|
Fascinating exctasy review and openess from the a big paper here (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| de+ |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Lira it seems to point out MDMA is less threatening to public health than an already legalised substance (in this case, alcohol) |
Unsurprising, considering the ridiculous threat to public health alcohol is. It's classified as a hard drug for a good reason, you know. That stuff's dangerous. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
Well, there's no shame in being in the middle with this subject. Honestly none of us know what's going to happen if the legislation gets an overhaul. I can imagine you didn't feel much like arguing over what ifs and maybes and I do agree to an extent, which is why I usually don't like to get involved in debates like this.
There were a few things that surprised me though.
Firstly you are the only person I've ever debated with who seems to get so incredibly annoyed when I question certain things in their posts.
It is very easy to get pushed in a certain position when you're trying to spice up your arguments and you don't always get a perfect representation of what you stand for. This is not a big deal, if you accept this fact you can just rectify your mistakes when someone asks you about them.
You're so anal about these things it's like you cannot accept that you yourself may not have been very clear and instead choose to attack me for not having analysed your position correctly. Which again I didn't even care about.
Another thing is this ongoing quibble about the term ideology.
I've explained multiple times now that I only labelled that specific part of your first post as such, and I'm not going to quote it again because I've consistently done so from the very beginning and yet you still insist on me somehow having politicized the entire argument and also suddenly your own position.
This initially leads me to believe you're taking it personal. but I know better then that, since you seem to have no problems attacking others on far more trivial errors. So then I assume you're playing games in an attempt to get some sort of victory out of this.
Truth is I simply meant that with that statement you were falling into the same trap many political ideologies also tend to get stuck in, mainly making too many assumptions about complex material such as the behaviour of a large group of people. It is simply when ideas start to override empiricism. It's not a big fault either, it's simply how humans work.
Again, it's you not being capable of dealing with not having all the answers. You wouldn't get so annoyed if this weren't the case.
Thing is you can avoid all this by keeping it a generalized argument. It's really not even important what you personal standpoint is, and for a while we were doing fine just bouncing off arguments and I genuinely think you brought some interesting things to the equation. Even if you weren't sure of what it meant to the overall scheme it's still good to discuss these things, it doesn't always have to lead to a win-lose situation. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| So, Lira. Gotten enough material to pass fiery judgement on the case yet? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
Another thing is this ongoing quibble about the term ideology.
I've explained multiple times now that I only labelled that specific part of your first post as such, and I'm not going to quote it again because I've consistently done so from the very beginning and yet you still insist on me somehow having politicized the entire argument and also suddenly your own position. |
I don't know if this is due to English not being your native language, but as I've said you open up a huge can of worms by using the word "ideology". It isn't really valid to say one small extract from my post is ideological, but the rest of it isn't. Ideology doesn't work like that. Ideology is a position that arises out of socioeconomic and cultural conditions. And again, your subsequent recourse to aligning my position with a common ideology means I don't really buy this "I just meant this one specific bit" defence. It's pretty clear to me you were lazily conflating me with a standard political position that arises when these debates come up.
| quote: | | Thing is you can avoid all this by keeping it a generalized argument. |
This was never a generalised argument, as Lira has noted. You merely chose to zoom out and treat my post as a larger scale comment on legalisation, rather than what it actually was: an expression of doubt on the validity of equating MDMA with alcohol in a specifically quoted article. My position was not so much "legalise MDMA and it will lead to lots of people ruining their lives", but rather that MDMA would become destructive if advocated as having the same social function as alcohol. As I said, it's best treated as a limited, once-a-weekend drug for a specific type of party. I can understand how the sentence you extracted reads as a broad statement on legalisation, but that's what happens when you isolate it from the larger point.
For what it's worth, I certainly think MDMA should be decriminalised, but I remain unconvinced that outright legalisation is wise. That's got nothing to do with ideological interpolation, and a lot to do with the fact I'm not completely untroubled by own use of the drug. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
It was never as generalized argument because you didn't want it to be. It takes two to tango and I gave it my best shot.
I still don't get the part about the term ideological either. You can't blame me for there being unwritten implications attached, in this case it means what I said it means. I also said the comment was in line with a certain political ideology, yes. But that is all I said. Hell, as far as I was concerned it might just as well have been a complete coincidence. I'm afraid any further implications regarding your standpoint are completely of your own accord.
| quote: |
For what it's worth, I certainly think MDMA should be decriminalised, but I remain unconvinced that outright legalisation is wise. That's got nothing to do with ideological interpolation, and a lot to do with the fact I'm not completely untroubled by own use of the drug. |
I'll get back to this tomorrow. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
I woukd say it is a once every few month thing. The time it takes to restore the serotonin balance takes longer than 1 week.
