OK -- Debate on Drugs

Not true, but I know bias when I see it and your view appears to be highly anti-drug biased. My view, most certainly, is also biased. That's the point. It's hard to have an objective view about drugs because the culture tends to discourage moderation on the issue.



You work in the drug ABUSE field. You only see abusers and people who are having problems with their use. You don't think that skews your view? Do all gamblers lose their homes and families? Do all rock climbers fall and cripple themselves? Do all people who drink alchohol become alchoholics? You have an obvious bias Cris. One that isn't supported by the evidence.



I didn't say pot was harmless. I said it was a risky behavior and compared it to other risky behaviors which are not seen with the same biased tunnel vision that pot use is. Statistics back up the claim that the vast majority of pot users do not suffer ill effects from using it, unless you assume that it screws up everyone and not just those who seek treatment. My own experiences also back up my claims and since I do use I'd say I have a lot more experience with "typical" users than someone who works in the drug abuse field. Most users are not abusers, just as most people who drink are not alchoholics. It is a fact that aspirin kills more people than marijuana does.


Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco 430,700
(Source (1996): "Smoking-Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, 1997), May 23, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 20, p. 449. )

Alcohol 110,640
(Source: "Number of deaths and age-adjusted death rates per 100,000 population for categories of alcohol-related (A-R) mortality, United States and States, 1979-96," National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, from the web at http://http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/databases/armort01.txt, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001, citing Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System, Daadatmand, F., Stinson, FS, Grant, BF, and Dufour, MC, "Surveillance Report #52: Liver Mortality in the United States, 1970-96" (Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, December 1999).)

Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
( Source: Lazarou, J, Pomeranz, BH, Corey, PN, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies," Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 199, 1998;279:1200-1205, also letters column, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients," JAMA (Chicago, IL: AMA, 199, Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.)

All Licit & Illicit Drug-Induced Deaths 16,926
(Source: Murphy, Sheila L., Centers for Disease Control, "Deaths: Final Data for 1998,", National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, July 24, 2000), pp. 1, 10, from the web at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs48_11.pdf .)

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
( Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, )

Marijuana 0
(Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/; also see Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.)

*inhales*

What was this topic about again? Brownies anyone?

Peace and Love!

LOL, that's so moronic it doesn't even deserve a response.

Check the sources of the things I'm citing JV. National Institute of Health is hardly a pro drug propoganda machine, nor is the National Medical Association.



Congratulations on your psychic powers JV. It's cool that you know what those people would have achieved had they not started smoking pot ;P Lots of losers become users. The drugs didn't make them that way. They were likely predisposed to be underachievers in the first place. Feel free to cite a scientific paper that quantifies underachieving as a result of marijuana use.

Pot is the least of this worlds problems when it comes to harmful ingredients that we the consumers choose to applaud. Besides tv which has been proven to aid in the development of the symptoms of adhd as well as obesity, we have cosmetics, processed foods hormonally and genetically altered cattle for beef products, as well as genetically altered veggies, eggs and veggies zapped with radiation ect...

Bottom line is man will always seek an altered reality whether it is through a video game, the relaxed and listless feeling after a high fat meal or a hit on the ole bong. I would venture to say that as far as documented health risks video games, tv, and fattening processed foods will likely be the cause of demise far more often than natural drugs such as maryjane and mushrooms....and now to interrupt your regularly scheduled program a public service announcement

OSHA discovered 884 toxic chemicals in common personal care products. "USA Today," April 1990

More children are poisoned every year in the home from toxic substances, including personal care products, than are accidentally killed playing with guns.

On Bill Moyer's PBS program May 10, 2002, which just scratched the surface of the effects of chemicals on children, Dr. Philip Landrigan stated, "To me as a medical detective, the first clue is the increase in the incidence of childhood cancer. That signals that something is going wrong." (Read the full show transcript at: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript117_full.html)

An article in The Boston Globe on September 6, 1997, cited Senator Edward M. Kennedy's statement that the General Accounting Office has identified more than 125 cosmetic ingredients suspected of causing cancer--along with others that may cause birth defects.

