[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37196111]*pro drug use website often link to cherry picked research journals
That is no different to government anti-drug websites
You can't bang on about education of proper drug usage and then purposefully leave out information. It's every bit as bad as the misinformation presented on anti drug websites.[/QUOTE]
Almost everything I have read tells me the good and the bad of each drug so people can be fully informed when they do said drug. Most drug users want to know the bad effects as well.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
the website [url]http://www.erowid.org/[/url] is very unbiased in the information it gives you
[QUOTE=joe588;37196503]i dunno man, you seen that recent hsbc case? you'd be blind not to think that goes on in every financial institution.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
i've been saying it for years and it's finally starting to become public. expect many more soon![/QUOTE]
What I mean is they don't openly know it's drugs money, they probably can suspect it or know it's grey area money but they don't exactly push to find out where it's come from, could be off shore bank accounts or accounts used for illegal gambling etc. That said I've not really looked into the HSBC case too greatly.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37194987]"I'm sorry but if you don't think the government planned 9/11 you are very wrong, you just are but I don't have any evidence"
If there was a government funded agenda to make up findings about drugs, there would not be so many research journals that highlight the positive effects and uses of many of these illegal substances. But there are, because the government doesn't get to control research findings.[/QUOTE]
no but government can choose to fund certain research companies more than others who provide favourable result. and help to make those studies more visible.
for example a few months ago [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689]this[/url] study about the lung issues related to smoking cannabis was all across the media (BBC is funded largely by the UK goverment). [url=http://www.clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-impact-of-cannabis-on-your-lungs-BLF-report-2012.pdf]Here[/url] is a link to the full study. The "evidence" used in the study is from "external independent peer review” - the names/jobs/locations of these 'independent peers' has never been disclosed.
When in fact a simple google search will find several studies, that have been completely under published and under funded:
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm[/url] - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use
[url]http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848[/url] - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
These studies came out before the British lung foundation one, used more participants and results were gathered over a longer term.
Where is the BBC news story on how there is no link between smoking weed and lack of lung function?
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37198638]no but government can choose to fund certain research companies more than others who provide favourable result. and help to make those studies more visible.
for example a few months ago [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689]this[/url] study about the lung issues related to smoking cannabis was all across the media (BBC is funded largely by the UK goverment). [url=http://www.clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-impact-of-cannabis-on-your-lungs-BLF-report-2012.pdf]Here[/url] is a link to the full study. The "evidence" used in the study is from "external independent peer review” - the names/jobs/locations of these 'independent peers' has never been disclosed.
When in fact a simple google search will find several studies, that have been completely under published and under funded:
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm[/url] - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use
[url]http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848[/url] - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
These studies came out before the British lung foundation one, used more participants and results were gathered over a longer term.
Where is the BBC news story on how there is no link between smoking weed and lack of lung function?[/QUOTE]
Uh it's very simple.
The first link is NOT a research journal and that should be plain to see by it's fancy fluffy presentation.
the second two are, see the difference?
If it cannot list the methodology used and the details of the research, it cannot be considered scientific.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
p.s you just perpetrated more of the misinformation I was talking about.
The 2nd link does not conclude that exposure to cannabis smoke doesn't have adverse effects on pulmonary function, it concludes that low cumulative use had no notable impact.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37198748]Uh it's very simple.
The first link is NOT a research journal and that should be plain to see by it's fancy fluffy presentation.
the second two are, see the difference?
If it cannot list the methodology used and the details of the research, it cannot be considered scientific.[/QUOTE]
but it's being presented as fact to the public by a government media source and by the [b]British[/b] lung foundation. It doesn't matter if it is scientific or not, the average person who sees that story is going to accept it and it adds to the unnessesary scaremongering and misinformation.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37198748]The 2nd link does not conclude that exposure to cannabis smoke doesn't have adverse effects on pulmonary function, it concludes that low cumulative use had no notable impact.[/QUOTE]
Misinformation such as reports being published and circulated amongst mainstream media that fit the agenda of keeping drugs scary.
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37198820]but it's being presented as fact to the public by a government media source and by the [b]British[/b] lung foundation. It doesn't matter if it is scientific or not, the average person who sees that story is going to accept it and it adds to the unnessesary scaremongering and misinformation.[/QUOTE]
Yes.... and I have never said that government misinformation wasn't a problem. It clearly is.
