a strong indication. There you are anyway. I thought it would be a good way of showing the difference and I think it has worked but in no way would that be acceptable in the proffessional world of science. I don't know what your definition of anecdotal is. Maybe it is anecdotal but I still think it helps to prove my point.

I'm sorry Space_Ed but it has zero validity expect perhaps to falsify an argument or arguments that are not, to my knowledge, even being made.

Your experiment fails on many grounds. You are biased, we know that from your posts. I share your bias BTW. You've done nothing to control for that bias.

I would expect that others could carry out the experiment with opposite results.

[Space_Ed]

I'm sorry Space_Ed but it has zero validity expect perhaps to falsify an argument or arguments that are not, to my knowledge, even being made.

Your experiment fails on many grounds. You are biased, we know that from your posts. I share your bias BTW. You've done nothing to control for that bias.

I would expect that others could carry out the experiment with opposite results.

I agree with you end of. I think it does help to to prove my point.

[Gnu Ordure]

This coming from Kevin Lowe. Kevin's only evidence given so far is what he thinks he remembers from one seminar. Talk about anecdotal, and talk about hilariously hypocritical.


I see, Gurdur, now you've gone from ignoring questions to ignoring entire posts.

I answered your questions; you evade mine.

Kevin and I have presented evidence. All we've had back from you are rants and insults.

Enough.





I'll talk to Madbob instead.

Please explain the economics behind using my tax dollars to subsidize heroin use.

The US spent 45 billion on the War on Drugs in 2005. That figure doesn't include the cost of incarceration.

Legalizing drugs slashes that figure immediately. Less crime, fewer police, fewer lawyers, less prison, lower health costs.

In the case of heroin, what then needs to be spent to administer it ?

Not very much, because the infrastructure is already there. The US already imports half the world's morphine, it's in every hospital in the country as a controlled drug.

So in the cheapest scenario, recreational users simply go to their nearest hospital to be given it.

Even allowing for putting more money into drug-rehabilitation schemes, you'd still save a huge amount of money.

And in practice, there'd be no reason why some users shouldn't pay towards their own costs, if they could afford to, further reducing your tax bill.

[madurobob]

If it could be proved that giving it away would cost less than the 'war on drugs' and as a result your tax bill would go down, would you view the plan more favourably?
More favorable? Absolutely. But not acceptable unless giving it away would also cost less that selling at full cost recovery.

[madurobob]

Really, honestly, I just intended a rather snarky reply to someone that was snarky himself with the "Oh yeah? Who pays, then? Huh?"
Dang, we need a "snarky" tag. I took it at face value and it offended my sensibilities.

We pay for druggies already. The question is, do we stop paying, or do we shift the payment? Even if we stop paying altogether, there's still the question of hospitals.
I can be had on the Space-Ed legalization scheme with the Gurder modification, but I have a problem with a government subsidy of heroin.

Do we let the junkies rot? No and yes. I'm all for taking some of the savings from the war on drugs and applying it to social programs that help junkies get back on their feet. Get them educated, jobs, etc... But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

[Lonewulf]

Dang, we need a "snarky" tag. I took it at face value and it offended my sensibilities.
I'm good at doing that. I offend people all the time. Just ask Gurdur, Dustin, Cain, or any of the eight+ people on my ignore list. :p

I can be had on the Space-Ed legalization scheme with the Gurder modification, but I have a problem with a government subsidy of heroin.

Do we let the junkies rot? No and yes. I'm all for taking some of the savings from the war on drugs and applying it to social programs that help junkies get back on their feet. Get them educated, jobs, etc... But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

Eh, true enough. I can see your viewpoint, and agree with it.

[madurobob]

Eh, true enough. I can see your viewpoint, and agree with it.

Wait... what? Are you sure your doing this right?

[Lonewulf]

Wait... what? Are you sure your doing this right?
Well, unlike some, I'm not a contrarian.

But if you must, I think you're wrong because you're stupid and ugly. So there.

Also, your mustache smells like Parmesan. >:P

[Space_Ed]

But, if they want more heroin, they have to be able to afford it. If they cannot afford it, refuse to avail themselves of the available social programs, and resort to crime as a result... they take the risk of rotting in prison.

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.

Absolutely!

[Space_Ed]

When talking to two of my flatmates (one a Canadian Lawyer the other a Londoner Physiologist) they had these problems with my solution-

-You cant trust Joe Shmoe to be able to take heroin and look after himself despite all the precautions
-Growing of drugs in poor countries would upset the world order as the rich countries dont have the right climate (I think this is silly)
-The canadian also said that an educated person wouldn't want to try heroin so to me that means that the exams are still a good idea

By the way the wern't keen.

[Space_Ed]

Comments?

I think that this system would have to be tried in a city but preferably with as little publicity as possible to see how and if it worked.

[Gurdur]

...-Growing of drugs in poor countries would upset the world order .....
Happens already. In fact the major illegal drug plant growing areas tend to be otherwise very poor nations.
-The canadian also said that an educated person wouldn't want to try heroin....

Education levels have very little indeed to do with opiate addiction whatosoever.

[Gnu Ordure]

Just to be clear, the legalized heroin program would be for those (claimed in this thread) who are/can be heroin users while still productive members of society. If they can manage that, fine. Those who cannot hold a job because of their addiction have no business continuing to use.


I understand that it goes against the grain to contemplate handing out free drugs, Madbob/Ed/Lonewulf.

But what you're suggesting is overkill, given the numbers.

If we decriminalize heroin, we make massive savings in various areas.

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming that only a small proportion of society wants to take heroin for fun. I'm assuming only a proportion of those people become addicts. I'm then assuming that only a proportion of those people don't have any income. That's who we're talking about - the jobless junkies. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very small proportion of society as a whole.

So it isn't worth the effort. Bear in mind that on the whole, they're only hurting themselves. Why punish them further, at all that expense ?


It's like, you don't want to give away 50 dollars a day for the drug, but you're happy to spend 500 dollars a day dealing with the consequences of withholding it.

While achieving what ? Does punishing these unfortunate people actually help in any way ? Either them, or us ?

Keeping an addict in jail costs $100,000 per annum (I'm guessing).

Keeping an addict in society costs $30,000 pa (likewise).

Surely it's far better for everyone to take the second option ?

Even if it goes against the grain.

[3point14]

I understand that it goes against the grain to contemplate handing out free drugs, Madbob/Ed/Lonewulf.

But what you're suggesting is overkill, given the numbers.

If we decriminalize heroin, we make massive savings in various areas.

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming that only a small proportion of society wants to take heroin for fun. I'm assuming only a proportion of those people become addicts. I'm then assuming that only a proportion of those people don't have any income. That's who we're talking about - the jobless junkies. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very small proportion of society as a whole.

So it isn't worth the effort. Bear in mind that on the whole, they're only hurting themselves. Why punish them further, at all that expense ?


It's like, you don't want to give away 50 dollars a day for the drug, but you're happy to spend 500 dollars a day dealing with the consequences of withholding it.

While achieving what ? Does punishing these unfortunate people actually help in any way ? Either them, or us ?

Keeping an addict in jail costs $100,000 per annum (I'm guessing).

Keeping an addict in society costs $30,000 pa (likewise).

