Drugs-Specifically XTC

[DarkCorp]

It all comes down to whether the drug will be used strictly for health reasons or will legalization just help more chuckleheads go out and abuse the drug.

 

[Sander]

Blade Runner: So because you couldn't handle the temptation, you feel that noone should be allowed to try?

 

[Silencer]

It all comes down to whether the drug will be used strictly for health reasons or will legalization just help more chuckleheads go out and abuse the drug.

Come on, do you really believe that? Used strictly for health reasons? Not in the States, where doc's believe psychotropes to be the best cure for any psychological problems, even when it's not. Not in Poland, where with no doubt there'd be lots of abuse of drugs prescribed to patients. Not anywhere else. I can easily imagine people suffering from Parkinson selling off the prescribed drug to dopeheads for clean tidy profit. I concur with Blade Runner on his one.

If it is proven that XTC helps patients and a way could be found to circumvent the side effects, it should be administered to those in need (i.e. folks suffering from Parkinson, to ease their pain), but this should only happen under strict control in hospitals.

 

[megatron]

Come on, do you really believe that? Used strictly for health reasons? Not in the States, where doc's believe psychotropes to be the best cure for any psychological problems, even when it's not. Not in Poland, where with no doubt there'd be lots of abuse of drugs prescribed to patients. Not anywhere else. I can easily imagine people suffering from Parkinson selling off the prescribed drug to dopeheads for clean tidy profit. I concur with Blade Runner on his one.

Not all doctors believe in just giving people drugs for no reason and if so, so what? I also 'imagine' that people would rather ease the pain than getting a few dollars.

If it is proven that XTC helps patients and a way could be found to circumvent the side effects, it should be administered to those in need (i.e. folks suffering from Parkinson, to ease their pain), but this should only happen under strict control in hospitals.

sounds pretty dumb. If you drink enough cough medicine you can get high, does that mean we should have it only in hospitals?

I think if you want drugs you should have easy, legal access to them. Or at least ease the jail sentences for drugs, making them illegal with harsh punishments doesn't seem to make much difference. le shrugge.

 

[Jebus]

@ Sander: Are you sure it was Dopamine? I mean, aren't that the same hormones your brain releases when you feel 'love'?

And we could avoid pot laced with angel dust or other additives. A safer high.

Dude, I agree. I used to smoke pot now and again, until I smoked a joint that was apparently laced with LSD. I swear to god man, I was hallucinating. In class.

I was seeing freakin' penguins during my Latin class.

Dude.

How can you legalize it and keep giant companies like Monsanto out. I mean, it's companies like Monsanto that have made the breeds of agriculture that allow the US to make enough food to feed most of the world (but we don't give it to them because it's bad for our profits and we'd rather let those little brown african fuckers starve- or so goes the thinking of the agricultural interest groups).

Did you know that all kinds of genetically engineered food are banned from Europe? And it's a good thing, too.

And: GMO's will NEVER get rid of hunger in the third world. Quite the contrary, probably.

Let's take some poor African farmer for example, who grows grain. When he takes in his harvest, he saves some grain to sow next year. So, in a way, his profits for next year are guaranteed, and he doesn't have to pay for the grain that he will sow next year. It has been like that since about 8000 BC, actually.

But the problem with GMO's are that they are specifically engineered so you cannot resow them. You are actually obliged to buy new bags of sowing-grain from Monsarto each year. In the USA the farmers might be able to afford that, (hell, the agricultural industry in the USA gets so many funds from the goverment each farmer there probably drives around in a Porsche, but that's another discussion) but our poor little farmer friend in Africa just doesn't have the funds for it. So, instead of helping world hunger, it will probably make it worse, since that poor little farmer in Africa probably won't be able to sell his grain to anyone because the GM grain is sooo much cheaper.

Plus, it actually gives companies like Monsarto power over the entire production of food in the world. Since American companies already control most other aspects of our life, that would be something to fight against.

in Belgium! Hah! Where it is still highly criminal (and rightly so).