"Each day American women reach for shampoo and conditioner, deodorant, moisturizer, and dusting powder. We apply blusher, eye shadow, mascara, and lipstick, then maybe dab on nail polish and perfume. We have just exposed ourselves to 200 different chemicals."
--Emily Yoffe, Author "CHEMICAL GOOD LOOKS," "US. News & World Report," November 10, 1997.

"You know more about the ingredients in your dog's flea collar then you know about toxicity of whatever you're putting on your skin."
--David Wallinga, A senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C.

"Cosmetics are among the most unregulated, and therefore most potentially harmful, consumer products on the market. Consumers fail to realize that what you put on your skin is absorbed into the body."
--Joel Bleifuss, Author "TO DIE FOR," "In These Times," February 17, 1997 and "TAKE A POWDER," "These Times," March 3, 1997.

"Lifelong use of these products ... clearly poses major avoidable cancer risks to the great majority of U.S. consumers, particularly infants and young children." "Neways has pioneered and succeeded in providing consumers with cosmetics and toiletries free of cancer-causing, harmful ingredients and contaminants. I warmly congratulate them on their accomplishments."

Just one example of many found on this site: (ouch...hmmm so wondering why you don't fill up that reservoir tip )
ALKYL-PHENOL ETHOXYLADE


What it is: A chemical used in shampoos and other personal care products.
What it does: Can act like the female sex-hormone estrogen and may negatively influence sperm count.
Articles from the Harmful Ingredients Information Pack*:

0479.pdf_Shame On Shampoo: Shampoo Linked To Sperm

0480.pdf_Shampoo Linked To Sperm

taken from www.timeforbetterhealth.com

Check out www.cqs.com for information on the harmful effects of genetically modified foods.


With obesity being one of the key killers of americans this is likely more deadly than mary jane:

From www.sfgate.com:
Journalist Greg Critser lays out a compelling case against high fructose corn syrup in his 2003 book, "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World." He argues that federal policies that aimed to stabilize food prices and support corn production in the 1970s led to a glut of corn and then to high fructose corn syrup. With a cheaper way to sweeten food, producers pumped up the size and amount of sweet snacks and drinks on the market and increased profits.

It's not natural

Critser writes that despite the food industry's arguments that sugar is sugar, whether fructose or sucrose, no group "has yet refuted the growing scientific concern that, when all is said and done, fructose ... is about the furthest thing from natural that one can imagine, let alone eat."

Although some researchers have long been suspicious that too much fructose can cause problems, the latest case against high fructose corn syrup began in earnest a few years ago. Dr. George Bray, principal investigator of the Diabetes Prevention Program at Louisiana State University Medical Center told the International Congress on Obesity that in 1980, just after high fructose corn syrup was introduced in mass quantities, relatively stable obesity rates began to climb. By 2000, they had doubled.

Further, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2002 published research that showed that teenagers' milk consumption between 1965 and 1996 decreased by 36 percent, while soda consumption increased by more than 200 percent. Bray argues that without calcium, which nutritionists agree can help the body regulate weight, kids got fatter. He says that he could find no other single combination of environmental or food changes that were as significant to the rise in obesity.

Other studies by researchers at UC Davis and the University of Michigan have shown that consuming fructose, which is more readily converted to fat by the liver, increases the levels of fat in the bloodstream in the form of triglycerides.

And unlike other types of carbohydrate made up of glucose, fructose does not stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin. Peter Havel, a nutrition researcher at UC Davis who studies the metabolic effects of fructose, has also shown that fructose fails to increase the production of leptin, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells.

Both insulin and leptin act as signals to the brain to turn down the appetite and control body weight. And in another metabolic twist, Havel's research shows that fructose does not appear to suppress the production of ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger and appetite.


Say cheese but did you know that the same thing you bleached your hair with as a teen is bleaching your cheese

www.amazingdiscoveries.com:

How is cheese made? And what chemicals go into their manufacture?