Surely it's far better for everyone to take the second option ?

Even if it goes against the grain.


I'm torn between the two sides of the argument, I really am.

The danger in giving it away is that it will encourage people to take the drug as they have nothing to lose, the drug will be free if it becomes a problem, so why not try it. This could drive your costs up as numbers increase.

(actually, how much does Heroin cost? I have no idea - the most recent figure I have in my head for keeping someone in prison is £30k pa. This could be very wrong though, so forget I mentioned it!)

I do always tend to lean towards the socialist solution (I'm just an old hippy really) so, as a really big social experiment, try the 'giving it away' solution, then, if that drives the number of addicts up unreasonably, then go to the expensive, law enforcement option, as by then there would be enough addicts on the street to justify the massive cost. :)

Hmmm, perhaps not.

[Lonewulf]

Oh man, convincing the U.S. government (yes, I'm U.S.-biased, I freely admit it) to "experiment" with giving Heroine away freely would take a miracle...

[Gurdur]

.....I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming ...
......I'm assuming
......I'm then assuming
...... Whatever the exact figure,.......
......(I'm guessing).
......(likewise). ......
Well, the problem there seems rather obvious.
........
Once you actually start working and paying taxes yourself (you don't, do you?), you might understand.

[Lonewulf]

Riiiiight, I'd be SO willing to pay lots and lots of money for people to be thrown in jail for taking drugs consensually.

Get a clue someday, you might understand.

Also, please quote me for what I actually say. I did not say ".....", and while I appreciate the funny little creative commentary, it's rather childish.

[Gurdur]

I'm torn between the two sides of the argument, I really am.
.......I do always tend to lean towards the socialist solution (I'm just an old hippy really) so, as a really big social experiment, try the 'giving it away' solution, then, .....

One potential solution outlined by Space Ed and with addendums by me depends on heroin abuse outside that system still being criminalized.

It still has a number of problems, and would only work well for some of the addicts. Interestingly enough, the ones for whom it would work least well are for the addicts at the bottom end and at the top end.

One common but very hidden type of addict is the high-functioning one; the car salesman who is all on the go, hyper and well-off, who will take a hit on his lunchbreak; another such example of an addict would be a medical doctor who manages to still perform his duties very well.

Neither example would be all that well-served by walk-in and registered heroin-injecting services, for various reasons.

On the bottom end, a great many addicts at the lower end of the scale display comorbidity, meaning they have tons of things wrong with them as well, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. Good luck with trying to get those to comply meaningfully with any such program actually made for their benefit.

On the other side, sooner or later you start running into massive ethical problems. A common co-effect of opiate addiction is increasing tolerance. Where such increasing tolerance happens, do you then start injecting them with more and more heroin, knowing full well in such cases you may hit the point of no return where it simply is too dangerous for the addict to ever try getting off the stuff? Any medico is going to immediately object to doing such an unethical thing.

[madurobob]

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.


So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

Cigarettes
whiskey
blow jobs
electricity
diamonds
Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls

right? Because, "once you criminalize them, only criminals will have them." Then you'll have to waste resources policing them.

C'mon! I see no reason why the government should encourage non-productive members of society to continue to be non-productive. Quite the opposite! Governments should encourage the non-productive to be productive and help them to become so. Telling junkies they can have free heroin for life is not a solution.

[3point14]

Oh man, convincing the U.S. government (yes, I'm U.S.-biased, I freely admit it) to "experiment" with giving Heroine away freely would take a miracle...

Well, party politics and 'vote getting' and actually logically thinking things through and applying the best (or least worst) solution are a little like oil and water, you can shake them about all you like, but any solution you end up with just separates in the end. This is true regardless of your location.

Add in all the economic implications and parties with 'vested interests' one way or the other and the odds of getting to try any solution other than 'Drugs are bad, M'kay' and all the associated expense and propaganda are pretty slim indeed.

[Gurdur]

So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

......
blow jobs
......
......

Funnily enough, sex addiction does exist, and I recently heard of a rather interesting example of that.

A bloke who had been long-term unemployed rolled up at one of the employment agencies for a counselling session to do with just why he wouldn't hold down any job for any time.

He confessed very shame-facedly that he was actually trying to manage an addiction by not allowing himself to have any spare money (by being continually unemployed and living on a bare minimum of benefits), so he would knock back all job chances.

Turned out his addiction was to sex with prostitutes; every time he came into a bit of spare cash, he would blow the whole wad * on prostitutes. So he was actually trying to do the best by himself by so severely limiting himself moneywise.
_________

* All puns intended.

[Lonewulf]

So, you are in favor of also having governments provide for free:

Cigarettes
whiskey
blow jobs
electricity
diamonds
Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls


Were you trying to get me to disagree with you? Once I saw the bolded, I thought HELL yes!

:D

right? Because, "once you criminalize them, only criminals will have them." Then you'll have to waste resources policing them. C'mon! I see no reason why the government should encourage non-productive members of society to continue to be non-productive. Quite the opposite! Governments should encourage the non-productive to be productive and help them to become so. Telling junkies they can have free heroin for life is not a solution.

Well, I'm not thinking that the heroine would be given and then the doctor says, "Good bye! Stay hooked and keep going down the drain!"

I was more of thinking of it being provided while providing measures to get off the addiction.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just a quick observation, but it's fairly unreasonable to expect advocates of legalisation to put together a manifesto detailing exactly how every aspect of a very complex problem will be handled, given that the current system is so enormously destructive that legalisation would have to cause enormous problems to even compete with it.

It would be fantastic if we could come up with a scheme so watertight even the most emotionally committed anti-legalisation poster could not imagine faults emerging from it, but it's not a reasonable expectation.

It's also fairly unreasonable to make up straw men about free blow jobs and jam rolls. Blow job and jam roll abuse is not a problem costing society billions, enriching criminals, corrupting police forces and killing kids.

[madurobob]

Blow job and jam roll abuse is not a problem costing society billions, enriching criminals, corrupting police forces and killing kids.
This is arguable, but I concede. I intended this to be obvious hyperbole, but nonetheless illustrative of my point (and how did that escape the mods?).

I think the solution on the table is not unproblematic, but workable. No way I could support heavily subsidized heroin for addicts unable pay, though.

And for the record, the price charged to customers should cover at a minimum:
Livable wage for the farmer
costs of production and transportation plus modest profit for the manufacturer
all costs to run the "clinic" where the drug would be available (rent, wages, insurance, etc.).
Taxes levied by appropriate jurisdictions to cover social costs, rehab, etc.. (think about the tax on a pack of cigs in the US)

[madurobob]

Were you trying to get me to disagree with you? Once I saw the bolded, I thought HELL yes!

Seriously, you might want to think twice about that free government BJ.

I heard a joke once: whats a camel? Its a horse designed by committee. Whats a bucket of rusty razor blades? Thats a free government horse!

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is arguable, but I concede. I intended this to be obvious hyperbole, but nonetheless illustrative of my point (and how did that escape the mods?).

I think the solution on the table is not unproblematic, but workable. No way I could support heavily subsidized heroin for addicts unable pay, though.