If you read my post, you'll clearly see I am pointing out that it is hypocritical for pro-drug websites to play these same fucking games.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37198820]
agenda of keeping drugs scary.[/QUOTE]
This is nonsensical statement
Drugs should be considered scary for fuck's sake, the moment you start approaching drug use with a nonchalant attitude is the moment it starts becoming a problem. You don't need to look further than the rampant abuse of alcohol everywhere in western societies, because people don't treat alcohol as a potentially dangerous drug.
And before you jump on your high horse, no i am not anti-drug use.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37198911]Yes.... and I have never said that government misinformation wasn't a problem. It clearly is.
If you read my post, you'll clearly see I am pointing out that it is hypocritical for pro-drug websites to play these same fucking games.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37196111]*pro drug use website often link to cherry picked research journals
That is no different to government anti-drug websites
You can't bang on about education of proper drug usage and then purposefully leave out information. It's every bit as bad as the misinformation presented on anti drug websites.[/QUOTE]
no you didn't. you said that Government anti drug websites use legit studies too that are just cherry picked.
I provided to you an example that was big news here in the UK a few weeks ago, all over the TV and newspapers, that is not only incorrect but didn't produce a proper study, yet was being paraded as fact.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
I'm not saying that the drug websites are not guilty of cherry picking. but I would argue that the average person who visits these websites has already been exposed to the government propaganda in schools and in the media. and the very fact they are visiting these websites shows they are more open to finding out all the facts.
The average joe on the street who picks up a copy of a tabloid newspaper or sees a report on the news is going to accept that as fact. and these are the people who need to know the whole story, fair enough they may choose to not use a certain drug (I'm sorry I keep talking about weed but it's the drug I use the most and I stopped doing other stuff) but the "moral majority" should be the ones who are most informed.
your point about alcohol is also valid, but I would argue a similar thing, a lot of the dangers of alcohol are swept away, and comparative evidence isn't shown at all. why do studies like this [url]http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/06/the-largest-ever-study-in-to-drug-harms-places-alcohol-in-the-top-four/[/url] get little to no media attention when studies like the British lung foundation do?
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37198911]Drugs should be considered scary for fuck's sake, the moment you start approaching drug use with a nonchalant attitude is the moment it starts becoming a problem. [/QUOTE]
I agree with this. but when the government stance is "DRUGS ARE BAD DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THEM", when you know what, if used correctly and safely they can be fun, have little to no impact and are actually pretty good.
how can people make a judgement?
Drink your cocaine 'cos drugs is legal.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37199004]
The average joe on the street who picks up a copy of a tabloid newspaper or sees a report on the news is going to accept that as fact. and these are the people who need to know the whole story, fair enough they may choose to not use a certain drug (I'm sorry I keep talking about weed but it's the drug I use the most and I stopped doing other stuff) but the "moral majority" should be the ones who are most informed.
your point about alcohol is also valid, but I would argue a similar thing, a lot of the dangers of alcohol are swept away, and comparative evidence isn't shown at all. why do studies like this [url]http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/06/the-largest-ever-study-in-to-drug-harms-places-alcohol-in-the-top-four/[/url] get little to no media attention when studies like the British lung foundation do??[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how it is in your country, but in Australia there is plenty of attention payed to the dangers and impact of alcohol abuse. The problem is that it's so socially ingrained that no one cares, every generation will continue to abuse alcohol every weekend around this country. And yes it's absolutely true alcohol has ruined far more lives than most illicit drugs.
Not everybody in the government has a secret agenda to keep drugs illegal for their profit, there is a great deal of legitimate concern that if certain drugs were legalized and easily accessible, their usage would increase dramatically - it's not a concept I agree with, but they do have some reason to be concerned, tobacco and alcohol are the two primary examples of legalized unregulated drugs and they are among some of the highest consumed and abused in the world - mostly due to the fact that they are so heavily integrated into western society.
