UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Ecstasy "not Worse Than Riding A Horse"


ReikiAnge

Recommended Posts

Even if drugs were legalised you would still have a 'quality' problem.

 

Cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol are all legal yet there is still a HUGE criminal trade in the smuggling of both 'genuine' products and varying standards of counterfeit goods. :unsure: Some of the counterfeit stuff has been done very well, you would struggle (packaging wise) to tell the difference, but the contents........

 

The same is the case now with drugs, varying strengths, quality, cutting agents etc and the legalisation would not stop those kind of problems which, like counterfeit cigs, pose a huge health risk.

 

The criminals would still make their money and to h8ll with the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's true up to a point, but counterfeiting is a huge issue in pretty much all branded goods, including human and veterinary medicine, but that's not used as a reason not to even bother trying regulating those areas.

 

Also, with ecstacy for example, testing kits are available (and widely used in some countries) so users can get their pills tested and find out exactly what's in them. In the UK allowing their use is sufficient grounds to have a club closed down, which is one of the reasons why we have a relatively high number of ecstacy related incidents here. The kits work in two ways, first on an individual level people can know what they are taking, and on a wider scale it leads to less dodgy adulterants overall, because users quickly learn which dealers are selling dodgy pills and take their custom elsewhere, so overall the quality goes up. Of course, because that's happening elsewhere, anyone with a large number of dodgy pills ships them to be sold over here, where they are far less likely to be caught out.

 

In other countries governments use the information from in-club screening programmes to make public announcements when drugs with potenitally dangerous contaminants, or unexpectedly very high levels of purity, are found. Our government has a non-disclousre policy, so even if they know there is a batch of dangerously adulterated pills being sold, they won't report it. The first the public will know is the newspaper reports of injuries or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krusewalker: do you really think you can say one had an effect and the other didn't?! Both alter your alertness and ability to react and make decisions. It's the behaviour and the motivations that needs addressing.

 

No

 

But you can feasibly drive under the influence of an ecstacy tablet, and whilst risky for all concerned, it is not always a given that you would loose impairment to drive.

 

However, it is always a given that alchohol prevents you driving properly.

 

But this isnt an argument for defending either, I'm just stating that in the scenario mentioned in the other post, the lad being a young male whom had been drinking are the 2 strongest factors, when you weigh everything up.

 

I just dont buy the argument that making drugs legal gives out a message it is alright, so more people would take them.

Ive met loads of people who take various drugs (although i have never met anyone with a 'drug problem', but have met a few with a drink problem), and i can honestly say that these people couldnt give a monkeys if it is legal or not.

Quite simply, the law has no bearing on their decision whether or not they take drugs.

And that was my generation.

These days, if young people want to do something, drugs, under age sex, under age drinking, they will do it regardless of the law. Their decision NOT to do these things is more likely to be influenced by their friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there probably are people who don't take drugs now because they are illegal, but how many are there who take them because they are illegal, and they want that thrill?

 

Very few, I'd think, and they'd be 12 year-olds. I don't imagine the average 30 year old taking recreational drugs is thinking "ooh, how thrilling. I'm breaking the law!" It's far more mainstream than that.

 

I accept that legalisation appears to be the answer; if there is an answer of course to a huge social problem - and I don't mean drugs. I have no time for the patronising "just say no" kind of campaign, and if providing legal outlets for drugs does make the baddies go away, then I'm all for it. I expect the baddies will find another way to make money out of vulnerable people soon enough, though.

 

The real problem is that we accept that many of our lives are so boring, intolerable, pointless, that we have to drink to excess and/or take drugs to give them meaning. I groan when I hear people say, "I took drugs and it didn't do me any harm" - in much the same way as I do when I hear people say "I was beaten at school and it didn't do me any harm". People are often painfully unaware of just how their drug-taking or drinking has affected other people, let alone of the effects on their own personality.

 

But, to be practical...how would drugs be sold? Would there be age limits on who could buy them? If there were, how would children buy theirs? Would older people buy it for them? Would I find myself sitting next to someone injecting heroin?

 

In countries where cannabis use is legal, do smokers still drive? Are there safe legal limits and can they be monitored?

 

Where will the cannabis/pills/heroin/whatever be sourced? How will I know that people in other countries (cannabis-growers for example) won't be exploited?

 

And finally, if people are using a drug which is addictive and their need for it increases, how will they afford it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few, I'd think, and they'd be 12 year-olds. I don't imagine the average 30 year old taking recreational drugs is thinking "ooh, how thrilling. I'm breaking the law!" It's far more mainstream than that.