And for the record, the price charged to customers should cover at a minimum:
Livable wage for the farmer
costs of production and transportation plus modest profit for the manufacturer
all costs to run the "clinic" where the drug would be available (rent, wages, insurance, etc.).
Taxes levied by appropriate jurisdictions to cover social costs, rehab, etc.. (think about the tax on a pack of cigs in the US)


I'm of the opposite view. I think the whole point of government is to collect revenue and spend it on things that benefit society. If subsidising heroin turns out to benefit society once everything is take into account then the government should do it.

[Space_Ed]

Seriously, you might want to think twice about that free government BJ.

I heard a joke once: whats a camel? Its a horse designed by committee. Whats a bucket of rusty razor blades? Thats a free government horse!

Jeez lol

[Space_Ed]

I understand that it goes against the grain to contemplate handing out free drugs, Madbob/Ed/Lonewulf.

But what you're suggesting is overkill, given the numbers.

If we decriminalize heroin, we make massive savings in various areas.

Bu if we then re-criminalize heroin for certain people - those without jobs - we lose most of those savings by having to re-employ the police, expensive lawyers and so on, as well as creating a new black market with all the problems that entails - simply in order to punish a few thousand jobless junkies. Overkill.

I admit I don't know the exact numbers. I'm assuming that only a small proportion of society wants to take heroin for fun. I'm assuming only a proportion of those people become addicts. I'm then assuming that only a proportion of those people don't have any income. That's who we're talking about - the jobless junkies. Whatever the exact figure, it's a very small proportion of society as a whole.

So it isn't worth the effort. Bear in mind that on the whole, they're only hurting themselves. Why punish them further, at all that expense ?


It's like, you don't want to give away 50 dollars a day for the drug, but you're happy to spend 500 dollars a day dealing with the consequences of withholding it.

While achieving what ? Does punishing these unfortunate people actually help in any way ? Either them, or us ?

Keeping an addict in jail costs $100,000 per annum (I'm guessing).

Keeping an addict in society costs $30,000 pa (likewise).

Surely it's far better for everyone to take the second option ?

Even if it goes against the grain.

Well argued

[Space_Ed]

"Ibogaine is the active chemical in the African Tabernanthe iboga root. It is a strong, long-lasting psychedelic used traditionally in a coming of age ritual but also known for its modern use in treating opiate addiction."

[Space_Ed]

http://www.ibogaine.org/treatment.html

[Space_Ed]

Long story short- Ibogaine is an effective method of stopping addiction. Far more so than methodone. I should have mentioned this earlier. It should be given to addicts. Not more heroin.

[Space_Ed]

Any medico is going to immediately object to doing such an unethical thing.

Hence it is not permitted that they adminiser a hit if it is before the next permitted day for hit from the pre-calculated rate. I think the majority of people will appreciate that it is in their benefit.

[Gurdur]

...... I think the majority of people will appreciate that it is in their benefit.


Expecting addicts to think rationally is like expecting the Sun to rise in the west. It won't and they won't.

[Space_Ed]

Fair enough. But these people shouldn't be addicts should they? The system is designed so that there are no addicts gained from the system.

[Space_Ed]

These people who will appreciate it is in their benefit will be users not addicts.

[Gurdur]

These people who will appreciate it is in their benefit will be users not addicts.

*cough*

We're still talking about heroin, aren't we? I think you will find that 99% of those who use heroin for anything more than good medical reasons (pain relief, management of acute GI probs etc.) and get to the injecting stage (i.e. use it tons of times) are in fact addicts. Not just "users".

The stuff, BTW, is not much fun for most people. I personally can vouch for that, having been on morphine a while for pain management; I hated the nausea and the wooziness.
______________

I take your point about your system not generating new addicts (an important point).

[Space_Ed]

I wasn't so keen either when I smoked heroin. I burned my face by accident with the hot lighter and it looked like the start of a long journey towards looking like..... ergh. I didn't plan on taking it again before I smoked it and I still don't want to now.

[Gurdur]

"Don't smoke in bed in your pajamas,
You might go to sleep and burn your face,
Maybe you could then go to Las Vegas,
Where you would not look out of place...."

[Space_Ed]

The affects were nice though maybe if I had injected it I would know what all the fuss is about but I wasn't so bothered. When I had morphine in hospital I didn't rate it either. Nothing compared to a beautiful mushroom trip or a good rave.

[Space_Ed]

"Don't smoke in bed in your pajamas,
You might go to sleep and burn your face,
Maybe you could then go to Las Vegas,
Where you would not look out of place...."

Lol. Not sure if I completely understand that. Has that got anything to do with Fear And Loathing?

[Gurdur]

Lol. Not sure if I completely understand that. Has that got anything to do with Fear And Loathing?

No, it's from an old rock song.

[Unalienable]

I think the whole point of government is to collect revenue and spend it on things that benefit society.
Please don't take this as an affront but I strongly disagree with that position. I feel compelled to mention this because your position is very commonplace, if not to be expected these days, even though I believe it contradicts what represents some of the moust profound thinking of the past few centuries.

I maintain the whole point of government is to protect the natural rights of man--right which existed much longer than government itself. And everything that we think of as "government", from taxes, to traffic laws, to our military, is (or at least ought to be) an extension of that simple premise.

As in mathematics, everything must start at some axiomatic level where an assertion is put forth as truth even though the system itself cannot prove the statement. I think that the core axiom of the purpose of government is embodied, among other places, in the Declaration of Independence, starting with the phrase:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Hence my screen-name.

By the way, if you happen to be an atheist, don't get hung up on the term "Creator"--the man who penned those words was effectively an atheist himself. Think of it as "natural rights", stemming from an evolutionary heritage where certain social norms were established for the preservation of peace and survival.

[Space_Ed]

No, it's from an old rock song.

Oh ok. If it is good let me know the artist and title. Thanks. I DJ at uni by the way so any recommendations for good tunes is appreciated.

[karmicserenade]

Wow check out this thread, how huge will it get?? Personally I would tend to avoid any chemical drug, opting for the natural stuff...back in the day, pot was legal in the states, the only reason why they banned the stuff was because it interfered with alcohol sales, and the cotton industry..not to mention the racist government at the time, they were trying to target the ethnic groups who smoked it as well. Propaganda all the way.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Weird just weird.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Please don't take this as an affront but I strongly disagree with that position. I feel compelled to mention this because your position is very commonplace, if not to be expected these days, even though I believe it contradicts what represents some of the moust profound thinking of the past few centuries.

I maintain the whole point of government is to protect the natural rights of man--right which existed much longer than government itself. And everything that we think of as "government", from taxes, to traffic laws, to our military, is (or at least ought to be) an extension of that simple premise.

As in mathematics, everything must start at some axiomatic level where an assertion is put forth as truth even though the system itself cannot prove the statement. I think that the core axiom of the purpose of government is embodied, among other places, in the Declaration of Independence, starting with the phrase:

Hence my screen-name.

Everything must indeed start an an axiomatic level, but if your premises are odd, silly, unsupportable or not generally shared then you aren't going to get far.

The USA DoI, for example, pulls its "rights" out of thin air. "We hold this to be self-evident" - wait, what? People in the USA are often brought up to believe this bit of bold-as-brass question begging is deeply profound, but it's just s fancy way of saying "we're making this up, don't ask how we justify it, we can't".

