JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags alcohol use , drug use issues , ecstasy

Reply
Old 27th September 2007, 10:43 AM   #81
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
No, actually, it isn't. It is a Rod Stewart song. Rod Stewart is Scottish, grew up in England.Yes. And? "Magdalena Mayo"?Hey, it is your thread, you can participate in the discussion or not... seems like you'd want to. *shrugs*
Hahaha very good. Best thing uve said here

Yeah just please be reasonable and not so dismissive of other peoples ideas. You seem to think only idiots take drugs. I assure you that is not the case.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:06 AM   #82
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Unhappy

Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
Thank you for providing the perfect exaple of why escastcy needs to be regulated. After reading this a second time it scares me even more that you think it's safe. I oringally thought sever days in a row but weekends? That makes beer and smoking look tame.
The massive serotonin depletion is similar to liver damage with alcohol. You have to just as irresponsible for both to happen. In my opinion. However, you would have to take less ecstasy than the amount of alcohol you'd have to drink to cause brain damage which is equal to the severity of liver damage, I think. Alcohol also attacks the human brain. I wouldn't be surprised if ecstasy infact does cause some form of brain damage although the results are inconclusive at the moment. I understand what you are saying and agree to a large extent. I agree entirely with 'regulated' but this does not in my view mean that it should be illegal. After several weekends e.g. 2 months use every weekend people can start to feel a bit down. Taking serotonin capsules gets rid of this feeling. Actual brain damage and severe serotonin depletion is seen in very heavy users i.e. people who take it twice a week for years. From what I have read these people are very rare (and genrally very foolish from what I have gathered) and also totally uneducated about it. Current education methods often don't explain these real dangers and this type of problem can be avoided with proper education rather than the "Don't Do Drugs" approach which as everyone will agree on this: Doesn't work.

Ill look at it the other way. If we keep it illegal then there will still be millions (and rising) of users getting dodgy pills with god only knows what in it who are uneducated about the risks and not trusting the governemnts message. No money being made on tax which could go into the health system.

If legal there would be more users (ofcourse how many is a BIG unknown) I don't think myself that there would be a dramatic increase in users. There would be a fall in violent crime and sexual assault (through alcohol). Billions of dollars will be made. People will know what they are getting. Like I said before there would be tax on them and this tax could go towards the health system.

Again it is better for everyones health that all drugs are banned. They won't be. I think legalisation of ecstasy would not have a significant detrimental effect on public health and I foresee a reduction in alcohol related crime.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:15 AM   #83
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,788
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
The massive serotonin depletion is similar to liver damage with alcohol. You have to just as irresponsible for both to happen. In my opinion. However, you would have to take less ecstasy than the amount of alcohol you'd have to drink to cause brain damage which is equal to the severity of liver damage, I think. Alcohol also attacks the human brain. I wouldn't be surprised if ecstasy infact does cause some form of brain damage although the results are inconclusive at the moment. I understand what you are saying and agree to a large extent. I agree entirely with 'regulated' but this does not in my view mean that it should be illegal. After several weekends e.g. 2 months use every weekend people can start to feel a bit down. Taking serotonin capsules gets rid of this feeling. Actual brain damage and severe serotonin depletion is seen in very heavy users i.e. people who take it twice a week for years. From what I have read these people are very rare (and genrally very foolish from what I have gathered) and also totally uneducated about it. Current education methods often don't explain these real dangers and this type of problem can be avoided with proper education rather than the "Don't Do Drugs" approach which as everyone will agree on this: Doesn't work.

Ill look at it the other way. If we keep it illegal then there will still be millions (and rising) of users getting dodgy pills with god only knows what in it who are uneducated about the risks and not trusting the governemnts message. No money being made on tax which could go into the health system.

If legal there would be more users (ofcourse how many is a BIG unknown) I don't think myself that there would be a dramatic increase in users. There would be a fall in violent crime and sexual assault (through alcohol). Billions of dollars will be made. People will know what they are getting. Like I said before there would be tax on them and this tax could go towards the health system.

