I didn't even read this. I've learned to spam filter my brain so I don't need to completely ignore a poster on an entire forum, but on a subject like this (in which I've made contributions I consider to be valid so long as I remain on the pinnacle of persuasive intoxication without the uphill struggle of inherent contempt or the downhill slope of incoherent rambling) I find that just reading the name of the poster is enough to blur any of their contributions into static white noise.
If you could make one thing legal
- Thread starter Vita
- Start date
I didn't even read this. I've learned to spam filter my brain so I don't need to completely ignore a poster on an entire forum, but on a subject like this (in which I've made contributions I consider to be valid so long as I remain on the pinnacle of persuasive intoxication without the uphill struggle of inherent contempt or the downhill slope of incoherent rambling) I find that just reading the name of the poster is enough to blur any of their contributions into static white noise.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Testosterone, nads, balls, penis, non of that has anything to do with what turns them on or why they are attracted to kids, its in the mind, so either labotomy or pointless, a dude with his nuts cut off can still kidnap and molest a kid.
What I'd make legal is ALL drugs, legalise smack, and heroine, and you put an instant end to "designer" drugs that don't have a long history of research behind them being pumped out to kill kids and make someone a huge profit.
Likewise, legal and freely available pure drugs from reputable sources would almost complete destroy the entire "criminal nature" of drugs distribution, its one of the main reasons gangs exist and get violent at the moment, theres money and a lifestyle there, remove the money and people won't be anywhere near as interested. People won't be robbing and mugging people to get £100 for some heroine, when they can go to the local NHS run drug shop and get the same thing for £10, or get a token to get a limited amount for free to prevent him going to other sources.
It would solve many problems in society, and create very few, not least because companies can still make it a sackable offence to be on drugs, so most legitimate workers and any whose work could effect others safety(bus/train drivers, etc) still couldn't take them as they couldn't now.
Those that are addicted have less problems and because it would be freely available and cheap even if you could only get a very limited quantity there wouldn't be dealers around to buy larger quantities from, it will be harder for people to get addicted if they can never have much to start off with.
Why would they pick whiskey instead of alcohol? The active intoxicant is the same?
Because deaths by alcohol would include whiskey, vodka, beer and so on, the whole collection of alcohols , whereas deaths by ecstasy is specifically one drug rather than deaths by heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and so on. like I say, just if they were nitpicking they'd say the comparison should be deaths involving all alcohols and deaths involving all drugs otherwise its comparing a whole to a portion. Like comparing the quality of all pc games against one specific console game rather than pc games v console games, If you like. Me, I don't care , was just pointing out that's what they would nitpick on
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 10,648
Drugs would be a good start. We're all told not to do thing in the uk and that makes a lot of people want to do the exact opposite.
I have a smoke with my mate every few weeks,maybe a few + have a drink. That doesn't have any effect on my life other than not doing my body much good. I've had a few good experiences whilst smoking too
Same again with coke. Had a phase a few years ago where I'd take it on a night out along with alcohol. The only downside seemed to be my bank balance!
I have a smoke with my mate every few weeks,maybe a few + have a drink. That doesn't have any effect on my life other than not doing my body much good. I've had a few good experiences whilst smoking too
Same again with coke. Had a phase a few years ago where I'd take it on a night out along with alcohol. The only downside seemed to be my bank balance!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,810
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
False imprisonment. It would stop all the hassle I get.
please stop using these words i can barely pronounce them yet alone know what the hell they mean
in all seriousness (is that a word? i dont know) the clever folk need to start dumbing there posts down abit for me and the rest of the uneducated
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
the stats on both sides are always pretty dodgy imo
worth mentioning that when someone dies and it is blamed on ecstasy it is more than often a combination of drugs , not even always including actual MDMA , that is the risk people must take when they buy pills from the man on the corner. could compare it to uncontrolled homebrew booze where someone has to risk blindness/death
deaths in direct relation would be different again. how many people actually die of seretonin syndrome and similar ? how many people die from liver disease ? a lot of people die by being idiots and bump the stats , people like leah betts or people who go fighting/driving/swimming when drunk
The link above suggests 605 people died from 97-2007, a link on that page to another article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14533133 says from 96-2002 only 205 people died, AND of those cases ONLY 17% only involved ecstasy on its own.
So firstly you have 2002-2007 605-205 - however many died in 96(says numbers increased every year so not that many) so death rates increased dramatically.
But the fact that only 17% in the first years died while only taking ecstasy seems, well, suggests its not particularly dangerous compared to the actual number of ecstasy related cases being shown in the stats in previous posts.
The other problem being they don't really say how people died and what the numbers are.
Are the vast majority of alcohol related deaths caused by long term illness while with ecstasy its mostly overdosing as opposed to long term problems? While people know how much alcohol to drink in general because its out in the open, people might buy too much ecstasy because they don't know how much they need, and take too much, so the death rates MIGHT come down dramatically just by being legal, being only able to buy one pill at a time and by having advice along with the sale saying how much to take. Suggest what a safe limit is, and a ridiculously dangerous limit because I'd suggest the vast majority of users of ecstasy buy it and have no clue how much would actually kill them.
Last edited:
It's not really the same, though. Intoxication by whiskey, vodka, mead, lager, wine & port ultimately have their roots in one compound - ethanol, C2H5OH. Ecstasy (C11H15NO2), on the other hand, is different from heroin (C21H23NO5), cocaine (C17H2NO4) and cannabis (the active ingredient being tetrahydrocannabinol, C21H30O2). In that vein, comparing alcohol to "drugs" (i.e. - non-legal, non-taxed substances) is the kind of process normally followed by tabliod media and anyone else who makes a living on how much they can sensationalise a story.