(Mind you, the DoI isn't even adhered to in the USA. If the "natural right" to the pursuit of happiness does not entitle a person to use marijuana in their own home it's not a right that goes very far at all).

In addition to being arbitrary, rights-based moral talk also tends to be useable to justify all sorts of inhumanity. This makes it popular with social conservatives, followers of Ayn Rand and other similar people. By defining "my stuff is mine!" as a inalienable right, for example, you can get to the conclusion that it's okay to let people starve or live in poverty because none of the rights you made up give them the right to anything better.

On the other hand, a premise most people can agree with is "Happiness is a good thing, pain and suffering are bad things". That axiom is not pulled out of thin air, it's based in universal observations about what is good and bad in our perception.

If that's the starting point for your moral philosophy, it's very likely you'll get to the conclusion that if the good brought about by spending money on mitigating the harm done by heroin outweighs the bad brought about by making everyone chip in to do it, then we should make everyone chip in and spend that money.

[ChaoticLimbs]

No way. Ecstasy is so like, I love you guys!! (cry)

[Unalienable]

Everything must indeed start an an axiomatic level, but if your premises are odd, silly, unsupportable or not generally shared then you aren't going to get far.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the Declaration of Independence is "odd, silly, and unsupportable"? If so then our differences form such a chasm that further communication is probably impossible, at least on any political subject.

I'm going to continue writing in hopes that I misconstrued what you meant to say. If you're saying that I am odd and silly--well, I can take that in stride. But when you criticize the Declaration of Independence.... buddy, them are fightin' words.

General Douglas Macarthur was once asked, "What do you consider to be mankind's crowning achievement?" That's a heady question!!! Makes you think, doesn't it?

But the general answered without hesitation: "The Declaration of Independence."

My heart is with Macarthur on that one. The greatest scientific discoveries, the greatest works of art, the greatest engineering feats, it all would be worthless without freedom. The US founding fathers were not the first to conceive of a workable plan to allow people to claim their natural freedoms, but they were the first to implement it, and the result toppled kings and queens off their thrones across the world. You might consider this jingoist, but I dare say neither one of us would have the freedom today to even have this conversation, were it not for those brave men who risked everything to change the world.

You pointed out some legitimate modern problems in the USA, but you cannot point to flaws in the modern American government as evidence that the Declaration of Independence is a flawed doctrine. The problems with the USA today do not stem from deficits in that document, they have other, more modern origins. Many people opine, myself included, that our biggest problem has been straying from the original blueprint.

it's very likely you'll get to the conclusion that if the good brought about by spending money on mitigating the harm done by heroin outweighs the bad brought about by making everyone chip in to do it, then we should make everyone chip in and spend that money.

I think you're overlooking the elephant in the livingroom. Why is it that heroin is so damaging to society? It's exactly because people like yourself, using reasoning exactly like you just described, decided one day that "everybody needs to chip in and spend that money!"

Of course I'm talking about making heroin illegal. This was no easy feat. You need to hire giant goons squads, train them, arm them with the best weapons, create gigantic intelligence appartuses to monitor the drug trade, employ untold thousands of people. Plus, every criminal you toss in jail for drugs ends up making everybody chip in even more--after all, they have to pay for his room and board at the big house. You know how much it costs to keep a prisoner for a year in his 8x4 cell? Now that's expensive.

It's cost us billions of dollars, has made countless criminals into millionaires, supports organized crime, and turned countless junkies into perpetual thieves, all to support a habit which can be satisfied with a chemical that is as easy to manufacture as aspirin.

So while you preach "everybody needs to chip in", I say let's try a different approach... "everybody butt out!"

Of course I'm not so foolish as to believe that heroin (probably the most demonized drug of all in the USA) is going to be legalized anytime soon. And incidentally, you might find this ironic, or even contradictory, but I totally agree with you that government subsidized heroin would have a net benefit on society. There are a lot of things that would have a net benefit on society--but that's not my 'test' for whether government should provide the service. I have strict opinions on the legitimate functions of government, and this just ain't one of them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the Declaration of Independence is "odd, silly, and unsupportable"? If so then our differences form such a chasm that further communication is probably impossible, at least on any political subject.

I'm going to continue writing in hopes that I misconstrued what you meant to say. If you're saying that I am odd and silly--well, I can take that in stride. But when you criticize the Declaration of Independence.... buddy, them are fightin' words.

General Douglas Macarthur was once asked, "What do you consider to be mankind's crowning achievement?" That's a heady question!!! Makes you think, doesn't it?

But the general answered without hesitation: "The Declaration of Independence."

When I think of philosophical authorities, General Macarthur does not leap to mind at the top of the list.


My heart is with Macarthur on that one. The greatest scientific discoveries, the greatest works of art, the greatest engineering feats, it all would be worthless without freedom. The US founding fathers were not the first to conceive of a workable plan to allow people to claim their natural freedoms, but they were the first to implement it, and the result toppled kings and queens off their thrones across the world. You might consider this jingoist, but I dare say neither one of us would have the freedom today to even have this conversation, were it not for those brave men who risked everything to change the world.

I think you have been brainwashed into mistakenly assigning credit for all social progress to the anti-English revolt in the USA a couple of centuries ago, and into ignoring the plain fact that there are many other nations in the world that are much more socially progressive places than the USA. Apart from the freedom to own a firearm, there is no sense in which the USA is particularly free compared to other first world nations. It wins in some areas and loses in others.

I think your claim is akin to a Christian claiming that all morality is the result of Christ.


You pointed out some legitimate modern problems in the USA, but you cannot point to flaws in the modern American government as evidence that the Declaration of Independence is a flawed doctrine. The problems with the USA today do not stem from deficits in that document, they have other, more modern origins. Many people opine, myself included, that our biggest problem has been straying from the original blueprint.


Whereas this claim is akin to a Christian saying that all imperfections in historical Christianity are because people strayed from the message of Christ.

Remember, this is the nation that proudly declared it self-evident that all men were created equal and then went right on along being a nation of slave-owners.

I'm not trying to run down the USA - every nation has its flaws and its skeletons in its closet - but nobody outside the USA thinks the world revolves around your Declaration of Independence. Nor is there any evidence that, looking the last couple of hundred years overall, the USA consistently led the world in social progress.


I think you're overlooking the elephant in the livingroom. Why is it that heroin is so damaging to society? It's exactly because people like yourself, using reasoning exactly like you just described, decided one day that "everybody needs to chip in and spend that money!"

Of course I'm talking about making heroin illegal. This was no easy feat. You need to hire giant goons squads, train them, arm them with the best weapons, create gigantic intelligence appartuses to monitor the drug trade, employ untold thousands of people. Plus, every criminal you toss in jail for drugs ends up making everybody chip in even more--after all, they have to pay for his room and board at the big house. You know how much it costs to keep a prisoner for a year in his 8x4 cell? Now that's expensive.

It's cost us billions of dollars, has made countless criminals into millionaires, supports organized crime, and turned countless junkies into perpetual thieves, all to support a habit which can be satisfied with a chemical that is as easy to manufacture as aspirin.

So while you preach "everybody needs to chip in", I say let's try a different approach... "everybody butt out!"