Ehm... No it isn't... Cannabis has been legalised for everyone over 18 years. It is legal to grow it, (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use; meaning that if you wanted too, you could put a cannabis-plant on your window-shelf, and not get in any trouble.), it is legal to own it (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use), it is legal to carry it (as long as it isn't more that 5 grammes),it is legal to buy it, and it is legal to smoke it (as long as you don't smoke it in public places, the same places where you can't smoke a cigarette); but it is not legal to sell it.

And, cannabis has been condoned in Belgium yeaaaaaaaaaars before it was legalised, too.

 

[Silencer]

Not all doctors believe in just giving people drugs for no reason and if so, so what? I also 'imagine' that people would rather ease the pain than getting a few dollars.

You wouldn't object doctors giving you unnecessary drugs that may produce harmful side effects? I feel pretty sorry for you.

And I'm talking abuse here i.e. getting the doctor to prescribe you more of the drug than you actually need, soi that you can sell the surplus. You'd be amazed what people'd do out of greed.

sounds pretty dumb. If you drink enough cough medicine you can get high, does that mean we should have it only in hospitals?.

You'll die if you drink too much distilled water. Several liters, that is. I imagine that drinking too much of anything can make you ill. But you can get addicted with the first dose of a drug. That's the difference between dangers posed by taking drugs or drinking cough syrup.

I think if you want drugs you should have easy, legal access to them. Or at least ease the jail sentences for drugs, making them illegal with harsh punishments doesn't seem to make much difference. le shrugge.

I won't even waste my time to comment this.

 

[Sander]

@ Sander: Are you sure it was Dopamine? I mean, aren't that the same hormones your brain releases when you feel 'love'?

I'm absolutely certain.

Ehm... No it isn't... Cannabis has been legalised for everyone over 18 years. It is legal to grow it, (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use; meaning that if you wanted too, you could put a cannabis-plant on your window-shelf, and not get in any trouble.), it is legal to own it (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use), it is legal to carry it (as long as it isn't more that 5 grammes),it is legal to buy it, and it is legal to smoke it (as long as you don't smoke it in public places, the same places where you can't smoke a cigarette); but it is not legal to sell it.

And, cannabis has been condoned in Belgium yeaaaaaaaaaars before it was legalised, too.

Interesting, I didn't know that. It's logical, though, sicne Belgium is just south of the Netherlands. Heh.

You wouldn't object doctors giving you unnecessary drugs that may produce harmful side effects? I feel pretty sorry for you.

And I'm talking abuse here i.e. getting the doctor to prescribe you more of the drug than you actually need, soi that you can sell the surplus. You'd be amazed what people'd do out of greed.

This doesn't actually happen, you know. Maybe in Poland it does, but usually it just doesn't.

You'll die if you drink too much distilled water. Several liters, that is. I imagine that drinking too much of anything can make you ill. But you can get addicted with the first dose of a drug. That's the difference between dangers posed by taking drugs or drinking cough syrup.

That depends on the drug, not all drugs are like that. Cannabis, for instance, is not.
In fact, a lot of medicines ARE highly addictive, not as addictive as heroine or cocaine, but still addictive.

How can you legalize it and keep giant companies like Monsanto out. I mean, it's companies like Monsanto that have made the breeds of agriculture that allow the US to make enough food to feed most of the world (but we don't give it to them because it's bad for our profits and we'd rather let those little brown african fuckers starve- or so goes the thinking of the agricultural interest groups).

Enter: The Netherlands.

 

[Ozrat]

Did you know that all kinds of genetically engineered food are banned from Europe? And it's a good thing, too.

And: GMO's will NEVER get rid of hunger in the third world. Quite the contrary, probably.

Let's take some poor African farmer for example, who grows grain. When he takes in his harvest, he saves some grain to sow next year. So, in a way, his profits for next year are guaranteed, and he doesn't have to pay for the grain that he will sow next year. It has been like that since about 8000 BC, actually.