 

I think you are crediting people with too much sense. The average 30 year old will rarely use recreational drugs, and those that do will mainly only use cannabis. Most people have all but grown out of it by then. It's 16-24 year olds that are the heavy users, and under 20's in particular are known to indulge in risk taking for it's own sake.

 

 

I accept that legalisation appears to be the answer; if there is an answer of course to a huge social problem - and I don't mean drugs. I have no time for the patronising "just say no" kind of campaign, and if providing legal outlets for drugs does make the baddies go away, then I'm all for it. I expect the baddies will find another way to make money out of vulnerable people soon enough, though.

 

It wouldn't have a huge positive effect, all it would do is remove some of the worst negative effects. So people who are going to buy drugs anyway could do so without automatically having to move in dodgy/criminal circles. But it's not like it would wipe out the criminal fraternity in one fell swoop. As you say, at least some of them will just look for other ways to make their money. But it would at least break part of that circle and make it a little more difficult for them. It would also free up a lot of public time and money which could be diverted into more useful areas.

 

 

The real problem is that we accept that many of our lives are so boring, intolerable, pointless, that we have to drink to excess and/or take drugs to give them meaning. I groan when I hear people say, "I took drugs and it didn't do me any harm" - in much the same way as I do when I hear people say "I was beaten at school and it didn't do me any harm". People are often painfully unaware of just how their drug-taking or drinking has affected other people, let alone of the effects on their own personality.

 

I find that more patronising than the 'just say no' message. People entertain themselves in a whole variety of ways, that doesn't mean there is something 'wrong' with them or that their lives are boring, intolerable or pointless. There are all sorts of hobbies and interests that are unfathomable to me, horse riding, spinning classes, watching TV, train spotting, but I don't think less of people who choose to do them. My OH is into martial arts, he gets all sorts of injuries from it, and that has an impact on me and on our life together, but I wouldn't dream of stopping him doing it. Everything we do has an impact on those closest to us.

 

People can use any activity as a crutch, or to try and solve problems in their lives, but it doesn't follow that everyone who does it is using it for that reason, or that they *have* to do it.

 

<had to split it cos it wouldnt let me post it in one block>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can feasibly drive under the influence of an ecstacy tablet, and whilst risky for all concerned, it is not always a given that you would loose impairment to drive.

 

I am shocked by that statement to be honest and just a little bit horrified.

 

www.drugdriving.com (just a random one)

 

If your mental state would not be altered by taking an ecstasy tablet then what would be the point in taking it??

 

Good post Scotslass.

 

The vast majority of the population are law abiding, that is what keeps us from chaos. What would limit drug taking if it were legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, to be practical...how would drugs be sold? Would there be age limits on who could buy them? If there were, how would children buy theirs? Would older people buy it for them?

 

Who knows? It's all hypothetical anyway, I suppose you could have special stores, or sell them through off licences. Of course there would be age limits, but then there are age limits on alcohol and tobacco and they are largely ignored. There are people willing to buy children cigs and booze, and probably people willing to buy them illegal drugs too. That's not likely to change.

 

 

Would I find myself sitting next to someone injecting heroin?

 

I've seen people shooting up on a park bench, and smoking heroin in a car in a railway station car park. Most people probably wouldn't even notice, or wouldn't know what to look for. Every large town and city has a place where the alkies hang out, it's a grim sight to pass on your way to work. What difference would it make really if they were taking drugs instead of alcohol?

 

 

Where will the cannabis/pills/heroin/whatever be sourced? How will I know that people in other countries (cannabis-growers for example) won't be exploited?

 

The likes of ecstacy would probably be manufactured here, a lot of it already is.

 

With cannabis the obvious thing would be to encourage people to grow their own.

 

But generally speaking, people in other countries would almost certainly still be exploited, just as they are exploited in the production of tea, coffee, sugar, cotton, etc. I suppose there could be a market for fair trade cocaine, but it's unrealistic to expect a higher standards of ethics in the drug trade than we have in every other commodity. It would for the most part remove the use of 3rd party smugglers though. As unpleasant as the production of cotton is, you don't get cotton mules risking their lives to get it into the country for a pittance.

 

And finally, if people are using a drug which is addictive and their need for it increases, how will they afford it?