There is nothing in the article that wasn't said by shulgin and a bunch of other therapists and doctors decades ago.
Alcohol has the gastronomy tradition that will always make it more acceptable despite a per dosage comparison over an extended period of time. And there is a sort of cue and if pot is still illegal, you are not going to convince anyone to make MDMA legal.
Heroin is also less harmful, less addictive than alcohol. Same with cocaine. Same with meth.
I think it should be studied as it definitely has some medical value for mental health. Definitely taken off the class 1 scheduling. GHB is also on the list. And ironically heroin is but morphine isn't. Americans are ing stupid. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
I also said the comment was in line with a certain political ideology, yes. But that is all I said. Hell, as far as I was concerned it might just as well have been a complete coincidence. |
No you didn't. You wrote "Ideological garbage, IMO." Not "This sounds like, "This resembles" or "This is the same line of reasoning as".
"Ideological. Garbage. In. My. Opinion."
As I've just said, there's no such thing as coincidentally ideological. If you don't want to take responsibility for the connotations of a given word, don't use that word. Not that I believe there was any mistake in your choice. And neither do I believe that anywhere in those five words you actually intended to imply mere resemblence. It's very apparent that you read the line and saw the resemblence to a certain ideology, but it's also clear that you conflated the two. And now you're trying to deny it. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| I honestly think Lira should do a summary of events for any debate or argument which tends to escalate :p |
|
|
| enydo |
| This ones a tad pedantic. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
So, Lira. Gotten enough material to pass fiery judgement on the case yet? |
Yup, give me one more day and I'll post something (a bit in a hurry here now).
| quote: | Originally posted by enydo
This ones a tad pedantic. |
But... why? :(
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I honestly think Lira should do a summary of events for any debate or argument which tends to escalate :p |
:stongue: :toothless |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No you didn't. You wrote "Ideological garbage, IMO." Not "This sounds like, "This resembles" or "This is the same line of reasoning as".
"Ideological. Garbage. In. My. Opinion."
As I've just said, there's no such thing as coincidentally ideological. If you don't want to take responsibility for the connotations of a given word, don't use that word. Not that I believe there was any mistake in your choice. And neither do I believe that anywhere in those five words you actually intended to imply mere resemblence. It's very apparent that you read the line and saw the resemblence to a certain ideology, but it's also clear that you conflated the two. And now you're trying to deny it. |
I rest my case. I regret making it overly provocative with the garbage statement but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was valid, so no take backsies. Of all the senseless and hypocritical I posted here that's one of the last things I would take back.
| quote: |
For what it's worth, I certainly think MDMA should be decriminalised, but I remain unconvinced that outright legalisation is wise. That's got nothing to do with ideological interpolation, and a lot to do with the fact I'm not completely untroubled by own use of the drug.
|
It's the same for everyone I'm sure, I have a few friends who share the same reasoning. Basically they initially had some trouble with XTC usage, not sure how to fit it in to their lives. And then assume because they had so much trouble there's bound to be a myriad of people who won't be able to deal with it at all. Completely understandable, but still an assumption which requires further evidence.
Really, I think it's just a short period of experimentation triggered by the first, often overwhelming experience with the dug. Were they find themselves tripping far more often then they envisioned, combined with the shame of having lost their self control and having to hide it from their own friends and family.
It can be harsh, but really the vast majority always seems to come though and I'm convinced that if there wasn't so much social taboo it would be far easier for many people to climb the learning curve.
Also. For most it's such a distant memory that we've already forgotten about it, but the process of getting used to alcohol consumption and moderation is probably equally difficult. I can still remember at the time when I was sixteen that whenever there was an opportunity to drink, I would take it.
It probably didn't help my school endeavours either, but at least I got the opportunity to slowly find a balance. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
I woukd say it is a once every few month thing. The time it takes to restore the serotonin balance takes longer than 1 week.
There is nothing in the article that wasn't said by shulgin and a bunch of other therapists and doctors decades ago.
Alcohol has the gastronomy tradition that will always make it more acceptable despite a per dosage comparison over an extended period of time. And there is a sort of cue and if pot is still illegal, you are not going to convince anyone to make MDMA legal.
Heroin is also less harmful, less addictive than alcohol. Same with cocaine. Same with meth.
I think it should be studied as it definitely has some medical value for mental health. Definitely taken off the class 1 scheduling. GHB is also on the list. And ironically heroin is but morphine isn't. Americans are ing stupid. |
This is also a good one, as ridiculous as it sounds there is no shortage of studies that support these claims. |
|
|
|
|