But the problem with GMO's are that they are specifically engineered so you cannot resow them. You are actually obliged to buy new bags of sowing-grain from Monsarto each year. In the USA the farmers might be able to afford that, (hell, the agricultural industry in the USA gets so many funds from the goverment each farmer there probably drives around in a Porsche, but that's another discussion) but our poor little farmer friend in Africa just doesn't have the funds for it. So, instead of helping world hunger, it will probably make it worse, since that poor little farmer in Africa probably won't be able to sell his grain to anyone because the GM grain is sooo much cheaper.

Plus, it actually gives companies like Monsarto power over the entire production of food in the world. Since American companies already control most other aspects of our life, that would be something to fight against.

Werd, brotha.

I was going to say something like this, but I was too lazy last night to do so. But I can add something to he argument.

You didn't mention how the reason why these crops can only grow for a year is because the GM crops were genetically altered to remove the gene that allows the plant to reproduce. They can still release pollen, however, which spreads this altered genes to other plants as well, thereby affecting the environment and naturally-growing plants. This is a huge mistake. Left uncontrolled, or even with the slightest margin for mistakes, and this can devasate an entire farming region as pollen can travel for miles in the air.

Besides, there are much better ways to increase THC levels in cannabis if that's your goal. If you look at my Molson Bud thread and read the articles, you'll read about how there were systems set up to distribute chemicals into the plant water/food that does this.

There's absolutely no reason to fuck around with the plant if it's already perfectly good the way it is.

And mass-production of food actually increases world hunger levels. But that's another post for another topic.

 

[Murdoch]

Let's take some poor African farmer for example, who grows grain. When he takes in his harvest, he saves some grain to sow next year. So, in a way, his profits for next year are guaranteed, and he doesn't have to pay for the grain that he will sow next year. It has been like that since about 8000 BC, actually.

But the problem with GMO's are that they are specifically engineered so you cannot resow them. You are actually obliged to buy new bags of sowing-grain from Monsarto each year. In the USA the farmers might be able to afford that, (hell, the agricultural industry in the USA gets so many funds from the goverment each farmer there probably drives around in a Porsche, but that's another discussion) but our poor little farmer friend in Africa just doesn't have the funds for it. So, instead of helping world hunger, it will probably make it worse, since that poor little farmer in Africa probably won't be able to sell his grain to anyone because the GM grain is sooo much cheaper.

FYI, this program was stopped a few years ago. It took huge amounts of bad PR, but Monsanto et al did stop inserting the suicide genes. Note that suicide refers to the inability of the grain to produce another generation of grain.

Back to the original point. XTC (as in ecstasy, right?) probably triggers receptors via a different mechanism, which results in the same effect. Thereby it circumvents the blocks dyskinesia exerts, or so I surmise.

Anyway, I think it should be treated just like a prescription drug. This method of control seems to best balance the negative and positive elements of its existence.

 

[Murdoch]

Werd, brotha.

I was going to say something like this, but I was too lazy last night to do so. But I can add something to he argument.

You didn't mention how the reason why these crops can only grow for a year is because the GM crops were genetically altered to remove the gene that allows the plant to reproduce. They can still release pollen, however, which spreads this altered genes to other plants as well, thereby affecting the environment and naturally-growing plants. This is a huge mistake. Left uncontrolled, or even with the slightest margin for mistakes, and this can devasate an entire farming region as pollen can travel for miles in the air.

Besides, there are much better ways to increase THC levels in cannabis if that's your goal. If you look at my Molson Bud thread and read the articles, you'll read about how there were systems set up to distribute chemicals into the plant water/food that does this.

There's absolutely no reason to fuck around with the plant if it's already perfectly good the way it is.

And mass-production of food actually increases world hunger levels. But that's another post for another topic.

For the record, my learned opinion defends many agribusiness practices. I believe that the benefits outweigh the detriments.

The effect of pollen on other crops has not been reproducible. And don't bring up Monarch butterflies and Bt, those tests were inconclusive.

As to your post about no reason to fuck around with things that are perfectly good? No, sorry, no.