 

Most people who use legal drugs don't become addicted or develop an excessive tolerance. Just as most people who drink alcohol don't. The ones that do would mostly go without other essentials, like good quality food or heating, as alcoholics do, and even heavy smokers when money is tight. Some would take it to extremes and steal, as they do now.

 

 

 

 

The vast majority of the population are law abiding, that is what keeps us from chaos. What would limit drug taking if it were legal?

 

What limits people from doing anything? Smoking is legal, but most people don't smoke. I could legally get drunk 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but I don't, I rarely drink at all.

 

If heroin was legal would you take it? If drink driving laws were abolished tomorrow, would you drink drive? I'm guessing probably not. The vast majority of people limit their own behaviour, most do it automatically, some do it within the confines of the law, some don't do it all, and the laws have no effect on them anyway.

Edited by pboae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What limits people from doing anything? Smoking is legal, but most people don't smoke. I could legally get drunk 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but I don't, I rarely drink at all.

 

If heroin was legal would you take it? If drink driving laws were abolished tomorrow, would you drink drive? I'm guessing probably not. The vast majority of people limit their own behaviour, most do it automatically, some do it within the confines of the law, some don't do it all, and the laws have no effect on them anyway.

 

 

Precisely. We make those decisions based on controls: our own internal reasons, social controls, family controls, work/education controls, legal controls. Without the law there is one less control and one very very very large removal of deterrence. The reason a lot of people don't drink and drive is fear of losing their licence, thus potentially their job, lifestyle and income. The reason young drivers don't want to get caught is insurance hikes and losing their licence under the New Drivers Act. Of course there are always those who will drive anyway, illegaly and without a licence or insurance but they are the minority.

 

Drug taking is a social issue, it stands to reason that it requires both social and legal solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drug taking is a social issue, it stands to reason that it requires both social and legal solutions.

 

I agree, just as we have social and legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco (age limits, drink drive laws, etc).

 

But (most) of the commonly used illegal drugs are less harmful than either of those, and the laws are largely ignored anyway, and the simple fact of them being illegal causes additional problems (organised crime, adulterated drugs, creating a gateway for people to start moving in 'criminal' circles).

 

So whilst legalising them won't make things perfect, the current situation of excessive legal restrictions just makes things worse.

Edited by pboae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is that we accept that many of our lives are so boring, intolerable, pointless, that we have to drink to excess and/or take drugs to give them meaning. I groan when I hear people say, "I took drugs and it didn't do me any harm" - in much the same way as I do when I hear people say "I was beaten at school and it didn't do me any harm". People are often painfully unaware of just how their drug-taking or drinking has affected other people, let alone of the effects on their own personality.

 

 

I find that more patronising than the 'just say no' message. People entertain themselves in a whole variety of ways, that doesn't mean there is something 'wrong' with them or that their lives are boring, intolerable or pointless. There are all sorts of hobbies and interests that are unfathomable to me, horse riding, spinning classes, watching TV, train spotting, but I don't think less of people who choose to do them. My OH is into martial arts, he gets all sorts of injuries from it, and that has an impact on me and on our life together, but I wouldn't dream of stopping him doing it. Everything we do has an impact on those closest to us.

 

Having lived with someone whose life was dominated by alcohol (but who maintained, of course, that he was just "being sociable"), I can assure you that some hobbies are far more destructive than others. Are you saying that if your OH took drugs or drank to excess, you'd just accept that too? Also, while your OH's hobbies may impact on you, they don't impact on the wider world, as drug-taking and drinking do.

 

Scotland's inner city areas have a huge problem with youngsters from poor backgrounds getting drunk on Buckfast, taking whatever drugs they can access and ruining their neighbours' lives, if not their own. Are these kids just having a bit of fun? Should police and community workers just let them get on with it instead of trying to offer them alternatives (such as martial arts clubs)? If, as you suggest, they're going to grow out of it soon anyway, and it's just a passing phase, should we provide better quality booze and drugs meantime until they decide to move on to hill-walking or pottery classes?

 

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I thought I'd made it clear that I see alcohol as every bit as damaging, potentially, as drug use. I am no happier sitting next to a drunk than a junkie - and it isn't a matter of feeling better than either. I think anyone who can't get through the day without the aid of booze or drugs is in need of support and care, not disapproval.

 

I haven't begun to answer most of your points, but would you let me have the source of your stats, please? I'd like to have a look for myself and I don't have the information to hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father was (is) an alcoholic, so I am more than aware of the damage alcohol does. But I can still see that just because some people become alcoholics it is unreasonable to say nobody should be allowed to drink alcohol, or that everybody who drinks socially/recreationally is doing so because they need to escape their meaningless lives.