In general, cheese is made by coagulating the casein, or protein of milk, skimmed milk or milk enriched with cream. Then the milk extracts are subjected to putrefactive bacteria which rot the milky mixture. The carbohydrates are removed from pasteurized milk. The remains are mostly protein, even though about 50 percent of the calories are fats and are not removed. The coagulation is accomplished by means of rennet or some other suitable enzyme, souring or a combination of the two.

Animal rennet is the most frequently used in commercial cheeses. Rennet comes from the digestive system of the hog or other young mammals. Sometimes rennet is obtained from the stomach of newborn animals.

A few companies do produce rennetless cheese, which are made with vegetable coagulants. But, not all varieties of cheese can be produced with the vegetable coagulants. Swiss cheese cannot. It is not possible to produce the large holes in Swiss cheese unless the animal rennet is used.

The “curd”, or solid coagulated mass that results, is then processed by heat, pressure, molds, or other special treatment, depending on what kind and flavor of cheese is wanted.

Hard cheese (such as cheddar cheese) is made by souring milk and adding rennet. This is separated from the liquid part (whey). During the process, calcium chloride may be added. Salt is added. And the cheese may be coated with paraffin or vegetable oil.

In June of 1959, the FDA ruled in favor of bleaches, which are now permitted in many hard, natural cheeses.

As a result of the ruling, some hard natural cheeses are bleached with benzoyl peroxide, or with benzoyl peroxide mixed with potassium alum, calcium sulfate, and magnesium carbonate.

Mold-inhibiting ingredients of sorbic acid or its salts (potassium or sodium sorabate) or any combination of two or more of these are permitted in cheese and are widely used

Cheese contains no fiber, few vitamins or minerals, is extremely high in fats and toxic chemicals that are produced by the manufacturing processes. Hard cheese causes the most damage to human health, the worst being Parmesan and Romano because they are dried and powdered. The drying process exposes cholesterol and other fats to oxygen, which then produces oxidized breakdown products that are highly toxic to artery walls.

BEHOLD —THE POWER OF GLUE!

Eighty percent of milk and cheese protein consists of casein, a tenacious glue. Casein is the glue that is used to hold a label to a beer bottle. Casein is the glue that holds together wood in furniture. Try to scrape off one of those labels, then consider the effects of casein in your body. .

Last year, the average American ate five ounces per day of meat and chicken and 29.2 ounces a day (666 pounds per year) of milk and dairy products. Ice cream, cheese, and milk contain powerful hormones. One pound of cheese can contain ten times the amount of hormones as one pound of milk. Nursing cows were never supposed to pass on cheese to their calves. They were, however, designed to pass on hormones, lactoferrins, and immunoglobulins in liquid milk to their infants.

ohh and heres another on the harmful effects of over the counter vitamins:

Too much of almost any vitamin or mineral can be extremely harmful. When food contains large amounts of vitamins and minerals, the body prevents damage by decreasing the absorption rate. To promote supplements this decreased absorption is presented as a 'defect', that has to be compensated by consuming purchased supplements. Supplements however, can be extremely harmful because contents are highly concentrated, blocking selective uptake.

It is a fact that animals internally produce all vitamins that are not (sufficiently-) present in their natural food. Logically, vitamins that humans cannot (sufficiently-) produce, are abundantly present in natural foods for humans ; such as fruits and raw animal food. Fruits and raw animal food (like sashimi and raw egg yolk) combined contain all vitamins, minerals, trace elements, protein, sugars, fats and cholesterol that you need.

Of course supplement-manufacturers want you to believe that you need their supplements to obtain all required vitamins, but (to prevent damage) all you have to do, is eat lots of fruit and some sashimi every once in a while (or fresh raw egg yolk mixed with avocado for example, requiring an hour rest to digest by the way !).

Except for extremely-wrong-calcium-recommendations (see site4), you will even meet official (but false) nutrient recommendations by consuming 1½kg. of fruits (see 'perfect combinations' at this page), if the right fruits are combined.