Again it is better for everyones health that all drugs are banned. They won't be. I think legalisation of ecstasy would not have a significant detrimental effect on public health and I foresee a reduction in alcohol related crime.
Except you yourself admitted that it happens if you take it five weekends straight. The effects are nil to slightly damaging with alcohol at that rate. Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:37 AM   #84
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
Except you yourself admitted that it happens if you take it five weekends straight. The effects are nil to slightly damaging with alcohol at that rate. Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.
That is true. And so it is important to realise that with MDMA you are dealing with an entirely different kettle of fish if you see what I mean. The risks of the one are very different to the other. I dont think that that particular risk is any worse than many of alcohols specific risks such as violence and drinking so much you die- as is also possible with MDMA.

I have got the feeling that none of what I just said will make you consider changing your mind. It looks like we might have to agree to disagree. I believe that a positive social system surrounding MDMA which is informative, legal and not persecutive is better than a sytem which is based on lies, prejudice and results in further infringement of personal human rights (i.e. imprisonment). As the negative effects of the two substances are about equal* I dont see why all the negative social problems that arrise with it being illegal are worth it when they are just as bad as each other.

Here is a demonstration of some of the costs to society in maintaining its illegal status:

http://www.filecabi.net/video/ravewithpopo.html

Can't help whats around it lol. This was a legally organised rave. They had permission to play there. A girl getting kicked in the chest by four men was one of the many attrocities witnessed. Does what they are doing look so wrong to you? Fair play it isn't to everyones taste but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Also lots of people here wern't taking drugs and they got beaten up anyway.


*I think alcohol is worse but that might be due to my personal experience of the two substances working in society and is perhaps not representative of the world as a whole (but I think it probably is)

Last edited by Space_Ed; 27th September 2007 at 11:40 AM.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:39 AM   #85
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.
I don't understand this. It can be used to help depression when used once in a good setting with a professional psychiatrist who knows what they are doing. It is DEFINATELY not to be used like antidepressants are used!
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:43 AM   #86
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,276
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
Hahaha very good. Best thing uve said here

Yeah just please be reasonable and not so dismissive of other peoples ideas. You seem to think only idiots take drugs. I assure you that is not the case.
Idiots spread misinformation about drugs to justify or rationalize their use. And, for some reason, those idiots think that the fact that some of the anti-drug rhetoric is dishonest means that it is acceptable to counter it with dishonest rhetoric of their own. And, then, because people feel that they have been lied to, they accept the lies that go in the other direction.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:50 AM   #87
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
I swear I am trying to be as reasonable as possible. My uncle is a London based highcourt judge and he thinks it should be legal and he has never taken it, hes about 50 years old. Lots of non-users and users agree with that it should be legal. I am trying to be honest I would consider myself a very honest person.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 11:51 AM   #88
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed
I was going to say yes I'd pay that much but then after the other guys comment I asked my mum how much rock climbing insurance is. It's a few hundred so I think thats how much you'd pay. Insurance is a competative market and I am sure that the companies would compete with each other and the price would reduce itself to a reasonable amount which is representative of the risk.
Not much of a head for business, eh?

Here is just an example of why the price would be high: Because no-one has been able to produce any reliable evidence that Ex use has very little health risk, no existing health insurance company is going to offer Ex insurance. So, specialized companies will arise that offer nothing but drugs insurance. They too will not be able to convince their investors that this is a safe bet unless they charge a lot for the policy and screen applicants very well. They will also know that as soon as you are admitted to hospital for any ailment that your standard health insurance company, the big one with the stable of lawyers, will deny your claim and insist that whatever you are in for is Ex related and must be paid by your Ex insurance rider (for instance - you dall and break your arm). Ultimately this becomes a legal battle between your two insurance carriers. You Ex insurance company will have to factor all this expected legal cost into your premium. I assure you, it will be quite high.

And this doesn't even begin to cover liability insurance the Ex insurance company would have to cover for any dumb things you do while high (fall and break someone else's arm).

I mean, srsly, you cannot even provide convincing evidence to people on this forum that Ex is safer than alcohol, and you think you can persuade insurance companies to cover that risk for a couple hundred bucks a year?

Not gonna happen. I think you're gonna have to stay sober under the Madurobob legislation.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:00 PM   #89
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Not much of a head for business, eh?

