Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

However, I think there needs to be an incentive to not use, so some sort of mandatory treatment program might be a good idea, or perhaps it depends on the drug in question.

Do you think those recreational drugs that have been shown to have minimal serious side effects should be legal, at least? (marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc?) Do those drugs even need a particular incentive to disuse, since they aren't really any more dangerous than any other hobby, and the existing disincentives to continue a hobby beyond reasonable limits would still apply?

I'm not sure I'd consider a powerful hallucinogen to be no less dangerous than "any other hobby". Granted, that depends on the hobby you're talking about; people are allowed to climb mountains, after all.

But honestly... I don't know, because I don't know how safe those drugs are in the long or short term. I would probably have a more solid opinion, but most of the information out there originates either from the Official Government Lie Machine™ or people who are way, way, way into drugs and have an obvious legalization agenda.

I want to say LSD is surprisingly harmless (aside from the obvious messed-up state while you're on it, but only then to a certain degree), but then again, it can also apparently cause psychosis in some people, and there's hallucinogen persisting perception disorder to think about as well. From what I'm reading, the safety of MDMA is pretty up in the air regarding potential long-term side effects.

Marijuana is a complete joke, though. There's no reason why marijuana shouldn't be at least as legal as tobacco. That being said, I wouldn't want to see it turned into some kind of mass corporate commodity, but that can probably be controlled well enough via taxation on sales and restriction on growing operations. Then again, I'd probably say the same about tobacco.

[fqllve]

Virtually every doctor will tell you that burgers and soda are bad for your health, and they are both addictive. More so than LSD, or even marijuana. And yeah, I think that programs to discourage fast food consumption in favour of healthy food would be a good idea. But at the end of the day people should be allowed to engage in self-destructive behaviour if they want to.

As for dangers of obesity, AFAIK cardiovascular are still the No1 cause of death in USA, and most of those are caused by unhealthy diet.

Heart disease may be the leading cause of death, and obesity may be a leading cause of heart disease, but the idea that eating a hamburger is even close to as dangerous as, say, inhaling freon is patently incorrect. Eating a hamburger isn't likely to kill you on the spot, it requires chronic consumption over years. There are several drugs where the threat of death is a real possibility every time you use it.

[Criptfeind]

Virtually every doctor will tell you that burgers and soda are bad for your health, and they are both addictive. More so than LSD

Citation that burgers are more addictive then LSD?

[GlyphGryph]

Having done hallucinogens (though not LSD, I stay strictly legal. Do you know there are lots of legal hallucinogens? LSD is probably the safest of the bunch though) I'd say the experience is at least as safe as a trip to the skate park or building a shelf with power tools - potentially quite dangerous if you are reckless and irresponsible, but fairly safe if you take the proper precautions and don't tackle obstacles that are out of your league.

Of course, there's always the person who'll get out there and break their arm on the first bump, or slice off their finger in record time. (I love my mom, but dear god I don't know why she even tried. And even then it was only because she ignored everything I said about leaning forward). And there are people who die from peanut butter sandwiches as well - chemicals can be dangerous, since people react differently to them, but I don't think thats enough of an argument to ban them. Heck, peanut butter is even dangerous to other people, and has been responsible for more trips to the hospital among my friends than their rather frequent drug use.

From what I'm reading, the safety of MDMA is pretty up in the air regarding potential long-term side effects.

Make sure not to confuse MDMA with ecstasy, which is cut with all sorts of crap. The real stuff is, from the real studies that have been done on it, safe. At least in the moderate amounts used in the studies. Obviously the research on it is rather thin, but it doesn't seem likely that any possible ban-worthy consequences could arise from it at this point.

[GlyphGryph]

Citation that burgers are more addictive then LSD?

Sugars and fats are both (mildly) physically addictive, Leptin being of special note.
(Diabetes, vol 50, p 2786)(Obesity Research, vol 10, p 478)
(Mind you, both studies are certainly flawed, but what science isn't nowadays? Despite the flaws, the results still indicate the conclusion)

LSD, meanwhile, has no known addictive compounds, and is one of the more studied illegal drugs.

[DJ]

Heart disease may be the leading cause of death, and obesity may be a leading cause of heart disease, but the idea that eating a hamburger is even close to as dangerous as, say, inhaling freon is patently incorrect. Eating a hamburger isn't likely to kill you on the spot, it requires chronic consumption over years. There are several drugs where the threat of death is a real possibility every time you use it.