To say that drugs, as in what America deems a drug, are bad iis a hypocritical statement. Almost anything we consume during the course of our day alters our perception in some way. Be it caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, cocoa, growth hormones in meat products, steroids in meat products, high fructose corn syrup, fat injected patties from mickey d's, multi-vitamins, fortified milk, and the list goes on, we all consume risky and deadly chemicals. MaryJane is not one of them...she is natural and in many ways benificial. If you can say that you never consume or use any of the cancer causing, birth deffect enabling drugs listed above and that you do not use name brand cosmetics, shampoos, weed control sprays, insecticides, electricity and gas powered vehicles then maybe I will listen...untill then do your drug of choice and let others have theirs

I brought back up your previous quote. You were not just talking about marijuana, though you have since switched to only pot in your argument. I will agree with you about marijuana - however, you are way off base when it comes to cocaine use, ecstacy, and other harder drugs. That is why I kept saying drug users - not marijuana users - I was addressing your entire blanket statement about people who use drugs, no matter what they are.

Many rural areas of the United States have been ravaged by crystal meth use, and heroin use is also dramatically on the rise in the US. Major cities (especially Los Angeles, NYC and Miami) are plagued with overdoses and deaths from E, Special K and GHB - many of them first time or very casual users, You cannot honestly say that the vast majority of users of crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, PCP, GHB, Special K, et al. are not being negatively affected and are using the drugs responsibily. Unlike pot, these drugs are often times instantly addictive, and many times instantly deadly. Minority groups have been especially hard hit by the negative effect of these drugs, but no group is exempt from them.
Pot is the least of the worries that drug users face, it is an entirely different class of drug from the rest of these and should be taken out of the equation.

MSNBC - Toxic High Poisons Region
http://www.msnbc.com/news/498823.asp?cp1=1

Drug Abuse in the Gay Community
http://alwaysyourchoice.com/ayc/sex/gay/drug_gay.php

Study Sheds Light on Ecstacy Deaths
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3606960/

GHB Effects
http://www.streetdrugs.org/ghb.htm

Is Special K that bad?
http://www.byparents-forparents.com/article6.html

PMA Warning - PMA being sold as ecstacy
http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/pma_faq.php

Cocaine Effects
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/cocaine.html


Marijuana is one thing to discuss, Special K/crystal meth/cocaine is quite another. Any arguments that these drugs are harmless is or that they can be used with no long term effect on your life is just wrong.

Cristiano

I won't say that those other drugs are harmless. Quite the contrary. But I will stand by the assertion that the vast majority of users do not suffer ill effects or addiction as a result of their use. It's wrong to view users who do not suffer from their use as the exception rather than the rule. It simply isn't true and the predisposition to view it that way is the direct result of propoganda, not objective statistics.

Chip, I absolutely agree.

And further, people are dying daily of far worse things that people refuse to discuss. Many more are addicted to caffiene and high fructose corn syrup than the occasional blow it out once a year cocaine user or the wake and baker. I am for the legalization of everything. Humans need to learn moderation even if it is by survival of the fittest. I have done just about everything in my time (when I was much younger) but it doesn't mean that I am going to hold up a convenience store tomorrow and blow everyone to kingdom come for a fix. Why? Because I know when to say when. I own a home, a business, a few cars and a dog...none of which suffer for my occasional party favors.

A dear friend of mine (one of the most straight up people I know) was fired from his job of 15 years because he went to the islands for his honeymoon and for the first time in 15 years smoked a joint. When he came back the company immediately drug tested and fired him. This is not a good and fair corporate policy when Joe Bloe down the hall can drink a fifth on Sunday night and come in hung over and barely functioning on Monday, only to be rewarded by retaining his job because he passed the drug test. Not to even mention the ohh so politically incorrect mentioning of the obese person who can barely fit into their cubicle and is not forced to abide by company dress codes due to their weight though they are seen eating a super sized big mac meal and a sundae for desert and hit the snack machine every two minutes due to what they say is low blood sugar caused by adult onset diabetes which in turn was caused by the Big-Mac attack every day.