Norman Borlaug developed a wheat strain (via conventional hybrid techniques) that has a short stalk. This stalk does not buckle under the weight of a fruit that has been bred to produce much more mass. He is credited with saving a billion lives around the world, most notably in India and averting a major population catastrophe.

But that is using conventional hybrid techiniques that civilization has been perfecting for millenia. GMO crops are a different and much more tricky issue. GMO (genetically modified organism) attempts to engineer traits in a colloquially termed atrificial process. This includes Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. Also includes Flavr-safe tomatoes. All introduce foreign or altered genes to modify the characteristics of the organism, for the benefit of mankind. Also includes Vitamin A rice which prevents blindness in Vitamin A deficient African and Asian countries via the food itself.

I'll stop there and address how food increases hunger. I'm not entirely sure what you refer to. I will go with the idea that by giving people food you increase there chances of reproduction. If that is not your argument Ozrat please elaborate. The above statement is true, but I fail to see how that is a bad thing from the humanitarian perspective. What you haven't addressed is that we can provide developing nations with all the food they need, but they must prepare it somehow, which requires lots of energy. This often comes at the expense of forests, which are denuded and result in many other short and long term consequences.

 

[Katja]

@ Sander: Are you sure it was Dopamine? I mean, aren't that the same hormones your brain releases when you feel 'love'?

It was Dopamine, which isn't a hormone at all. It's a neurotransmitter that is found to be deficient in those with Parkinsons and excessive in those with Schizophrenia.

 

[Jebus]

@ Sander: Are you sure it was Dopamine? I mean, aren't that the same hormones your brain releases when you feel 'love'?

It was Dopamine, which isn't a hormone at all. It's a neurotransmitter that is found to be deficient in those with Parkinsons and excessive in those with Schizophrenia.

Dopamine [C8H11NO2], a hormone-like substance, is an important neurotransmitter.

I wasn't that far off, though

Anywayz, don't hate me because I don't study medicine...

 

[Katja]

Anywayz, don't hate me because I don't study medicine...

Neither do I. I just happen to know about neurotransmitters because in every Psychology class we have an entire section dedicated to the brain and its chemistry.
I've taken 7 Psyc courses and every single one has a large section about neurotransmitters. It's all very repetitious and continues to get increasingly dull each time.

Which is also why I'm not getting involved in this dopamine conversation.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

I've taken 7 Psyc courses and every single one has a large section about neurotransmitters. It's all very repetitious and continues to get increasingly dull each time.

no shit, i feel like im in the same class every damn semester....



On to drugs:
I think pot should be legal and i don't even smoke it; i never have and probably never will. However there is so much demand for it in the states (estimated to be one of if not THE biggest cash crop in America, although it's sale occurs strictly on the black market, obviously), also we don't need valuable prison space filled up with pot dealers. The US has always been WAY too strict on pot. Back in the day in some states you could get the death penalty for weed. Even today you can still recieve a life sentance. Even if pot's not legalized (which in my opinion is never going to happen) it should definately be decriminalized.

If your interested in this stuff definately check out Eric Schlosser's 'Reefer Madness'. Not only does it have crazy stastics and stories on Pot, but it's got a sweet story of the US's biggest porn dealer and how he built this empire. He's like porno's Tony Montana.

 

[Silencer]

This doesn't actually happen, you know. Maybe in Poland it does, but usually it just doesn't.

You can't tell, since XTC treatment has not been attempted yet on the general population It's not ucommon for drugs to find their way to non-medical uses, and introducing XTC treatment may produce that side effect of XTC being "consumed" unjudiciously. Although this will be a largely marginal issue, it will inevitably come to pass.

That depends on the drug, not all drugs are like that. Cannabis, for instance, is not.
In fact, a lot of medicines ARE highly addictive, not as addictive as heroine or cocaine, but still addictive.

Are you maintaining that cannabis isn't addictive or that it's entirely harmless? While I'm not going to dismiss the latter altogether, I can't agree with the former.