Again to emphasize, I'm not a fan of blanket movements/opinions, for or against, I think it should be reviewed and approached by a case by case basis, and with considerable caution. At this point there is far more benefit to legalization, but complete deregulation like some people call for is unfathomably retarded.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37170777]I don't exactly have a problem with drugs for personal use if they're used responsibly. But legalizing any drug is just putting too much trust in people. Just take a look at alcohol. It's legal and people abuse it constantly. If the government were to say, "Hey, we're making marijuana legal now!" I can only imagine how many deaths there would be on the road.
Legalizing any drug is just giving people more opportunities to fuck up other people's lives.[/QUOTE]
then maybe the problem is the people's attitude toward the drug, not the drug? why do people turn to drug abuse? (i can guarantee that there are very few millionaire heroin addicts)
It needs to be decriminalized.
and demedialized.
"O M GOD IT IS BADE FOR U MK DONT DO DRUGS. WEED REDUSE UR BREIN POWER."
[QUOTE=Bobie;37206236]then maybe the problem is the people's attitude toward the drug, not the drug? why do people turn to drug abuse? (i can guarantee that there are very few millionaire heroin addicts)[/QUOTE]
I'm not denying that. The drug itself can be used for leisure or whatever. But people will abuse it, just as they do alcohol. Making more drugs legal just gives people an excuse to abuse it.
[QUOTE=deaded38;37206760]I'm not denying that. The drug itself can be used for leisure or whatever. But people will abuse it, just as they do alcohol. Making more drugs legal just gives people an excuse to abuse it.[/QUOTE]
If they're so inclined, they'll do it anyway. You can't change people. The drugs exist, they can be acquired, and they will be abused.
Legalization invites regulation, and would make things better all around. The courts and prisons won't be filled with people being filed in for trivial drug "crimes", illicit drug trades that are both costly and violent would be effectively neutered, people won't have their lives ruined over possession, and it'll aid in the removal of the stigma surrounding the drugs. Removing that stigma will ensure proper education regarding them, more investigation into the potential benefits and downsides to the usage of such drugs, and treatment for those already addicted or suffering as a result of habitual usage.
[QUOTE=Arachnidus;37208213]If they're so inclined, they'll do it anyway. You can't change people. The drugs exist, they can be acquired, and they will be abused.
Legalization invites regulation, and would make things better all around. The courts and prisons won't be filled with people being filed in for trivial drug "crimes", illicit drug trades that are both costly and violent would be effectively neutered, people won't have their lives ruined over possession, and it'll aid in the removal of the stigma surrounding the drugs. Removing that stigma will ensure proper education regarding them, more investigation into the potential benefits and downsides to the usage of such drugs, and treatment for those already addicted or suffering as a result of habitual usage.[/QUOTE]
you can't change people? i would beg to differ. increase in living standards shows that a tendency towards crime is drastically reduced; with that logic the perfect environment for drugs would be a situation where the people are sufficiently educated on the matter and are happy enough to not to resort to an addictive form of the drug out of emotional trauma or depression.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37198911]
Drugs should be considered scary for fuck's sake, the moment you start approaching drug use with a nonchalant attitude is the moment it starts becoming a problem. You don't need to look further than the rampant abuse of alcohol everywhere in western societies, because people don't treat alcohol as a potentially dangerous drug.
[/QUOTE]
Before I start I'll just mention I have no real idea how the perfect system of drug use & freedom would work as they don't seem to mix well but I think it should maybe be the same as dangerous sports such as motorbikes in that you must be of age to partake (in this case buy or use) and be given training before you are allowed to with the basic premise of safe use.
[QUOTE=Callius;37212404]Before I start I'll just mention I have no real idea how the perfect system of drug use & freedom would work as they don't seem to mix well but I think it should maybe be the same as dangerous sports such as motorbikes in that you must be of age to partake (in this case buy or use) and be given training before you are allowed to with the basic premise of safe use.[/QUOTE]
Something like this is what I think would work best, after you're a legal adult you can take a test of responsible use of certain recreational drugs. Obviously not all drugs would require this like cannabis, tobacco, caffeine, and other drugs that are pretty hard to do something stupid solely under the influence of.
Here is a quote from a guy on the Facebook group 'Illegal drugs do not exist" that I thought to be appropriate to share with you people.