Drugs are drugs Coca-cola, coke, big-mac, maryjane unfortuantly the ones that do the most harm are perfectly legal.

Very well said Aliena (that was a great and very informative post above btw!). We humans are very odd and irrational in the things we choose to get bent out of shape over. It's never about the raw numbers or objective data. There's always an emotional component and a kind of hierarchical moral posturing involved. People like to feel superior to other people and jumping on the bandwagon to be against unpopular activities or those with a moral stigma attached is a cheap and easy way to feel 'above' them. I think it's a subconscious byproduct of our natural herding instinct. If what's legal and what's not was based soley on amount of use and raw statistical risk analysis it would be a very different world.

If an idiot drives a car off a cliff people are inclined to say "what an idiot" rather than blame the car. If someone takes drugs and does something stupid people immediately blame the drugs and not the stupidity of the user. Most people don't realize they've been systematicly trained throughout their lives to not see the issue objectively. Perhaps people are just clouded by their prozac, welbutrin, and zoloft prescriptions.

Head. . . exploding. . . must. . . react.

Wow, I need to check this forum more often.

As to the Ecstacy issues - deaths related to ecstacy are mostly related to misuse due to misinformation. Like anything, if it were legal and regulated, we'd have better information/education about it. And Darwin, the statistics for people dying from their first use of Ecstacy is ridiculously small. Much smaller than the majority of prescription drugs. Some people are going to have an allergic reaction to anything. In this sense, shellfish is much more dangerous.

A normal healthy educated person who takes a normal dose is simply Not going to die from Ecstacy.

But enough on that.

As to other drugs (coke, heroin, etc.) these are a little more iffy in that they can kill fairly easily. These should be regulated in the extreme. I won't go into this now.

Now, as to the herbal supplement Marijuana.

Well, I start off with that joke. Actually, comparing marijuana to herbal supplements is ludicrous. People die every year from bad reactions to those supplements.

Not one single person in recorded history has died from marijuana usage. It just simply isn't possible.

As to its links to lung cancer - these are anecdotal at best. It's hard to get large population studies of people who consume Just marijuana. However, recent looks at the Rastafarian communities have shown that these people, who use marijuana extensively, but eschew all other substances, seem to have no greater health issues than the general populace in their area. It'll be interesting to see more of this data.

Marijuana isn't completely without risk/harm (Doritos are expensive!) but it's one of the least harmful things known to man. The harms of prohibition far outweigh any harms possibly caused by marijuana. Do you know why alcohol prohibition was ended? It wasn't because society in general desperately wanted to drink. And it wasn't even the outrageous amount of crime that sprung up from the newly formed black market. It was ended because alcholic wards in hospitals were simply overflowing.

With a black market, you greatly increase people's tendencies toward mental addiction.

Let's say I really like chocolate cookies, but, because they are illegal, the only person I can get them from is a drug dealer. I don't know when this person may or may not have cookies as the supply line is iffy. So, if the dealer does have cookies, you can bet I'm gonna buy them, as I don't know when I might get cookies again.

And, while that dealer is offering me his cookies of questionable, unregulated content, I might as well take a look at his supply of cake and other much more harmful sweets. Besides, the government has been telling me chocolate cookies are the devil, which I know from experience and rationality is patently false, so why should I believe anything they tell me about the harms of razor blade filled cakes?

Alright, back to reality. Marijuana being illegal causes so many issues that aren't even apparent on the surface. My brother, who is in the Air Force, is someone, like a great deal of us who would like to alter his consciousness every once in awhile to relax. Because he is regularly drug tested, he can't use marijuana - so instead, he goes with the legal intoxicant alcohol. Alcohol. Which is physically addictive. Kills. I fear that marijuana prohibition is gonna turn him into an alcoholic.

