Quote:
Originally Posted by Will21st
Only misuse will kill you is an interesting point,though not necessarily true. I don't think it's a simple as saying drink x amount and you are safe.It's the habit that makes the difference between use and abuse. Even 2 or 3 beers a week can be a problem for some.
And how do you quantify abuse re tobacco? Would it be fair to say that a pack a day would be a normal habit that many smokers indulge in? Is that abuse? I'm pretty certain our cemeteries are full of a pack a day people.... it's hard to quantify.
The 30 mg thing was by the way meant as a like for like comparison to one beer.Of course most pills are stronger,or not if they're bunk!
I'd just like to draw your attention to the fact that NIDA is a US government site and they're heavily biased towards prohibition.... they're very inaccurate and will paint everything in the worst possible light. They're not trustworthy at all....
I agree that many substances if abused can be lethal and we as a society need to come to an agreement on what we permit or don't permit.
However unintended consequences need to be taken into consideration.
By the way,Ecstasy doesn't cause brain damage.Do you mind paying for the chaos alcohol causes? Cause that bill is much higher.
|
I think a lot of the problem is lack of reliable facts and so much bias in both directions .I am very much against drugs for personal reasons ,i have had a family member ruin her life ,and good friends die from drug related illnesses .On the other side i know people who take recreational drugs like cocaine on the bog lid and hold down good jobs ,i smoke myself and have been known to enjoy a right royal tipple so in that respect i am somewhat of a hypocrite as most of us are .The decision to make is where does society draw the line and what are the governments motives behind this latest initiative ,are they trying to justify the cost of continuing the war on drugs or is there a moral aspect to it ?
---------- Post added at 23:10 ---------- Previous post was at 23:05 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx
That is part of the point of making it legal and tax'ing it, the actual ingredients and dose will be more controlled and it will be a purer product free from the nasties a select few manufacturers put in there.
More harm has come to those using the so called legal alternatives which are much more harmful than the actual MDMA they are trying to mimic. Those more damaging alternatives would not be needed if people were not scared of getting the real thing.
As much as that document says 43% of users say its addictive, I have to call complete and utter bull on their stats. I know many many people who take E and not one of them is addicted to the product, or would say they were. The heaviest users out of them still only use at the weekend. That's not to say that there are people out there who might become psychological addicted to them but I would put that in the very low single digits. Painkillers are probably more addictive.
People have been using E since the 70's so im wondering where all the braindead crazy people are. Don't confuse the exctasy/weed only users with those drawn face skinny ill looking drug users who take everything under the sun.
|
I too doubt many of the statistics quoted on addiction ,that all depends on the definition of addiction .In the article i used they defined addiction as taking the substance repeatedly knowing it had harmful side effects .Addiction to me is not being able to carry out day to day life without taking the substance .As i said in my reply to Will21st getting reliable and unbiased info is very hard and most peoples perceptions of drugs are reliant on personal experience or what they read in the press