Here is just an example of why the price would be high: Because no-one has been able to produce any reliable evidence that Ex use has very little health risk, no existing health insurance company is going to offer Ex insurance. So, specialized companies will arise that offer nothing but drugs insurance. They too will not be able to convince their investors that this is a safe bet unless they charge a lot for the policy and screen applicants very well. They will also know that as soon as you are admitted to hospital for any ailment that your standard health insurance company, the big one with the stable of lawyers, will deny your claim and insist that whatever you are in for is Ex related and must be paid by your Ex insurance rider (for instance - you dall and break your arm). Ultimately this becomes a legal battle between your two insurance carriers. You Ex insurance company will have to factor all this expected legal cost into your premium. I assure you, it will be quite high.

And this doesn't even begin to cover liability insurance the Ex insurance company would have to cover for any dumb things you do while high (fall and break someone else's arm).

I mean, srsly, you cannot even provide convincing evidence to people on this forum that Ex is safer than alcohol, and you think you can persuade insurance companies to cover that risk for a couple hundred bucks a year?

Not gonna happen. I think you're gonna have to stay sober under the Madurobob legislation.
LOL no I dont have a head for business or know much at all about insurance. I am in no position to argue so ill have to take your word for it. I havn't looked to investigations that specifically try to weigh the pros and cons of MDMA vs Alcohol. Ill have a look. Im doubtful that such an investigation will exist as I am wondering who would fund such research. The government funded research is often biased as has been demonstrated. Ill have a look but I am not optimistic. If I find something which appears to be well conducted and infact does demonstrate that MDMA is far worse physically and socially than alcohol I will bow my head and admit I am mistaken. Non of you have shown me anything to show that this is the case though either.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:10 PM   #90
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
The government funded research is often biased as has been demonstrated. Ill have a look but I am not optimistic. If I find something which appears to be well conducted and infact does demonstrate that MDMA is far worse physically and socially than alcohol I will bow my head and admit I am mistaken.
Your fist sentence above appears to contradict the third. Sounds like you simply would claim it was biased.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:15 PM   #91
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
The problem here, Space_Ed, is that you've come here to tell us that "Ecstacy is a superior and safer party drug than alcohol" but you've offered nothing in the way of quality evidence to support this assertion. I'm relatively new here, but my experience has been that the folks on this forum expect you to be able to back up your claims with evidence. Otherwise there is not much to discuss - its just opinion.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:18 PM   #92
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,276
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
I swear I am trying to be as reasonable as possible. My uncle is a London based highcourt judge and he thinks it should be legal and he has never taken it, hes about 50 years old. Lots of non-users and users agree with that it should be legal. I am trying to be honest I would consider myself a very honest person.
Why don't you drop the legalization aspect, and go back to your claim that Ecstacy is safer and superior to alcohol? Those are two separate issue, but it seems like you are hopping from one to the other as though they are interchangeable, along with your claim about the evil anti-drug conspiracy.

Go back to the beginning, and support your original claim.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:29 PM   #93
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
OK I have found an article which quotes involved members of the ecstasy/alcohol issue:

http://www.obsolete.com/ecstasy/jim.html

Here are a few relevant quotes. (I think theyll get removed so read the article) The article agrees with what I have been saying.

Recreational Drug Wars: Alcohol Versus Ecstasy

The Portman Group's publicly stated aim is "to promote sensible drinking" However, according to Professor Nick Heather, Director of the Newcastle Centre for Alcohol and Drug Studies, the Group's real agenda is rather different: "The attempt to distance alcohol as a drug from other kinds of drug and to give it a good face is the main activity of groups like the Portman Group."

Professor Edwards also reports being offered a charitable donation from the Portman Group pending his agreement not to use the phrase "alcohol and other drugs" in future reports.

Perhaps more damning, given the current sociopolitical preoccupation with law and order, is the British Medical Association's (BMA) report on alcohol and crime published once again in the late eighties. This report highlighted alcohol's association with 60-70 per cent of homicides, 75 per cent of stabbings and 50 per cent of domestic assaults.

According to an ex-rave music plugger at Virgin records: "There are so many stories about ecstasy that lie below the surface. Big rave events that I was involved with in the past had a very low police presence compared to the big rock festivals I've been involved with where there's alcohol. They knew people were going to be loved up and not violent."