People have asserted that we should be allowed to put what we want in our bodies. To a degree, I agree - I don't think people should be allowed to just kill themselves.

But killing the body is not what we are talking about here. When someone chooses to take a mind altering substance, they are doing just that - altering their mind. Their Own Mind.

Once the government steps in and start trying to regulate the contents of one's mind or how one chooses to organise it, that's where we get into some major issues.

And yes, it is most definitely safer than Aspirin

Ohh and Onei the cheese references above were for you...hehe you had asked me if I had any information on the harmful aspects of processed cheeses so I dug up what I had...

These are the stats from what the cdc is calling the actual causes of death in the USA for the year 2000:

Tobacco 18.1%
Poor Diet/Physical Inactivity 16.6%
CDC scientists found a 61% increase in the number of Americans who were obese from 1991 to 2000 (12.0% to 19.8%). They also found a 49% increase in the number of Americans who had diabetes from 1990 to 2000 (4.9% to 7.3%). About 27.3% of Americans did not engage in any physical activity during the 1990s and only about a quarter of Americans consumed the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
Alcohol consumption 3.5%
Microbial agents
(e.g., influenza, pneumonia) 3.1%
Toxic Agents
(e.g., pollutants, asbestos) 2.3%
Motor-vehicles 1.8%
Firearms 1.2%
Sexual behavior 0.8%
Illicit drug use 0.7%

*McGinnis JM, Foege WH; JAMA 1993;270(1:2207–12
†Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238-1246
taken from http://www.cdc.gov

The only reason pot is not legal is because it cant be patent . They would rather sell you their little white pill which is a "controlled substance". Hell why not go ahead a legalize herion....they put Oxy out there....which we needed another pain killer like we needed a hole in the head. I work for the State I live in....Workers' Comp....for people who are injuried on the job. These people are shooting out our front windows because they are cut off from it. We only pay for pain killers within the first 60 days of an injury then it takes a pretty big act to continue to approve a class III drug.


Besides....the Government and State would loose alot of jobs if many of the drugs were legalized....they make too much money on it. The so called "War on Drugs..."...lol....has got to be the biggest scam yet......

hell the most addicitive thing known is caffine......pot...it does have hallucinogen properties....but your body will never grow physicaly dependent on it......

Your argument here has no foundation. Rape and murder are felonious crimes punishable, in the case of murder, by death in some states and in the case of rape by long term incarceration. There are levels of legality in our judicial system. And to compare someone who smokes pot with rapists and murders is not only assinine and banal but slanderous. You are thinking on the lines of moral principles but pot is not a moral issue. There is not a single reference in the bible which states the prohibition of pot. The bible, koran, bhagda gita and other religious documents are the foundations of morality. Laws are built around codes of ethics. That is why when you go to law school you take classes in ethics not in morals. It is unethical to take another persons life. It is unethical to rape another person. These things directly harm another person who has no control over the outcome of the situation. It is not unethical to smoke pot. Pot and other drugs are only dangerous as long as the black market exsists. Pot and other illegal substances are illegal because the government uses it as a method of controlling the masses and to create a smoke screen to cover up the problems that are really causing death and the destruction of the American way such as obesity, over medication by pharmecuetical companies, hormone/steriod injected meat products and the failure of standardized education (which is apparent in your hackneyed logic). Morals are also a method of controlling the masses. They follow the premise that man is inherantly evil and ignorant therefore it is the job of a few to dictate what they should and should not do.

If drugs were legalized the government would have no cause to break and enter into private homes under the guise of searching for illegal substances. They would have no reason to invade small countries and install the powers that allow them control over these countries. They would not be able to take peoples homes and valuables claiming that the were gained by the sale of illegal drugs. They would no longer have to prescribe the much more harmful and mind altering phychiatric drugs that are making our citizens into mindless zombies.