Of course I'm not so foolish as to believe that heroin (probably the most demonized drug of all in the USA) is going to be legalized anytime soon. And incidentally, you might find this ironic, or even contradictory, but I totally agree with you that government subsidized heroin would have a net benefit on society. There are a lot of things that would have a net benefit on society--but that's not my 'test' for whether government should provide the service. I have strict opinions on the legitimate functions of government, and this just ain't one of them.

Would I be far off if I guessed you were one of those Libertarians?

[Gurdur]

No way. Ecstasy is so like, I love you guys!! (cry)

That is why Ecstasy needs to be banned. I mean, dude, look around you! Look at these guys! You really want to love those? :boggled: No, dude, stay off the Ecstasy, least until you get somewhere nice!

[Space_Ed]

That is why Ecstasy needs to be banned. I mean, dude, look around you! Look at these guys! You really want to love those? :boggled: No, dude, stay off the Ecstasy, least until you get somewhere nice!

haha

[Unalienable]

Would I be far off if I guessed you were one of those Libertarians?
Sure, you'd hit the nail on the head--but I prefer the term "Constitutionalist." Should I label you a "Marxist", or do you prefer some other term?

Anyhow, with no ill will intended, I think we should cease our political talks--we're simply on different planets and I can tell right now that further discussions will be futile. I'd be delighted to discuss non-political topics with you, should we get a chance.

Cheers,
Unalienable

[Space_Ed]

3,800+ visitors to this thread! Whey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Social change! Social Change! Social Change!

[Space_Ed]

Heroin is a 'pharmacokinetic antagonist' in relation to uptake of drugs and other chemicals in the intestine- hence why users get constipation.

A bit of unecessary information for you there that I need to know for my course.

[Space_Ed]

Conversation seems to have run dry......

Looks like we have come to conclusions we can all agree on and noone else seems to be jutting in saying I am a stupid druggy any more. Looks like another kick ass space ed thread basically complete. Gangsta.

I think I will keep commenting on the thread from time to time so that it remains in circulation for thousands more people to see it. This topic is very important to me. In some ways more so than coming to the conclusion that those 'freaks' who say they are abducted by aliens are actually telling the truth.

see my other thread

[Unalienable]

Conversation seems to have run dry......


Awww heck I can talk about heroin all day long. It's my favorite subject.

[Space_Ed]

Awww heck I can talk about heroin all day long. It's my favorite subject.

me too.....

twat

[Space_Ed]

Everyone has unalienable human rights except you... why? Because you are sub-human scum. I mistook the stuff I trod on as dog faeces... turned out it was you. I hope you enjoyed your trip down the sewer but I cannot imagine you smell any worse than you did before. That would take a divine creator.
P.S. Ur mum.

[Lonewulf]

o.O

[Unalienable]

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[Space_Ed]

Charlie The Chicken ate some cheese
Then fell down and broke his knees

[Space_Ed]

Aaron was cool
Now he is not
He was a fool
Look what he got

[Space_Ed]

badabing badaboom

[Space_Ed]

monkey see
monkey do
he saw you
so you fell through

[Space_Ed]

terty tree

[Space_Ed]

blickity blickity blowser
the fly ate my trouser

[karmicserenade]

stop taking drugs !!!! I mean the heavy ones..

[Space_Ed]

stop taking drugs !!!! I mean the heavy ones..

Lol. Dont worry most of the strange writings are just for dramatic effect. These little rhymes are just to keep the thread up and running on the system. :)

[Space_Ed]

I might like to mention that although i did have drunken rant here, that is the most recent time I have been drunk. Despite appearances I rarely use those nasty things... now anyway. Everyone goes through phases.

[greymatters]

In San Francisco, they're opening up a "safe house" where heroine users can shoot up with clean, safe needles. In this safe house, smoking will be illegal. :rolleyes:

[Space_Ed]

WWW.DERRICKCOMEDY.COM

[Space_Ed]

eggs

[Space_Ed]

Mesapotamian Man Munched Mandies Mandarin

[ChaoticLimbs]

Do you want your seratonin delivered all at once and then never again, or slowly through the course of your life?

[Dogdoctor]

I have done a lot of drugs and it hasn't affected me at all in fact....uh.....what was I going to say? Hmmm I swear there was something important I had to say .... oh well

[Antranik1]

I did it! I caught up and read all 10 pages of this thread!!! Hooray to me.

Yesterday I read the first 5 pages in one session and I was very tired. Well anyway, after the 7th page, the discussion kind of lost its cohesiveness.

Space Ed, I know you have experienced profound love and peace felt from MDMA and you dearly want to make it known to the world that this is in fact a beautiful drug. Unfortunately I don't think any substantial change is going to happen from discussions on these forums, no matter how intellectual the participants are. But hey, every little bit helps I guess.

Kevin Lowe I enjoy your posts. Madurobob I like how you go beyond the usual arguments and force people to realize that a workable plan once something is legalized is even more difficult! And Unalienable, you rock!

Do you want your seratonin delivered all at once and then never again, or slowly through the course of your life?

ChaoticLimbs, I burst out laughing when I read this! Great quote!!


Space_ed.. i've tried basically everything you have tried except for heroin. Pot was always a favorite and I had great hopes of it getting legalized and I know it will anyway. I find alcohol to be such a stupid "drug" that I put it up there with cocaine in terms of the stupid high you feel and all the terrible side effects you have to deal with the next day. So I don't even drink anymore.

And MDMA was new to me up until 2 months ago. That was my first time trying it. And honestly... life has never been the same for me ever since that night.

What I did was I continually kept setting the intention during my entire high that I wanted to feel this way 24/7, long after the drug is out of my system. And so it's happened that way.

During the high, the amount of respect I felt for people, the amount of self-conscious fear that got resolved, the incredible amount of love I felt for anything and everything, it was just one of the most pleasant configurations of euphoria I had ever experienced. I thought E was a "hard" drug and I was shocked that it wasn't at all. I was also surprisingly very lucid as well, there was NO mental fuzziness whatsoever like there is for pot for example.

Anyway... how have I changed? Well.. I have always been an extremely optimistic person and now my optimism and happiness has exploded to the point where I will feel like I am "high on life" for many many days at a time. I sometimes scare myself how freakin unbelievable I feel. I am so much more open to talking or approaching strangers while maintaining extreme respect and professionalism. The incredible amount of joys I feel everyday now has opened my eyes that MDMA maybe should be looked at for its therapeutic value. I used to have such a great drive for legalizing medical marijuana and honestly all of that has dropped because the benefits of marijuana in all my years of using it doesn't even come close to taking MDMA just ONCE.

So yes, ecstasy is a superior and safer party drug than alcohol.

But to be fair, i'm on JREF and i know anything I have said is purely anecdotal.

Either way, I support you space ed and understand where you're coming from. Thanks for all your efforts in trying to open peoples eyes up to what MDMA is like.

[Space_Ed]

Awesome :)

[Space_Ed]

Do you want your seratonin delivered all at once and then never again, or slowly through the course of your life?

If you read the thread you will see how this can be avoided. :rolleyes:

[latent aaaack]

So Anatranik you feel "freaking unbelievable" even when you're doing something you don't like or that is boring like mundane stuff during your workday or household chores?

