Having drugs for recreational use is OK. If it is done for fun, I do not see it as a problem. But it's like with all drugs; they all should be done in moderation.

I dont have much respect for those who let drugs rule their lives. Once it is an habbit & the person can't live without it <--- that's where the problem lies.

___________________

Addiction only happens when you let it, though. You as a person choose to do a drug, therefor you choose to accept the side effects.

___________________

Aer yuo drameign?

So is humanity ready for ultimate choice? Do we need the Government to rule our lives or can each individual govern themselves? I don't trust most people out there - however, I can recognize that establishing a black-market will never truly stop the circulation of contraband. It never has in the past and it probably won't in the future, so why are so many resources dedicated to limiting this black market? I guess it comes down to limiting availability of choice; if I choose to buy a load of really destructive weapons because I want to hijack an airport, the absence of government won't hamper me. Though, it seems more and more obvious that however much we try to stop this sort of thing, human choice supercedes any established institution with the sole purpose of limiting freedom (in a reasonable manner).

I guess my point is, most people who want to buy shitloads of drugs are probably not going to use them in the benine way in which we would like to in a perfect world. It's similar to somebody wanting to own a warehouse full of LAWs - chances are, that person has not just purchased them for the purpose of playing around on their property. It can be safely assumed that this person is garnering a support for control through arms and subsequent tyranny (*coughterroristscough*) and cares little for the common good.

However, complete dissolution of Government mandate will allow for this sort of control to be garnered over drugs - a control in itself which plays on the minds and chemicals of the people, themselves. Think of how mindfucked people seem by Television these days - now multiply that by 1000 because chemical imbalance has assumed it's role as yet another opiate of the populace.

Ultimately, it wouldn't be complete destruction of society as we know it, but things (in America, at least) would change drastically.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps Niccotine is the most harmless drug in the world, but look at what it costs our health care system each year.

Most harmless drug in the world? Who are you kidding? It's more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine, and is in fact a neurotoxin:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract

quote:

Now if you think that mushrooms, crack, ecstasy, coke, or anything of that sort should be legal you are a fucking idiot.

Wow, grouping indole alkaloids, amphetamines, and cocaine into the same category. But I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the effects of tryptamines on the 5-HT-2a receptor sites, and of course, the therapeutic ratio of psilocybin.

But who cares that mushrooms exhibit no neurotoxicity, or that nobody has ever died from ingesting them? Why would anyone ever want to examine the plethora of evidence supporting the fact that tryptamines cause no cognitive deficits? So what if serotonin agonists actually induce neurogenesis? Who could care that psilocybin is less toxic than aspirin or caffeine?

You'd have to be a "fucking idiot" to consider such things.

quote:

Alcohol is a very weak

You're just full of surprises. "Very weak", huh? Are you familiar with its suppression of neurogenesis? Or how about simply the well-known mechanisms by which it slaughters your Purkinje cells?

Oh, but I forgot--it's legal, and so we can ignore the fact that it's one of the most toxic drugs in use.

Get a clue before you post more bilge, k?

Bump. Legalize most drugs and funnel money back into government and good for society instead of anti-drug enforcement. As I see it, there's a larger cost of enforcement (i.e. prosecuting on a doobie) than what's worth the while and impact on society at large.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Most harmless drug in the world? Who are you kidding? It's more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine, and is in fact a neurotoxin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract Wow, grouping indole alkaloids, amphetamines, and cocaine into the same category. But I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the effects of tryptamines on the 5-HT-2a receptor sites, and of course, the therapeutic ratio of psilocybin. But who cares that mushrooms exhibit no neurotoxicity, or that nobody has ever died from ingesting them? Why would anyone ever want to examine the plethora of evidence supporting the fact that tryptamines cause no cognitive deficits? So what if serotonin agonists actually induce neurogenesis? Who could care that psilocybin is less toxic than aspirin or caffeine? You'd have to be a "fucking idiot" to consider such things. You're just full of surprises. "Very weak", huh? Are you familiar with its suppression of neurogenesis? Or how about simply the well-known mechanisms by which it slaughters your Purkinje cells? Oh, but I forgot--it's legal, and so we can ignore the fact that it's one of the most toxic drugs in use. Get a clue before you post more bilge, k?

You're so smart

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Wow, grouping indole alkaloids, amphetamines, and cocaine into the same category. But I'm sure you're intimately familiar with the effects of tryptamines on the 5-HT-2a receptor sites, and of course, the therapeutic ratio of psilocybin. But who cares that mushrooms exhibit no neurotoxicity, or that nobody has ever died from ingesting them? Why would anyone ever want to examine the plethora of evidence supporting the fact that tryptamines cause no cognitive deficits? So what if serotonin agonists actually induce neurogenesis? Who could care that psilocybin is less toxic than aspirin or caffeine?