The real problem exsists in people such as yourself who follow the line of thinking that all "sins" are created equal and that your idea of a "sin" should be my law. Drugs were legal for a long time. The original Coca-Cola products contained cocaine and were sold from carts to factory workers and even to military employees. It made them work faster and longer. Now we have replaced this with the man made caffiene which is far more addictive and the medium by which it is administered, high-fructose corn syrup, is far more deadly. But because you think it is ok to go to the local quickie mart and pick up a big gulp for your kid but not ok to smoke a joint then it must be better for you and remain legal.

But again to say that stealing a pack of gum is equivalent to raping a woman which is equivalent to smoking pot which is equivalent to murdering a man on the corner, which is equivalent to jay walking is to say that every man, woman and child on the earth is likely doomed to have to stand in a circular firing squad cause we have all broken some law at some time. Maybe the world would be a better place.

I thank the powers that be that you are in the minority.

Oneironaut - quite! this is more of a problem than many realize, i fear. i can't help but wonder how many people turned to alcohol because it's a legal drug, not to mention portrayed as being 'cool'. how many people have ended up as alcoholics because pot is illegal? ..that's just scary.




that's another huge problem.. but not directly because of Government and State. instead, it's indirectly.. they get lots of money from the pharmaceutical(sp?) companies. now, these guys would hate for pot, not to mention all drugs, to be legalized. they fear it would hurt sales of all those 'wonderful' drugs they sell, especially pot! imagine if we could legally buy something that would do the same thing as a ton of over-the-counter drugs AND prescription drugs... without all the horrible side-effects! so, the Governments want to help keep these guys making lots of money, because they get hand-offs to do that. ..a crying shame.


..as far as the dangers of other drugs. i can see the worth of legalizing across the board, if for no other reason than to stave off drug dealers/violence. cut off their monopoly and they'll diminish in large numbers. i'm sure they wouldn't disappear altogether, but they would almost disappear.

..and E? it is dangerous! i remember not long ago, there was a girl in the news who died from using E, just E. i don't have any quotes, but i know it eats away at the brain.. leaving holes in the ol' grey matter. not pretty.
..not to mention that you never know what's in the stuff. E is one of the 'dirtiest' drugs out there. being cut with who-knows-what. at least you know to stay away from the pills with brown spots, dead give away that it's cut with Heroin. yuck!

yeah, Heroin. one of the worst!!! i've seen too many people waste away, end up in jail, steal to support the habit, and die from this hellish substance. i'd rather see someone be a daily pothead than use this stuff even once.

..back to pot. i've been to Amsterdam. awesome place with some of the most respectful and kind people i've ever seen. i don't think i ever was anywhere else that such a vast majority of the populace was so nice, patient, and friendly! i can't help but attribute this to their pot laws/use.

let's all be friends, legalize pot.

I'm by no means defending or promoting Ecstacy. Obviously, it's not the best thing for you - anything that make you feel that bad the next day has to have detrimental effects. I can tell you though, I feel much worse the day after gettting drunk. Regardless, the damages from either are negligible if used in moderation placing such things (in my mind) into the category of 'once a year' drugs (ie New Years)

However, most of the danger for E are greatly over exaggerated by the government. The 'holes in the brain' and neurotoxicity studies that are constantly cited were facecious. The neurotoxicity one, the 'scientist' "mistakenly" gave the monkeys he was studying high doses of methamphetamine instead of ecstacy. However, this wasn't revealed until months after the report was circulated through the media. Also, the mistake is never mentioned when the report is Still cited by the anti-ecstacy people.

As far as people dying from Just E - it is true, E is a drug you can overdose on, and, unlike marijuana, is something people can have an allergic reaction to. However, the overwhelming majority of E deaths are actually from overheating or over/under hydration. These deaths would drop significantly in a non prohibition situation that allowed for honest information. Also, non prohibition would eliminate the 'dirty street drug' issue altogether. How many of you buy moonshine?

E, like any drug, does have inherent harms, but they are made much more severe by misinformation, prohibition and hysteria. The government thinks it is doing good by scaring us about the dangers of ecstacy, so they see nothing wrong about exagerrating those dangers and even lying directly about them.