The deluge of anti-ecstasy commentary following Leah's death in 1995 pumped wild and alarming conclusions into the public's perception of E. In fact it was Leah's fourth ecstasy tablet, not her first, and on the night of her death she had also been drinking alcohol.16 As the nearest person the UK has to an expert on ecstasy, Dr. John Henry, scientific advisor to the National Poisons Unit, was interviewed by just about every national newspaper. His quotes were used as 'authoritative scientific' back up for emphatic media tirades against ecstasy. However, according to Dr. Henry: "There was an over reaction to her death. An awful lot was made of it that I don't think was very scientific at all because the press were jumping on every word. I had things served up to me by journalists. It makes serious discussion very difficult."17

When the inquest into Leah's death confirmed she had died from drinking too much water, journalists took less notice. Asked what Leah's death teaches us scientifically, Dr. Henry is less dismissive of the truth: "It teaches us that if you take a lot of fluid suddenly when you've got no reason to do so, it's dangerous." As the vast majority of ecstasy related deaths have thus far been associated with dehydration, a common myth had circulated that water was an antidote to the chemical effects of ecstasy.

Drug education experts argue that Leah's death was likely to have resulted from misinformation and that misinformation is the greatest danger.

Last edited by Space_Ed; 27th September 2007 at 12:44 PM.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:34 PM   #94
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,276
You might want to snip some of that...

And, really, it is a decade old and doesn't do what you want it to do.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:35 PM   #95
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Thankyou for talking to me with civility
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:36 PM   #96
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
No I don't want to snip the stuff that seems to counter my opinion. I am trying to be as fair as possible.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:38 PM   #97
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
 
JoeEllison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,276
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
No I don't want to snip the stuff that seems to counter my opinion. I am trying to be as fair as possible.
I meant as far as copyright violation is concerned.
JoeEllison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:42 PM   #98
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
I meant as far as copyright violation is concerned.
Oh lol ok im going to edit it and just leave in the link. Thankyou for talking to me like a human being.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:44 PM   #99
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
OK I have found an article which quotes involved members of the ecstasy/alcohol issue:

http://www.obsolete.com/ecstasy/jim.html
Interesting article. I think you are right that you copied too much and it may be modded - its a close call. But, the link is what matters.

Still, all it boils down to is:
  1. The alcohol industry has a pretty powerful marketing arm
  2. The media treats alcohol and Ex differently

Both are pretty obvious. Alcohol is big business and wherever there is a lot of money to be made expect competition to be fierce. Since alcohol is ancient and legal and Ex is new and illegal, it is expected that the media will treat them differently.

Nothing here serves as evidence supporting the title of this thread.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:45 PM   #100
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Snipped it a bit.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:50 PM   #101
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Nothing here serves as evidence supporting the title of this thread.
I agree with this.

I do think it helps solve some of the other issues surrounding this discussion such as that you cant trust antidrug propaganda and that alcohol does infact have severe antisocial affects: see the statistics on murder etc whereas ecstasy does not (see quote relating to police presence at raves and at rock festivals).

I am still looking for other papers.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:55 PM   #102
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
I also think it backs up my prediction that ecstasy legalisation would reduce violent crime as the article clearly demonstrates that ecstasy consumption reduces alcohol consumption and that alcohol comsumption is related to more than 50% of violent crime.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:57 PM   #103
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
I also think it backs up my prediction that ecstasy legalisation would reduce violent crime as the article clearly demonstrates that ecstasy consumption reduces alcohol consumption and that alcohol comsumption is related to more than 50% of violent crime.
Nope. Correlation <> causation.

ETA: I've been to many wine tasting events where there was LOTS of alcohol and no cops at all. Perhaps its not the alcohol at the rock concerts that is the cause of violence.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:57 PM   #104
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
In effect this is evidence that ecstasy is a 'safer' drug in at least this respect. There can be no evidence that ecstasy is a 'superior' party drug as this is just due to personal experience of its subjective effects.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 12:59 PM   #105
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Nope. Correlation <> causation.
Im sorry I don't know what you mean.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:00 PM   #106
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
I'll bet a lot of those violent crimes had at least one smoker involved. Do you suspect cigarettes cause violent crime, too?
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:01 PM   #107
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
Nope. Correlation <> causation.

