felix77
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 418
I'll have to say I agree with you, David Nutt, the head of the study said that the chances of suffering from schizophrenia due to marijuana were very minute. While that is a drastically statment for pot, that is a more drastic statement for MDMA.
If David Nutt and his team of 40 scientists believe that pot isn't extremely harmful and they place it at #11 on the list, what does that mean for MDMA that is number 18?
I would guess the positive social benefits outweighs the negatives in their assessment.
While there is new research that is proving that marijuana use is not extremely armful, there is more compelling evidence for MDMA. This should not be a pot versus ecstasy debate. The news on both fronts as good, marijuana users would like to portray their drug as a "soft drug" while MDMA as a hard drug.
I understand the threat to be classified as a more dangerous drug then a so called hard drug. With the evidence available now, I do not think it should be pot VS. MDMA. I think both groups should work towards the end of prohibition based on perception. A fact based drug policy will benefit both parties.
If David Nutt and his team of 40 scientists believe that pot isn't extremely harmful and they place it at #11 on the list, what does that mean for MDMA that is number 18?
I would guess the positive social benefits outweighs the negatives in their assessment.
While there is new research that is proving that marijuana use is not extremely armful, there is more compelling evidence for MDMA. This should not be a pot versus ecstasy debate. The news on both fronts as good, marijuana users would like to portray their drug as a "soft drug" while MDMA as a hard drug.
I understand the threat to be classified as a more dangerous drug then a so called hard drug. With the evidence available now, I do not think it should be pot VS. MDMA. I think both groups should work towards the end of prohibition based on perception. A fact based drug policy will benefit both parties.