For some great information on the government's lies about Ecstacy, check out this recent ABC news special:

Ecstacy Rising

Oh, and Cybin, I'm certain you meant to say, you haven't found a place with such consistently nice people as Amsterdam until you came to SL

good point ..i guess the main difference is the absence of 'griefing' in Amsterdam. i don't remember seeing anyone flying around on huge phallaces with heavily scripted prims-o-porn attached to their heads.. even with pot being legal there! hahaha..
..but yeah, SL is an AWESOME community!! i must say, as a whole, SL is the most intelligent group of divurgent(sp?) people i've had the pleasure to come across.. not to mention be a part of.


..and as far as E goes. you've made some good points there and i hear what you're saying. thanks for the info. although, i could swear that story about that girl ended up with doctors finding large amounts of her brain having been eaten away (presumably) by E. and yes, overheating/dehydration are major factors in problems caused by E.
..also, excellent point about legalized regulation. in such a case, people could be properly and well informed about the uses and dangers, as well as preventative measures, when using Ecstasy. not to mention, preventing the nasty habit of it being cut with who-knows-what. it would be 'pure', thus less harmful, more enjoyable, and undoubtedly would result in less 'morning after' side-effects.

You have an interesting insight....but I am afraid that its directly related....and I will tell you exactly how.....

lets say you have cancer....cancer is huge money...there are cancer centers, cancer drugs, cancer specialist.....so on....and your specialist is wanting to start you on the normal course of treatment with nuclear medicine....but you say.... whoa....I wanna try something different...I hear homopathic drugs can really make a difference....and thats how I want to start to battle my cancer.....see if that physician doesnt release you from his care and tell you that he can no longer treat you.

The FDA....they are the government....if that physician recommends some type of treatment not backed by them....he could loose his license, be discommunicated, and or barred from medical practice plus loose his malpractice insurance.

Guess who mandates who is a Pharmaceutical company in the US.....our government of course....they send out these ppl to check out your lab....and if you are not approved then you are shut down....much red tape involved plus Uncle Sam will tell you where you might buy you chemicals.....if you get to be a Pharmaceutical company and so its all directly related.

Here is another huge "proof is in the pudding"...those of us who suffer from allergies.....how many of you were takeing Claritin before it was over the counter? I was ......then for no reason outta of the blue....my physician says.....I want to try you on this Allegra D......and so....off I go to the drug store to now try this other stuff....*shrugs*...whatever...just so I may breath.....guesswhat...three months later...Claritin in over the counter. I began to ask other people that suffer from allergies about their medication....it would seam that this was not a happenstance, there were others that had samething done to them....by their physician that was different from mine.

Our Government is very much directly related to the physicians....without there seal of approval no practice in this country if your want to heal people....


Our Government is very much directly related to our Pharmaceutical Companies....they mandate who is in busisness and how many....FDA will tell them what can be put on the martket and what cant.....

Its a huge money making plot......and as far as OXY....they said they were only approving it for terminal....BS!!! They knew that it wasnt gonna stop there and they all wrung their hands until it was approved...they knew how addictive it is and knew how much money they stood to make....and make the money they have indeed.......our Nation is run by the Drug industry.....and Oil.....if you think Im joken.....go back to the first paragraph I wrote.....remember it......and god forbid you never have cancer but if you do.....see what happens.

Jolene,

excellent illustration! and actually clarifies what i was saying to a degree, while shedding light on some other well-put points.

yes, Government is directly tied to all of it, but i was just saying they don't have a direct interest in any type of 'patent'. they have a direct interest in those who get the 'patents', granted, the Gorvernment also approves those patents. it's really just a financial orgy for both sides, only problem is that 'We the People' suffer for it.


reminds me of a little joke i made up once:

the motto, "To Protect and Serve" is just for public view.

the full version is, "To Protect (our own interests) and Serve (summonses)"

it's makes me laugh.. unitl i really think about it for a moment.