ETA: I've been to many wine tasting events where there was LOTS of alcohol and no cops at all. Perhaps its not the alcohol at the rock concerts that is the cause of violence.
Erm dont you spit the wine out at wine tasting events? I dont need to spell out the differences in social settings and types of people that go to them. People dont go to wine tasting to get drunk do they? People do go out to clubs etc to get drunk.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:02 PM   #108
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
Im sorry I don't know what you mean.
I mean that saying alcohol was "related" and alcohol was the "cause" are two very different things. If I am in an accident in my car - I get rear-ended - if I have an open beer in the car this accident immediately becomes "alcohol related". Even though the beer in my car was not a cause
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:03 PM   #109
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
People dont go to wine tasting to get drunk do they?
I must be doing it wrong
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:03 PM   #110
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
I'll bet a lot of those violent crimes had at least one smoker involved. Do you suspect cigarettes cause violent crime, too?

I think it meant they were actually drunk. Why did you ask that? You know I dont. I don't see how that helps things.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:05 PM   #111
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by madurobob View Post
I mean that saying alcohol was "related" and alcohol was the "cause" are two very different things. If I am in an accident in my car - I get rear-ended - if I have an open beer in the car this accident immediately becomes "alcohol related". Even though the beer in my car was not a cause
Okay but you are being picky you know what it means and the truth behind those statistics. Don't you?
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:25 PM   #112
madurobob
Philosopher
 
madurobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Blue Heaven, NC
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
Okay but you are being picky you know what it means and the truth behind those statistics. Don't you?
No, not picky at all. Just because there is a high correlation between violent crimes and alcohol by no way means that alcohol was a factor in causing those crimes. We may both have a gut feeling that alcohol had something to do with at least some of them, but we don't know.

There is a high correlation between ecstasy and raves, but I don't think it would be correct to say ecstasy causes raves.

My point earlier about the widespread and long term use of alcohol is important to factor in here. If ecstasy were so widely used I am sure we would see a high correlation between it and violent crimes also. Not because it causes violent behavior, but because there is a lot of overlap between people who are prone to violence and people who are prone to use recreation drugs (including alcohol).

Now don't try to tell me that ecstasy makes everyone mellow and happy. I've been to many raves and I've seen many amped up kids and several fights. I doubt ecstasy did anything to cause the fights, but it sure didn't prevent them.
__________________
Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.
madurobob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:36 PM   #113
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Here is a good article:

http://psy.swansea.ac.uk/staff/parro...ecstasyJoP.pdf

I printed it off and read it. Read it yourself. I am going to go with the conclusions of this article, noting the references used. Case closed
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:53 PM   #114
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
The writer of the article is clearly much better versed in MDMA's effects than I am. It seems like it is just as bad as alcohol (except for violence issues with booze as post ecstasy violence is no where as bad) and not a good idea to legalise. So the question remains: what do you do?

Last edited by Space_Ed; 27th September 2007 at 01:56 PM.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 01:55 PM   #115
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
The current policy is still very damaging and expensive. I don't think the current system should stay as it is. So what should be done?
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 02:27 PM   #116
patrick767
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by Space_Ed View Post
Erm dont you spit the wine out at wine tasting events?
Wha-a-a? They're doing it wrong! There are probably a handful of hardcore tasters who do that sometimes as they're sampling a huge number of wines as part of their job. Most casual attenders of a wine tasting sure as hell aren't going to spit it out unless they really hate it. I do beer tastings myself and believe me, many of us are feeling pretty good after awhile. Tastings don't have problems with violence though. Violence depends on the type of event and the crowd that that attracts. Alcohol simply lowers inhibitions. So people with violent tendencies who might normally keep those tendencies under control are more likely to act on them.

Anyway... back to the topic... I haven't looked up research on E in a few years, but from what I remember the biggest problem is that there simply isn't enough research on it, especially in the US. Ecstasy is so tightly controlled that it's very hard to get for use in studies here.

The biggest concern of long term use is the effect on serotonin production and/or absorption. From what I remember reading the jury was still out on whether it could cause permanent changes to the brain chemistry. If that's the case, the heavy user who stops may never fully recover from the effects the drug had on his/her brain.

Sidenote: I looked up HTP-5 as a method of raising serotonin levels (and hence treating depression) and the evidence for it is generally positive according to one site I found, but disappointingly thin. The relevant drug trials were all very small with less than 100 participants each.
patrick767 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 02:38 PM   #117
Miss Anthrope
All your post are belong to us
 
Miss Anthrope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW
Posts: 3,597
*shakes head*

I am definitely for decrim. on many, but not all drugs. I just really don't see much in the thread that makes a convincing argument for it, which is unusual.