And mind you, I'm saying that excessive amounts of anything may be dangerous, and this includes cannabis. And a reliant will simply have trouble quitting.

And yes, a lots of drugs are addictive, but it is XTC that is mainly consumed for non-medical purposes, not those drugs.

 

[Sander]

Are you maintaining that cannabis isn't addictive or that it's entirely harmless? While I'm not going to dismiss the latter altogether, I can't agree with the former.

Why? It's been proven taht it's not physically addictive. In other words, if you get addicted, you get addicted to the feeling, not the drug, and that's completely different. What's more, quitting pot isn't like quitting smoking or anything of the kind, because you don't have any physical withdrawals at all.

And mind you, I'm saying that excessive amounts of anything may be dangerous, and this includes cannabis. And a reliant will simply have trouble quitting.

This is simply logical.

And yes, a lots of drugs are addictive, but it is XTC that is mainly consumed for non-medical purposes, not those drugs.

True.

 

[alec]

in Belgium! Hah! Where it is still highly criminal (and rightly so).

Ehm... No it isn't... Cannabis has been legalised for everyone over 18 years. It is legal to grow it, (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use; meaning that if you wanted too, you could put a cannabis-plant on your window-shelf, and not get in any trouble.), it is legal to own it (as long as the quantities don't exceed what you would need for personal use), it is legal to carry it (as long as it isn't more that 5 grammes),it is legal to buy it, and it is legal to smoke it (as long as you don't smoke it in public places, the same places where you can't smoke a cigarette); but it is not legal to sell it.

And, cannabis has been condoned in Belgium yeaaaaaaaaaars before it was legalised, too.

You are so wrong, Jebus! Didn't you even check the new Belgian druglaws before posting this crap? The new druglaw (June 2nd 2003) states very clearly that cannabis is still illegal, it is only somehow decriminalised. That's all. And that means that you can carry 3 grams (and not the 5 grams that Dutch coffeeshop owners will tell you) of cannabis. Weed and not hash.

If you don't believe me, check the new druglaw for yourself:

http://www.druglijn.be/info_drugs/drugsABC/cannabis/wetgeving.html

And for your information, my friend, they (meaning the coppers) will still take a note of this if they catch you, which basically means that a few months later, you (if you're over eighteen) or your parents (if you're a minor) will get a nice visit by one of them coppers to ask you how you are doing. Don't think I don't know anything about this stuff (hehe): some of my friends got busted after June 2nd 2003 and the stories they have to tell, tell me that nothing has changed, really.

 

[Silencer]

quitting pot isn't like quitting smoking or anything of the kind, because you don't have any physical withdrawals at all.

I have to disagree with you. All addictions basically come down to psychology. Because you are addicted psychically to a feeling, you are also addicted to the agent that evokes that feeling, providing you have no substitute. Physical withdrawals just make the matter worse, demanding more willpower to stop. The core, which is the basic urge to satisfy a need, remains the same.

 

[evilmonkey]

There is a point in not introducing a new drug onto a culture that lacks said drug - a good example is the cultures that have drugs like cannabis as a cultural drug, and have then been intruduced to alcohol.

Unless the drug would benfit the society the society should say no - I fail to see how cannabis will benefit your average joe and in the eyes of society it should be kept away.

If the drug still makes your shores, and a new culture is brought into the light and the majority of the people is in accpetance, that is they are now apart of the drugs culture, lifting the ban might be in order for the society.

A Culture might of course have a thing for testing new stuff, and with it the question becomes tricky - but again the society that decides the ritual and the laws should protect what they have, in order to keep some sort of stability in our change to something new, not try to give people a push forward blindfolded.

I like testing drugs myself, and I don't mind that the law says no - I'm not a habit creating man myself, or perhaps I am, but my habits are so hard to break that new potential things have a hard time making it into a habit that it feels like I'm fairly good at standing ground - so neither do I fear that I will get addicted (I'm not respect less against drugs though) - but the larger society is not me, and they must look at the whole.