Also, I've never regretted the lack of a subscript function on a forum as much as I do now.
Last edited:
Because deaths by alcohol would include whiskey, vodka, beer and so on, the whole collection of alcohols , whereas deaths by ecstasy is specifically one drug rather than deaths by heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and so on. like I say, just if they were nitpicking they'd say the comparison should be deaths involving all alcohols and deaths involving all drugs otherwise its comparing a whole to a portion. Like comparing the quality of all pc games against one specific console game rather than pc games v console games, If you like. Me, I don't care , was just pointing out that's what they would nitpick on
sorry Tombstone but i think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick and pretty tightly too..
alcohol is alcohol doesn't matter whether its vodka, lager whatever it should be compared as alchohol.
you wouldn't compare ecstasy to one particular strain of cannabis would you?
im more than likely wrong but in my understanding you would compare the main chemical involved in a particular substance i.e. thc (skunk, hash etc.) with whatever it is in alchohol (or is alcohol the thing that gets you drunk).
im sorry if that didn't make sense i have never been good with words lol
EDIT: i know i can't spell, no need to point it out
EDIT:
this is what i was getting at, thanks deadbeat
Last edited:
Except....
So you're judging on per 100,000 head of population, not 100,000 users, which changes the context dramatically. Of the life #I've led, I've known maybe a handful of people die from alcohol abuse, and one person die fro abuse of other drugs - and that was an overdose of prescription meds intended to combat a heroin addiction. I may have mentioned, I naturally assume people skip the hard drugs when I make my points - heroin, crack, pro-plus, that sort of thing.
Illicit drug profits have destabilize entire countries including Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.
28,288- estimated number of people killed in drug related violence since 2007 in Mexico.
Drugs may or may not be good for you but making them illegal is bad for others.
28,288- estimated number of people killed in drug related violence since 2007 in Mexico.
Drugs may or may not be good for you but making them illegal is bad for others.
Ethanol
Methanol
Ethane
Propane
Butane
?
Alcoholic drinks contain ethanol. There is no relevant difference between a shot of vodka and a shot of whisky.
sorry Tombstone but i think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick and pretty tightly too..
alcohol is alcohol doesn't matter whether its vodka, lager whatever it should be compared as alchohol.
you wouldn't compare ecstasy to one particular strain of cannabis would you?
im more than likely wrong but in my understanding you would compare the main chemical involved in a particular substance i.e. thc (skunk, hash etc.) with whatever it is in alchohol (or is alcohol the thing that gets you drunk).
im sorry if that didn't make sense i have never been good with words lol
EDIT: i know i can't spell, no need to point it out
EDIT:
this is what i was getting at, thanks deadbeat
Maybe its just the way I see it in my head then, for example....
1 guy gets plastered on whiskey, drives and gets killed in a car crash. That's +1 for alcohol related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on beer, drives and gets killed in a car crash. That's also +1 for alcohol related deaths. So +2 for alcohol related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on ecstasy , falls off a bridge and dies , that's +1 for ecstasy related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on heroin, falls of a bridge and dies, that's not included in the comparison.
Seems to me that one compares a genre if you like, whereas the other compares just one facet of a genre. One would expect the one which encompasses the whole genre to be higher.
Maybe I'm just thinking that out wrong, it is late after all.
Legalize all drugs and tax the hell out of it like they do smoking.
It would allow far tighter restrictions, reduce the danger involved, generate large amounts of revenue and reduce crime.
I also doubt drug use would rise notably either, I certainly wouldn't start taking something because it's legal, same as I don't smoke.
It would allow far tighter restrictions, reduce the danger involved, generate large amounts of revenue and reduce crime.
I also doubt drug use would rise notably either, I certainly wouldn't start taking something because it's legal, same as I don't smoke.
Maybe its just the way I see it in my head then, for example....
1 guy gets plastered on whiskey, drives and gets killed in a car crash. That's +1 for alcohol related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on beer, drives and gets killed in a car crash. That's also +1 for alcohol related deaths. So +2 for alcohol related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on ecstasy , falls off a bridge and dies , that's +1 for ecstasy related deaths.
1 guy gets plastered on heroin, falls of a bridge and dies, that's not included in the comparison.
Seems to me that one compares a genre if you like, whereas the other compares just one facet of a genre. One would expect the one which encompasses the whole genre to be higher.
Maybe I'm just thinking that out wrong, it is late after all.
Heroin is different to cannabis. Ecstasy is different to both of those. LSD is different again.
You're using the wrong sets. I'm not out to compare alcohol to all other illegal drugs. I'm comparing alcohol to ecstasy.
Fortunately, whether or not a murder is committed doesn't depend on your or anyone's lack of sympathy for the victim.
never mind not knowing how much will kill them , most people dont even know how much they are buying and taking!
imagine buying a packet of paracetomol but not knowing wether each tablet/capsule had 100mg in or 500mg in. and then because theres no leaflet saying not to take when using alcohol you mix them with a bottle of vodka.
lack of information is a huge problem too. its not that people havent done the studies but its that its hard for average joe to easily find and make use of the stats and information. (as we have found above)
Maybe I'm just thinking that out wrong, it is late after all.
it is late like and i have another 6 hours to go at work..
i dont want to say this but yes your seing it wrong thats why drugs have different classes as each has a different affect where whisky, vodka, lager, beer all have the same affect although some get you there quicker than others.
imo you cant compare drugs as a whole as you would have to include alchohol and tobacco in there too.
That's probably where I am going wrong, I thought it was to compare alcohol related deaths with drug related deaths rather than specifically ecstasy. My bad.