I've never done E in my life, and it's not just because you can't know, due to no regulation, what you're getting in that pill. It's also because of the conflicting medical information out there. It's just not worth it to me. I have safer ways of feeling that way.

I think an important issue is that of moderation. It's probable that very infrequent, moderated use is benign. But, with this drug, I don't see a lot of moderation. The only moderate users I know are well over 40 and try it maybe once every three years. Other than that, I see use every single weekend. It's anecdotal, but it troubles me. The people who are doing coke so they can go to work the next day...........sheesh. People in their 20's taking some serious heart and brain risks--and they are definitely getting dumber.
__________________
We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]
Miss Anthrope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 03:04 PM   #118
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
"I am going to go with the conclusions of this article, noting the references used. Case closed"

I said this because I couldn't be bothered with this thread any more. It's giving me a headache because I can't work it out I feel based on my reasoning that it might as well be legal and I don't think it is as bad as alcohol because of alcohol's social effects and its addictiveness. I am going to sit out for a bit and gather my thoughts. Everyone else keep chatting ill be watching.
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 03:07 PM   #119
Space_Ed
Muse
 
Space_Ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 549
Also being insulted and bullied doesn't help
Space_Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2007, 04:53 PM   #120
Skepticybe
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 79
A few comments.
First, I want to point out that most information used to scare people off of drugs goes through the same scientific rigors as dowsing or homeopathy. They (yes the mysterious "they") believe that drugs are immeasurably harmful so it is impossible to be misleading by exaggerating risks. A good example is when the head of the DEA took to the airwaves earlier this year on his "Pot 2.0" campaign, talking about how marijuana is so much more addictive and dangerous now. This is an outright lie; there is no real scientific disagreement that pot is not addictive and the greatest risk comes from smoking -- more potent pot means less smoke for the same dose, fewer health risks.

I'm furious about this because I have two teenage boys, and these kinds of statements from a government official put my children at risk. Now I have to explain to them that yes the government lies about marijuana, but you should still take the warnings about ______ seriously. Any of you who were once teenagers will know that a teenager doesn't need much to rationalize why it's not such a bad thing just to try ______, especially once you know they lied about marijuana. And believe me, they already know.

-----

Most people don't appreciate the role drugs play in our life. Most of our existence is spent seeking the effects of various drugs. It's amusing and sad to read through the list of controlled substances and see how many of these are produced naturally in our bodies. Yet they are illegal to manufacture or possess.

Sex, exercise, eating a dozen donuts, reading a book to a child, all are drug-seeking activities. And some of them, for some people, are more harmful than direct consumption of various drugs. Sugar is the #1 drug of choice in America, and probably the most damaging too.

I'll even go out on a limb to accuse Joe Ellison of chronic drug abuse, as evidenced by his choice to picture drug manufacturing equipment as his avatar. While a motorcycle does have a legitimate transportational use, more often than not it is used to deliver a dose of adrenaline, endorphins, and other drugs to the abuser, who eventually becomes so addicted that they will even risk life and limb to get it.

Ban motorcycles! And donuts! And testosterone and estrogen! I better stop there before I get Ralph Nader too excited.

-----

I like the effort to treat drugs based on the risks and costs to the individual and society. More dangerous drugs should be dealt with more harshly, while more benign drugs should be the easiest to get and use. Even though the lists seem to get things very wrong, it's a great step in the right direction to use science and objective standards to evaluate each substance.

-----

Finally I want to point out that part of what makes us human is our unwillingness to accept our limitations, and our propensity to surpass those limitations. But for some reason, society has instilled a superstition that it should automatically be considered "wrong" to use chemicals to increase the amount of pleasure we get from life, or to temporarily view the world from a different perspective.

Some drugs have costs and risks, some have benefits. Most have some of both. Why should humans be automatically denied the potential benefits just because a chemical can change (temporarily) the way one's brain operates?

Think about it. The desired effects of any given illegal drug would be praised and admired if acheived through any other means (such as meditation or exercise), yet somehow the same result is morally wrong because it was achieved chemically? Guess what... ALL OF THEM ARE ACHIEVED CHEMICALLY!

The anti-drug movement is nothing more than a simple extension of society's residual puritanical beliefs that what makes you feel good must be really bad, and it's society's job to prevent people from getting too much unsanctioned enjoyment from life.
Skepticybe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.