Right on man. Finally somebody who has a clue what hes talking about.

Originally I would have got in-depth like your post, but figured nobody here would have a fucking clue what im talking about.

___________________

Aer yuo drameign?

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Most harmless drug in the world? Who are you kidding? It's more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine, and is in fact a neurotoxin:

Addiction is not dangerous unless the drug is.

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 But who cares that mushrooms exhibit no neurotoxicity, or that nobody has ever died from ingesting them

No but have people not died from doing things which they would not usually have done if they were not under the influence of mushrooms?

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who wants to use science to make them feel better about what they do.

I have used mushrooms once, and i can assure you they are more dangerous than alcohol. Theres more to danger than the physical damage it does to your body.

You need to consider things in ratio. Do you honestly think that mushrooms are safe, while alcohol his so terrible. Sure a whole bunch of people are killed by drunk drivers. Do you think that the death rate would be lower if people drove under the influence of mushrooms instead of alcohol?

Last edited by on Dec-07-2004 at 05:52

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So is humanity ready for ultimate choice? Do we need the Government to rule our lives or can each individual govern themselves? I don't trust most people out there - however, I can recognize that establishing a black-market will never truly stop the circulation of contraband. It never has in the past and it probably won't in the future, so why are so many resources dedicated to limiting this black market? I guess it comes down to limiting availability of choice; if I choose to buy a load of really destructive weapons because I want to hijack an airport, the absence of government won't hamper me. Though, it seems more and more obvious that however much we try to stop this sort of thing, human choice supercedes any established institution with the sole purpose of limiting freedom (in a reasonable manner). I guess my point is, most people who want to buy shitloads of drugs are probably not going to use them in the benine way in which we would like to in a perfect world. It's similar to somebody wanting to own a warehouse full of LAWs - chances are, that person has not just purchased them for the purpose of playing around on their property. It can be safely assumed that this person is garnering a support for control through arms and subsequent tyranny (*coughterroristscough*) and cares little for the common good. However, complete dissolution of Government mandate will allow for this sort of control to be garnered over drugs - a control in itself which plays on the minds and chemicals of the people, themselves. Think of how mindfucked people seem by Television these days - now multiply that by 1000 because chemical imbalance has assumed it's role as yet another opiate of the populace. Ultimately, it wouldn't be complete destruction of society as we know it, but things (in America, at least) would change drastically.

Yep its my body, and it should be my business what I stick in it, so long as I'm at a reasonable age to make the correct decisions.

___________________
"The first stage of the great adventure has concluded happily, and here I am installed in Mexico, although I have no idea about the future" Che Guevara

quote:

Originally posted by beats and beeps Addiction is not dangerous unless the drug is.

Yes, and not only is nicotine a neurotoxin, but the plethora of chemicals in cigarettes certainly qualify as "dangerous."

quote:

No but have people not died from doing things which they would not usually have done if they were not under the influence of mushrooms?

Are you aware that antihistamines, for example, are more impairing to driving abilities than being at the legal BAC?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...00309075245.htm

Does this by itself make antihistamines (e.g., Benadryl) dangerous drugs? Or is it the decision to partake in such activities that is dangerous?

quote:

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who wants to use science to make them feel better about what they do.

What makes you think I partake in any of the above? And why should empirical evidence of the safety of a drug not be considered when deciding what to do or what not to do?

quote:

I have used mushrooms once, and i can assure you they are more dangerous than alcohol. Theres more to danger than the physical damage it does to your body.

You've used them once, and that's sufficient to overthrow the enormous body of evidence demonstrating that alcohol is far more dangerous? Not very convincing, to say the least.

Certainly, they have the power to cause great emotional distress. Not everyone can handle them. It is for a similar reason that we keep kids out of rated R movies.

quote:

You need to consider things in ratio. Do you honestly think that mushrooms are safe, while alcohol his so terrible. Sure a whole bunch of people are killed by drunk drivers. Do you think that the death rate would be lower if people drove under the influence of mushrooms instead of alcohol?

People operating any potentially dangerous machinery under the influence of any mind-altering drugs are to be censured. Why does this support the assertion that the drug in question is bad?

Suppose you ignore the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers. Should we also ignore the studies showing that alcohol not only kills brain cells and destroys synapses, but prevents your brain from growing new cells? Or that specific cognitive deficits are caused by long-term moderate use? Or the deaths caused by alcohol overdose?

No drug is completely devoid of potential to cause harm. However, especially when used in private, and in moderation, some are smarter risks than others.

As much as I do enjoy them, I don't think legalising them would be good.
Sure, I'm less likely to end up in jail for doing what I get up to some weekends, but if harder drugs were freely available all the time, we'd have the same situation that we have with cigarettes and alcohol, as their wont be any 'instantly recognisable' risk associated with them, making people more likely to do them too often or in too large a quantity.

___________________
My Mixes