Sure, except that's not the point at all. We were discussing whether drug prohibition is justified because it saves the society's resources that would be squandered on treatment of drug addicts as well as loss of potential wealth these drug addicts will never create because they won't work. I was just pointing out how junk food is a much bigger drain on the society's resources because very few people inhale freon while virtually everyone eats junk food. And I don't buy that the War on Drugs is saving any resources because it's a ridiculously expensive endeavour.

Virtually every doctor will tell you that burgers and soda are bad for your health, and they are both addictive. More so than LSD

Citation that burgers are more addictive then LSD?

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030437
It basically says LSD is not addictive at all. I can't be bothered to dig up a study on addictiveness of junk food, but I'm sure they're out there.

[G-Flex]

Having done hallucinogens (though not LSD, I stay strictly legal. Do you know there are lots of legal hallucinogens? LSD is probably the safest of the bunch though) I'd say the experience is at least as safe as a trip to the skate park or building a shelf with power tools - potentially quite dangerous if you are reckless and irresponsible, but fairly safe if you take the proper precautions and don't tackle obstacles that are out of your league.

Your own anecdotal evidence is not a good scientific basis for anything, or good medical advice. Your own experiences aren't necessarily those of everyone else. Even a serious side effect only affecting 1% of users is still very significant, for example.

From what I'm reading, the safety of MDMA is pretty up in the air regarding potential long-term side effects.

Make sure not to confuse MDMA with ecstasy, which is cut with all sorts of crap. The real stuff is, from the real studies that have been done on it, safe. At least in the moderate amounts used in the studies. Obviously the research on it is rather thin, but it doesn't seem likely that any possible ban-worthy consequences could arise from it at this point.

I'm aware of the difference, and it seems that MDMA may cause problems primarily with serotonin levels, but that the research is a little unclear... which is true for a lot of supposed effects of a lot of recreational drugs. That's the thing I hate about this the most: The fact that a lot of information is from dubious sources or extremely incomplete or ill-researched.

[Neonivek]

Your own anecdotal evidence is not a good scientific basis for anything, or good medical advice

Interesting, we were just hearing about something very similar in class about Vacinations where people were attributing their experiences getting shots with autism.

Which turned out to be false interestingly enough. (at least with the specifics they were talking about)

[Durin Stronginthearm]

But honestly... I don't know, because I don't know how safe those drugs are in the long or short term. I would probably have a more solid opinion, but most of the information out there originates either from the Official Government Lie Machine™ or people who are way, way, way into drugs and have an obvious legalization agenda.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

No obvious agenda here... the chart originates from The Lancet, which wiki calls "one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals".

[Sheb]

Does it take into account that alcohol for instance is more widely used than heroin? Also, people get high on Butane?

[Neonivek]

Yes but just like the EXACT same study that said that 50% of ALL women in the USA were raped. It is all about how you ask the questions and how you define your terms.

What the measure of harm is is one of them for example.

[fqllve]

Yeah, I'd like to know the criteria they were judged upon. For example, a drug that causes users to have slowed reaction times and lack of motivation (marijuana) is ranked more harmful to others than a drug that makes users paranoid and sometimes violent (methamphetamine).

[DJ]

Alcohol is pretty nasty stuff in it's own right, I'd say it'd rank pretty high on the harmfulness list (especially harmfulness to others) even if all drugs were legal and easily available.

[GlyphGryph]

Your own anecdotal evidence is not a good scientific basis for anything, or good medical advice. Your own experiences aren't necessarily those of everyone else. Even a serious side effect only affecting 1% of users is still very significant, for example.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you about one of the most well studied hallucinogens in the world. It was an illustration. The research that HAS been done has been quite clear about the situations where it can and is somewhat likely to cause dangerous effects (those drugged without foreknowledge, those with PTSD). I've never said its perfectly safe. I've never said it can't have side effects (though I've yet to hear about lethal side effects, and I've done a good deal of research on the subject, putting it a step above and beyond a great number of other hobbies).

If you have any evidence, any at all, that its more dangerous than, say, football, feel free to present it. Or surfing. Or snowboarding. Or cooking. Or driving. Or riding a motorcycle. Or dirt biking. Or drinking. Or swimming. Or whatever.

From what I can tell of your standards, all of the above should be, at the least, "discouraged", no?

Also, Neonivek, they explain harm in the study. If you read the study, they'll probably answer most of your questions there.

[Neonivek]

It depends who is cooking.

Though one of the differences between a few of those drugs and sports is that with sports the risk is part of the game. While with drugs the risk is part of the alure.