[quote=Darryl Bickler from 'Illegal drugs do not exist' Facebook group]Talk of decriminalising or legalising drugs as mooted by Transform and Release is rooted in a fictitious construct about how the law operates. They are seeing the whole thing in reverse, ascribing legal status to objects; this is impossible. One result is that the entire system of addressing negative outcomes connected with human actions associated with drug misuse is lost. The envisaged regulatory system of controlling human actions has been replaced with an indivisible illegality imposed on some persons concerned with some drugs, this via the misnomer that (some) potentially harmful drugs are illegal and some are legal. Tom Lloyd was right in his oral evidence to point out that this is nonsense, but he did not touch upon the profound significance of the replacement of the legal subject (person) with an object (drug). Simply put, we are avoiding the elephant in the room, we completely misconstrue the Misuse of Drugs Act with catastrophic consequences for all.
The expression ‘war on drugs' masks the true focus of attack, which is people who use some drugs (and indeed the possibility that any one of us might one day wish to), it is people who endure a perpetual climate of suspicion and stigmatisation irrespective of the need for the administrators to demonstrate any of the anti-social mischief. Concurrent over and under regulation of different classes of drug user thwarts the proper application of the law and progress in this arena. When we think of a war on people, it seems unconscionable to talk about winning it, its unjust and unconscionable; the various punitive policies are arbitrary.
Via objectification, the whole human rights discourse and libertarian considerations are obscured. Many consider that this is a war upon our possibilities to benefit from open objective research into remarkable molecules. Civilisation mandates that we have inalienable rights as human beings, rights to know what is. We think, we are conscious, we are chemical - controlling body chemistry is something that should be done with anxious concern for the limitations we impose on the experience of being. Why is personal chemistry any business of the state whilst persons experiment peacefully and do not endanger others? My message is that by misconstruing the problem we lost ourselves to pernicious censorship of the self. The state refuse to recognise legitimate uses for thousands of molecules both naturally occurring and synthetic; all proportionality of interference has been lost to a double-speak concerning a supposed war on illegal objects. There is no threshold for interference into some people’s lives, they are deemed fair game before a significant anti-social outcome can even be foreseen.
We might contemplate a ‘war’ targeting the worst outcomes of drug misuse, and develop best policies concerning harm reduction and prevention. Yet we ended up in this mess by failing to differentiate between good, acceptable and bad outcomes for some drug users, after all, ‘it‘ is supposedly illegal. Yet there is no law against using any drug except opium. The law is supposed to regulate property to curb misuse, not to deny all use in almost all circumstances for controlled drugs. Information is deemed to be lacking in credibility because it is so lacking. Most people misusing drugs are completely ignored by the administrators of the law, a policy borne of “cultural and historic preferences“# that declares them lawful within the purview of the very law supposed to address such misuse, this by merit of them being associated with supposedly ‘legal drugs’ - the law is drafted to be neutral, people are not supposed to be exempt!
In the resultant artificial divide between different classes of persons using different drugs, some people are awarded privileged property rights, and others are denied their rights absolutely. This is maintained via the abuse of power inherent within the misadministration of outcome-based neutral primary law. Using a ‘smoke and mirrors’ deception, that the law controls drugs not persons, the government cannot recognise the Misuse of Drug’s Act’s true form to address antisocial outcomes via the flexible regulation of different persons with respect to different drugs. Rather their policy protects vested interests in drugs, this by according sacrosanct status to some persons, resulting in the irrational policy that presumes that some drug taking is presumed more worthy, even holier than other possibly potentially less harmful consciousness modifying practices.
The flip side of the ’illegal drugs’ myth is the myth of ‘legal drugs’ - the lie that some people are exempted from the law. The majority would not tolerate sufferance of imprisonment for having a peaceful home brewing interest - yet a cultivator of cannabis loses their liberty. This is perverse social engineering towards poor drug choices.[/quote]
No, I don't think drugs should be legalized. However, I do think this whole drug war should be ended. It costs to much to carry out and is ineffective.
It would be much better to change upbringing and institution so that people don't feel compelled to take drugs. That's the hard part.
So for the people the "upbringing" and "institution" doesn't appeal to or strike a resonance with should be exposed to a black market when most of the negative effects could be eliminated and minimalised by regulation saving thousands of lives?
[QUOTE=cqbcat;37228202]No, I don't think drugs should be legalized. However, I do think this whole drug war should be ended. It costs to much to carry out and is ineffective.