Are you even capable of feeling bad feelings of any kind now? What kind of 'respect' do you have for people who you previously had a negative opinion of or of people that you don't like? How do you maintain 'professionalism' with complete strangers?

I am so much more open to talking or approaching strangers while maintaining extreme respect and professionalism.

That drug sounds good but I don't want to 'love' and 'respect' anything and everything. What about stubbing your toe on furniture or exhaust fumes from traffic or animal torturers? Why would you want to love something that has no intrinsic properties warranting love at all, like a traffic light or hammer?

Sorry if I just caused you to crash into a shaking seratonin deprived heap on the floor with my negative vibes, just asking questions.

[Antranik1]

So Anatranik you feel "freaking unbelievable" even when you're doing something you don't like or that is boring like mundane stuff during your workday or household chores?

Yes. No matter if I am lying down on the couch, driving in traffic, changing a light bulb, seeing clients, fixing the laundry machine, taking a shower, I AM HAPPY. My parents don't understand this, they think something is wrong with me that I AM HAPPY 24/7. As I type this paragraph out, I AM HAPPY. That is hard to comprehend for some people, like my mother, she just doesn't understand how I could be happy "for no reason." But that's exactly what it is, I'm happy because I choose to be happy, not because I need something to happen (or not happen) for me to feel that my happiness is validated. Another way to look at it is: I do not feel guilty for being happy and content with my life at any moment, no matter how busy or lazy I am!

Are you even capable of feeling bad feelings of any kind now?

I'm capable of anything that you are good sir. I have just made the choice to feel good though, life feels better that way.


What kind of 'respect' do you have for people who you previously had a negative opinion of or of people that you don't like?

I choose to love them and have been succeeding pretty well. If I don't like something about somebody, they are just a reflection of my own issues. If something about them is causing ME to feel negative, that's not their problem, that's my problem.

Or try the reverse... If somebody doesn't like me, that's not my problem, it's their problem. They are the ones making the choice to perceive something as bad or good or whatever.

Life is whatever you make of it, it's all your own personal perception.

How do you maintain 'professionalism' with complete strangers?

I just do.

That drug sounds good but I don't want to 'love' and 'respect' anything and everything. What about stubbing your toe on furniture or exhaust fumes from traffic or animal torturers? Why would you want to love something that has no intrinsic properties warranting love at all, like a traffic light or hammer?

I haven't lost my brain. I'm not out there loving traffic lights or hammers just the same way that you're not hating them (I presume). If I stub my toe, oh well, it hurts and then it goes away. Animal torturers? LOL, I'm not one so what do I care.


Sorry if I just caused you to crash into a shaking seratonin deprived heap on the floor with my negative vibes, just asking questions.

That's cool bro, I love you. :)

[Dogdoctor]

The safety of the drug is in question. This site seems to say it has some serious risks
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm
and look here also
http://www.drugs.com/mdma.html
eta: also here http://www.clearhavencenter.com/substance-abuse-treatment-resources/signs-of-Ecstasy-use.php

[Space_Ed]

The safety of the drug is in question. This site seems to say it has some serious risks
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm
and look here also
http://www.drugs.com/mdma.html
eta: also here http://www.clearhavencenter.com/substance-abuse-treatment-resources/signs-of-Ecstasy-use.php

Ive had a quick glance over these and, well, there are overexaggerated claims such as ecstasy is addictive which has been shown to be wrong so I do not trust these sources because they are claiming things that I know to be wrong. Possible brain damage etc is a possibility. As said previously if you read the thread the brain scans are dodgy and unreliable (i.e. wrong). There is apparently evidence that people who have taken ecstasy could develop Parkinsons... okay... but I have not heard of anyone developing Parkinsons disease from taking MDMA. Alexander Shulgin who essentially is the discoverer of MDMA is critical of the claim for Parkinsons disease. Read the thread and then if you have anything new leave a comment. Thanks.

[Dogdoctor]

Ive had a quick glance over these and, well, there are overexaggerated claims such as ecstasy is addictive which has been shown to be wrong so I do not trust these sources because they are claiming things that I know to be wrong. Possible brain damage etc is a possibility. As said previously if you read the thread the brain scans are dodgy and unreliable (i.e. wrong). There is apparently evidence that people who have taken ecstasy could develop Parkinsons... okay... but I have not heard of anyone developing Parkinsons disease from taking MDMA. Alexander Shulgin who essentially is the discoverer of MDMA is critical of the claim for Parkinsons disease. Read the thread and then if you have anything new leave a comment. Thanks.

Well from my perspective it is your opinion or theirs. You don't sound like you have any information to add here other than your opinion.

[Antranik1]

Well from my perspective it is your opinion or theirs. You don't sound like you have any information to add here other than your opinion.

Sorry dogdocter, but it's not just his opinion. Those links DO have exaggerated claims. Before I ever took MDMA, I read everything and anything I could read about MDMA, that's what I typically do before I try something out. So I've read all these links over and over. The wikipedia articles offer excellent detail and reveal all the controversies behind all the health concerns. So try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA

Anyway, I don't think it matters what link I give you honestly because no matter how unbiased the article is, if the reader is biased and looking for what's "bad" about something, that's all that's going to stand out in their head. oh well, c'est la vie.

[Dogdoctor]

Well there has not been any scientific information showing the claims that it is safer than alcohol presented here. I am more skeptical of the claims of a drug user than of those who treat drug users. I guess maybe I am biased. Neither have convinced me of the safety of the drug but it would seem prudent to wait for more data before recommending it's use.

[Herzblut]

Sorry dogdocter, but it's not just his opinion. Those links DO have exaggerated claims. Before I ever took MDMA, I read everything and anything I could read about MDMA, that's what I typically do before I try something out.
So, E has finally reached the U.S.? From my experience knowledge the States are drowning in C, but E is not available. I'm not sure I understood what you said before. You are continuously "on E", 24x7? Daytime, nighttime, worktime, partytime? Well, that's physically completely impossible, so I must have got it wrong. And I would need less than a minute to catch the status you're in. A look at your eyes is sufficient, not to talk about your behaviour.

Added: How can you manage to drive a car when all you see is blurred?

[cyborg]

Well there has not been any scientific information showing the claims that it is safer than alcohol presented here. I am more skeptical of the claims of a drug user than of those who treat drug users.

I think any ER (or A&E as they are around my parts) staff member on a weekend night can make a statement about treating the users of alcohol.

See how many can make a statement about treating the users of Ecstacy.

I'm pretty certain alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there in terms of ubiquitousness, deliterious effects (both short and long term) being the most socially acceptable (now that smoking is not at all really) and the most frequently abused beyond safe limits (I for one will easily break the weekly allowance in a night).

Society in general has a real split personality when it comes to people getting high on their poison of choice.

[Space_Ed]

Well there has not been any scientific information showing the claims that it is safer than alcohol presented here. I am more skeptical of the claims of a drug user than of those who treat drug users. I guess maybe I am biased. Neither have convinced me of the safety of the drug but it would seem prudent to wait for more data before recommending it's use.

Right mother licker READ THE DAMN THREAD and stop wasting my time. Only comment if you have something new to say!