 

My stats are mostly from the British Crime Surveys, they are available on the home office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I asked the last question was for the following reasons - from a spokesperson at Drugscope who expresses what I meant -

 

"drug taking is not the easiest subject to get solid data on: users of recreational drugs are naturally reticent at admitting their habits and people addicted to hard drugs tend to have chaotic lifestyles meaning they are difficult to count.

 

"We have very scant evidence about how many people are using drugs," Mr Linnell says.

 

"We can't even give accurate figures of how many people are in treatment for heroin and rock cocaine, let alone magic mushrooms, cannabis and ecstasy."

 

So, where is the real evidence to support the idea that most people grow out of recreational drug use?

 

It does seem that the UK has a unique problem with binge drinking and binge drug use. I think we ought to be looking at the reasons behind that, and not just asserting that everyone's entitled to have a hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is that we accept that many of our lives are so boring, intolerable, pointless, that we have to drink to excess and/or take drugs to give them meaning.

 

 

I can still see that just because some people become alcoholics it is unreasonable to say nobody should be allowed to drink alcohol, or that everybody who drinks socially/recreationally is doing so because they need to escape their meaningless lives.

 

My stats are mostly from the British Crime Surveys, they are available on the home office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

 

And as you will see, I didn't say that either. I haven't advocated stopping people from using alcohol. Nor did I use the word "escape'. I suggested that alcohol and drugs may sometimes enrich otherwise boring lives. I think we might usefully look at why people need that enrichment as a constant in their lives. There are kids who can't imagine going out to a club without a lot of booze, or a lot of drugs. They can't imagine having a good time without them. That to me is a dangerous place to be - and that level of alcohol/drug use is a recent phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am shocked by that statement to be honest and just a little bit horrified.

 

why?. the statment was part of a context.

 

www.drugdriving.com (just a random one)

 

If your mental state would not be altered by taking an ecstasy tablet then what would be the point in taking it??

 

ecstasy does affect your mental state. that is the point.

 

 

The vast majority of the population are law abiding, that is what keeps us from chaos. What would limit drug taking if it were legal?

 

 

The vast majority of drug users are law abiding, can hold normal lives sans chaos, but just have fun at the weekends.

Just like drinkers.....

Drug taking being illegal doesn't limit drug taking.....

 

The whole point about E's and driving and booze and driving is just one of comparative context.

Neither is right.

But this is the point i was making:

Booze is known to effect everyone the same way, as is cocaine, and most drugs.

E's are different, as one person can take one tablet and die for one reason, another person can take one tablet and die for a completely different reason, and a third can take half a dozen and it barely has any effect.

It is the unquantifiable randomness of E that makes it dangerous - Russian Roulette

Quite often, by the time someone has finished in the club at 9am the following morning, the effects can be worn off.

Therefore, when you compare like with like between booze and E, if a young lad has crashed under the influence of drink and E's, you can make a *reasoned arguement* that it was the influence of being a young lad and drunk that made the difference, and you can make a reasoned argument that if someone has ONLY taken E, he could feasibly drive home without problem several hours later.

Im not saying its 100% or right behaviour, I'm just saying its possible, unlike alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of drug users are law abiding, can hold normal lives sans chaos, but just have fun at the weekends.

Just like drinkers.....

Drug taking being illegal doesn't limit drug taking.....

 

The whole point about E's and driving and booze and driving is just one of comparative context.

Neither is right.

But this is the point i was making:

Booze is known to effect everyone the same way, as is cocaine, and most drugs.

E's are different, as one person can take one tablet and die for one reason, another person can take one tablet and die for a completely different reason, and a third can take half a dozen and it barely has any effect.

It is the unquantifiable randomness of E that makes it dangerous - Russian Roulette

Quite often, by the time someone has finished in the club at 9am the following morning, the effects can be worn off.

Therefore, when you compare like with like between booze and E, if a young lad has crashed under the influence of drink and E's, you can make a *reasoned arguement* that it was the influence of being a young lad and drunk that made the difference, and you can make a reasoned argument that if someone has ONLY taken E, he could feasibly drive home without problem several hours later.

Im not saying its 100% or right behaviour, I'm just saying its possible, unlike alcohol.

 

You've completely lost me I'm afraid. At the start you say that ecstasy does affect your mental state. At the end you say that someone can drive without problem. You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...