It would be much better to change upbringing and institution so that people don't feel compelled to take drugs. That's the hard part.[/QUOTE]
Noone ever feels compelled to take drugs, it's just a choice to have an experience.
Well maybe not everyone, but I don't know of anyone like that, maybe just younger folks like early -mid teens
Exactly, peer pressure is made out to be far more of an issue than it already is when it comes to so-called drugs. I've tried various things since I was in my mid teens all because I chose to and had a trusted source of uncontaminated substances, not because I was "compelled" to.
I think drugs should be legalized. That way, with all the people shooting themselves up with stupid shit I might have a better chance at employment when I go look for a summer job
Actually if they were legalised and regulated heroin addicts and the like would be more likely to be able to hold down a job because they could easily get uncontaminated product of known strength at a reasonable price and apply the correct dosage for themselves using clean paraphernalia a number of times a day. The addiction is not a problem if it is maintained correctly on a regular basis and tapered down when usage needs to be postponed or stopped entirely. That is why methadone is used currently - it is a legally distributed and regulated product that takes the users out of the black market, and as a substance it isn't any safer than heroin - it just has none of the black market side effects. Methadone is a law enforcement measure - replace the dependence on the black market with one on a regulated product. I guess employers would still stigmatise them for a while, though, until they realised they could work like any other person.
As long as there are laws and simple tests for each legalized drug in order to prevent them from being used while driving(I.E. breathalyzer), I'm totally cool with them being legal.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37256698]Actually if they were legalised and regulated heroin addicts and the like would be more likely to be able to hold down a job because they could easily get uncontaminated product of known strength at a reasonable price and apply the correct dosage for themselves using clean paraphernalia a number of times a day. The addiction is not a problem if it is maintained correctly on a regular basis and tapered down when usage needs to be postponed or stopped entirely. That is why methadone is used currently - it is a legally distributed and regulated product that takes the users out of the black market, and as a substance it isn't any safer than heroin - it just has none of the black market side effects. Methadone is a law enforcement measure - replace the dependence on the black market with one on a regulated product. I guess employers would still stigmatise them for a while, though, until they realised they could work like any other person.[/QUOTE]
Depends if the employer knew, you don't have to declare that you're a raging alcoholic who gets pissed every week in an interview so I can't see why this should be any different unless it directly affected your work.
Not necessarily legalized, but it shouldn't in any way receive the inordinate funding that it does in the United States. The money to put towards arresting/prosecuting/holding users should be assigned to rehabilitating them instead of just shoving them in jail/prison where they will come out using the exact same amount, or in most cases using something harder that they picked up a taste for in prison. A majority of people look at a cutter and think that they need to see a therapist in an attempt to overcome their depression. However when they look at a drug user they think that person needs to stop using drugs and become a functional person. Making drugs illegal is a band-aid at most. A fix for the effect instead of the cause is always deemed illogical and wasteful, and in fact is. Heroin-assisted treatment was picked up by the Netherlands, and from 1998 to 2010 there was a 30% drop in heroin users on the street.
[QUOTE=Callius;37257091]Depends if the employer knew, you don't have to declare that you're a raging alcoholic who gets pissed every week in an interview so I can't see why this should be any different unless it directly affected your work.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, indeed. Not disclosing stigmatised things like that or even just proclaiming a fondness of weed at work is a good idea. Best to keep your private life private until you know people at work personally and well enough to understand their potential reaction to sensitive topics such as this. On that note, fuck drugs tests - I'm applying to work for you using my skills, not to give you free reign over my entire life and dictate what I can and cannot do on the weekends and evenings whilst you laughably at the same time discard alcohol abuse and monday morning hangovers as an acceptable thing. If my work is unsatisfactory or poor quality, get rid of me or talk to me about that and maybe I'll make adjustments to try to make things right - don't drug test me and blame a substance for my poor performance.
#
Exactly, let people make their own choices.
Yes. I am also for removing labels from things that are clearly toxic that read DO NOT DRINK THIS!.
It would take the money away from the drug lords and greatly improve the lives of most people living in Mexico. Also illegal immigration from mexico would be less of a problem.
Controlling the distribution of the drugs would be the next big step. The ability to make drugs just as effective but not as addictive would also be awesome.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.