[Space_Ed]

I have been asked to get further and stronger proof of why I believe that 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine is a safer and superior recreational narcotic than ethanol. Here you go:

Bio of David Nutt psychopharmacologist of Bristol University- http://www.bris.ac.uk/neuroscience/t...s/pidetails/80

Article called A Tale Of Two Es by David Nutt-
http://www.sharemation.com/Rubin/E/Tale-of-two-Es.html

Pay attention to the table at the bottom.

Here is an article countering this report by his collegue A. C. Parrott (also featured above). This article casts shadow on some of the specifics but does not undermine the overall truth of the original article-
http://psy.swansea.ac.uk/staff/parro...ecstasyJoP.pdf

Specifically the shadows cast are that:
- By day 4 after taking MDMA the user is more likely to behave violently. But as this is not reported commonly and if you look at the way they conducted this investigation you see that this is only a slight tendancy towards irritability rather than a serious likelyhood of assault.
- MDMA does have detrimental effects on ones ability to drive a car. Does that surprise anyone?
- MDMA could induce serious liver and heart problems e.g. valvular heart disease as is noted in cocaine users. However if you look at the method and rate of ecstasy consumption when compared to alcohol and cocaine users it is extremely unlikely that serious long term health problems will develop. I am sure that it is a bad idea for anyone with a heart condition to take ecstasy.
- Depression caused by serotonin depletion and serotenergic neurotoxicity is implied in animals but not in humans. However, I still feel that these are problems that arise in humans but as stated before I and many other MDMA users get around this problem by taking 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) capsules which can be bought at any half-way decent health food shop.

[Space_Ed]

The above is a copy and pasting from page 4 of the thread and is specifically for you Dogdoctor. Read your material properly before you try to analyse it!

[Space_Ed]

According to A. C. Parrott's article 3-4% of all the UKs population have taken MDMA. So if you go on the assumptions that if MDMA was legalised everyone would take it and that all the UKs population drink alcohol then the following calculation will be biased towards a higher proportion of deaths by MDMA compared to ethanol.

According to D Nutt's article 22,000 people die prematurely per year in the UK because of the negative effects of alcohol. According to the same article 10 people die per year prematurely because of the effects of ecstasy. Now going on those assumptions which will lead to bias towards a higher proportion of ecstasy users dying, I set to work out how many people would die per year if ecstasy was legalised.

10 = 3.5%

So how many times does 3.5 go into 100?

100/3.5 = 28.5714

So, to turn 10 which is 3.5% into 100%.....

10 x 28.5714 = 285.7 deaths per year from ecstasy

Compared to 22,000 by alcohol, "from heart, liver and cancer deaths plus accidents and suicide, but a sizeable number - of the order of one a day - die from being poisoned by excessive intake."

As we have seen, ecstasy is not physically or psychologically addictive to all intents and purposes and so many of the long term effects which are featured in A. C. Parrott's article would never arise unlike the equivalent problems which occur for the 10% of ethanol drinkers who are addicted to it.

I am not sure if this calculation can be considered proof that MDMA is safer than alcohol but at the least it is a strong implication.

[Space_Ed]

Well there has not been any scientific information showing the claims that it is safer than alcohol presented here. I am more skeptical of the claims of a drug user than of those who treat drug users. I guess maybe I am biased. Neither have convinced me of the safety of the drug but it would seem prudent to wait for more data before recommending it's use.


You will see that there is scientific information presented here showing that it is safer than alcohol. I am in my second year of a pharmaceutical chemistry degree. I am both a user and a treater of drug users and professional designer and administerer of drugs in training. READ THE THREAD you irritating person.

[Space_Ed]

I am not recommending its use either. I am saying it is a safer alternative to alcohol in many respects. I am not saying it is a good idea to take it. From a physiological point of view, taking ecstasy is entirely detrimental. I am saying if you're going to take a drug when you go out partying you are generally much better off taking good MDMA than drinking a bottle of vodka.

[Space_Ed]

Well two of those links have expired but the article 'A Tale Of Two Es' is still up and running which is what you should read. The guy who wrote it is head of the psychopharmacology department at Bristol University which, if you dont already know, trails behind only Oxford and Cambridge in the academic league tables.

[Space_Ed]

So, E has finally reached the U.S.? From my experience knowledge the States are drowning in C, but E is not available. I'm not sure I understood what you said before. You are continuously "on E", 24x7? Daytime, nighttime, worktime, partytime? Well, that's physically completely impossible, so I must have got it wrong. And I would need less than a minute to catch the status you're in. A look at your eyes is sufficient, not to talk about your behaviour.

Added: How can you manage to drive a car when all you see is blurred?

Du scheisse kopf! He isnt saying hes on it 24/7 hed be a complete braindead imbecile if he did that! He is saying that he has benefited from the experience of taking it and carries positive elements of the experience with him 24/7. DONT YOU PEOPLE READ???????????????????????????????

[Herzblut]

I am saying if you're going to take a drug when you go out partying you are generally much better off taking good MDMA than drinking a bottle of vodka.
People used to drink alc when partying won't quit drinking because they swallowed E.

You're presenting a false dichotomy.

[Space_Ed]

People used to drink alc when partying won't quit drinking because they swallowed E.

You're presenting a false dichotomy.


I dont understand why you just said that.... that doesnt agree with or contradict anything ive said.... READ THE THREAD

[Space_Ed]

Trying to sound clever there with your smarmy face of an avatar, saying 'a false dichotomy' but you cant even put an english sentence together properly.

[Herzblut]

Trying to sound clever there with your smarmy face of an avatar, saying 'a false dichotomy' but you cant even put an english sentence together properly.
Your 4th post-MDMA day today? :D

[Space_Ed]

Your 4th post-MDMA day today? :D

Lol I took it last night surprisingly enough. Im on my holiday from University and I had four pillls last night to chill out and have a good time. The last time I took it was about 2 months ago before last night. Im quite tired because ive decided to stay up because my sleeping patterns were a bit messed up (not drug related) so that might be why im extra touchy today. But it really is annoying when people say things that they otherwise wouldnt if they read the thread. You and Dogdoctor are just repeating things that have already been discussed.

[Herzblut]

Du scheisse kopf! He isnt saying hes on it 24/7 hed be a complete braindead imbecile if he did that!
Where did I dispute this, pinhead?


He is saying that he has benefited from the experience of taking it and carries positive elements of the experience with him 24/7.

There is no reason to believe this flapdoodle. It contradicts all evidence.

[Space_Ed]

[QUOTE=Herzblut;3267975] I'm not sure I understood what you said before. You are continuously "on E", 24x7? Daytime, nighttime, worktime, partytime? Well, that's physically completely impossible, so I must have got it wrong. [QUOTE]

And wrong you were...... lol

[Space_Ed]

Ja ich bin ein flapdoodle. Jawohl mein fuhrer!

[Herzblut]

Lol I took it last night surprisingly enough. Im on my holiday from University and I had four pillls last night to chill out and have a good time. The last time I took it was about 2 months ago before last night. Im quite tired because ive decided to stay up because my sleeping patterns were a bit messed up (not drug related) so that might be why im extra touchy today.
You know you're lying to yourself. You enjoyed a good time, fine, but now the bill's being presented to you. Try to reduce a little what you owe your body by taking your aminos. But I know for a fact that you need two or three days to recover from draining the cup to the dregs.

[Space_Ed]

Nien, er ist ein flapdoodle. Ich bin ein pinhead. Danke, das ist lustig.

[Space_Ed]

You know you're lying to yourself. You enjoyed a good time, fine, but now the bill's being presented to you. Try to reduce a little what you owe your body by taking your aminos. But I know for a fact that you need two or three days to recover from draining the cup to the dregs.


No I need sleep. Its the morning and ive got to wait until the evening so my sleeping patterns can get back to normal.

[Space_Ed]

The best after E remedies are 5-htp capsules. A lick of salt is quite nice too. But no seriously I just need to go to bed.

[Space_Ed]

Hows my german? Im guessing theres mistakes in it. I havnt been taught german for years now.

[Space_Ed]

But I know for a fact that you need two or three days to recover from draining the cup to the dregs.

A relaxed day after with the 5-htp capsules and a good sleep is generally sufficient. Usually the morning after feeling isnt as bad as a hangover from alcohol. No splitting headache. Just a kind of drained feeling. Sleep is the order of the day.

[Herzblut]

Hows my german? Im guessing theres mistakes in it. I havnt been taught german for years now.
It's actually pretty good.

Oh - I admit I never heard about 5-htp. I checked and found it's not sold in Germany. L-Tryptophan is offered prescription free as mild sedative/tranquilizer.

I know it's tough, but tried eating? A banana?

[Space_Ed]

:D

A banana is a very good idea.

[Space_Ed]

Ive had a quick look at L-Tryptophan. It seems that the body makes serotonin from it. Its one step down the ladder from 5-htp so yeah id imagine that would have similar effects. You seem to know what your talking about!

[Dogdoctor]

Sorry space ed just more biased opinion

[Dogdoctor]

There are two levels of issues of safety on is safety at controlled doses and environments. In that instance alcohol has health benefits and there are lots of studies showing health benefits from moderate alcohol intake. The other is the use as it occurs in normal life. People die from ecstasy and from alcohol and do dumb things while taking both. Nothing you have presented compares those. I guess it might be hard to do since ecstasy is illegal and some of the side effects of it may be related to contaminants however still you haven't shown anything to convince a skeptic that ecstasy is safer than alcohol. All you are doing is giving opinions about ecstasy based on your own use and selected other peoples opinions. As far as opinions go I lean toward listening to those who treat drug users rather than a drug user who has their own self interest in mind.
You have done a good job of convincing yourself but haven't been convincing to me. Go take some ecstasy and forget about it.

[Antranik1]

There is no reason to believe this flapdoodle. It contradicts all evidence.

What's a flapdoodle? Why would I be lying to you? I'm sharing with you my personal experience. It's one thing to say "this is anecdotal" and can't be used as hard-evidence but it's completely something else to straight up call me a LIAR (and a flapdoodle, lol).

I'm not sure what evidence you're talking about either. What evidence do you have of people setting the intention that they want to continue to feel the high 24/7 long after the actual drug is broken down the first time they ever did it?

Space ed, while it's great you've started this thread, you've totally lost your composure ever since the 6th page or so. Put some effort in gathering your thoughts ey buddy? And I don't understand german so that doesn't help, lol.

Dog doctor on the other hand has kept his composure and that's how it should be. Even though we have differing personal views, at least his arguments are valid.

Honestly, nothing meaningful is probably going to be coming out on this thread anymore because of the silliness and everyones said everything they have to say.

So yeah, space ed if you want to talk about MDMA, start a new thread with some new ideas, lol.

[Herzblut]

What's a flapdoodle? Why would I be lying to you? I'm sharing with you my personal experience. It's one thing to say "this is anecdotal" and can't be used as hard-evidence but it's completely something else to straight up call me a LIAR (and a flapdoodle, lol).

Haha! Sorry, nothing personal, "flapdoodle" means "nonsense" to me - don't tell me that's wrong.

What I meant is: if you're consuming E (more than casually), that normally does anything else to you but making you happy while you're not on it. Instead, you normally feel drained and kinda empty, awaiting the weekend to come for the next kick.

[Antranik1]

Yeah, before I took it, I remember I had read that it's possible you may feel depressed or have anxiety afterwards. I'm glad I didn't have this experience at all, it was all quite the opposite actually. Was it.. Mind over matter? I don't know, those are 3 scary words to try to use on these forums. :p

[Space_Ed]

There are two levels of issues of safety on is safety at controlled doses and environments. In that instance alcohol has health benefits and there are lots of studies showing health benefits from moderate alcohol intake. The other is the use as it occurs in normal life. People die from ecstasy and from alcohol and do dumb things while taking both. Nothing you have presented compares those. I guess it might be hard to do since ecstasy is illegal and some of the side effects of it may be related to contaminants however still you haven't shown anything to convince a skeptic that ecstasy is safer than alcohol. All you are doing is giving opinions about ecstasy based on your own use and selected other peoples opinions. As far as opinions go I lean toward listening to those who treat drug users rather than a drug user who has their own self interest in mind.
You have done a good job of convincing yourself but haven't been convincing to me. Go take some ecstasy and forget about it.

I consider the table at the bottom of the article in conjunction with the calculation to be reasonable evidence that it is safer than booze.

[Space_Ed]

Space ed, while it's great you've started this thread, you've totally lost your composure ever since the 6th page or so. Put some effort in gathering your thoughts ey buddy? And I don't understand german so that doesn't help, lol.

Dog doctor on the other hand has kept his composure and that's how it should be. Even though we have differing personal views, at least his arguments are valid.

Honestly, nothing meaningful is probably going to be coming out on this thread anymore because of the silliness and everyones said everything they have to say.

Point taken.:dig:

[Dogdoctor]

I consider the table at the bottom of the article in conjunction with the calculation to be reasonable evidence that it is safer than booze.

That table is unreferenced and goes against what he says in the rest of the article. People have died from ecstasy (he points out) whatever rationalization he may give for it. Also drivers are not routinely tested for ecstasy so where could one come up with reasonable data about traffic deaths? It is just another unreferenced opinion. Ecstasy is an illegal drug so it's use is limited by that. Alcohol is legal and it's use is only limited by monetary (and age) issues. There are no adjustments for that. Recommended doses of alcohol have been shown to have health benefits which would result in less death. Not so for ecstasy.

[Space_Ed]

That table is unreferenced and goes against what he says in the rest of the article. People have died from ecstasy (he points out) whatever rationalization he may give for it. Also drivers are not routinely tested for ecstasy so where could one come up with reasonable data about traffic deaths? It is just another unreferenced opinion. Ecstasy is an illegal drug so it's use is limited by that. Alcohol is legal and it's use is only limited by monetary (and age) issues. There are no adjustments for that. Recommended doses of alcohol have been shown to have health benefits which would result in less death. Not so for ecstasy.

I understand your point of view. I don't agree with it but I think we will leave it at that. Over 9,000 views of this thread now so I am going to put it to rest. Thanks for joining in everyone :)

[Space_Ed]

Sigma

[calebprime]

aww, don't go.

party on, Space_Ed