The EADD I'm Fucked Megathread - We don't even know what month it is...

[hexagram]

tripping my nut off, want it to keep raining.

 

[plmar]

Is it actually LSD?


Very jealous

 

[curious_24]

Alcohol can be very euphoric under the right circumstances. Only drawback is the following day....

 

[plmar]

Alcohol can be very euphoric under the right circumstances. Only drawback is the following day....

Depends how much you drink, and yes it can.

I rarely ever get hangover, and at most it's no more than dehydration or lightheadedness.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Still drinking Rass clot ? No good will come of it mate

Stay cool

Actually that was quite a pleasant, positive drinking session. Port. That's become my new fave drinkie.

Raas,

The experts you are referring to were fired by the government after the results of government funded research failed to coincide with the then current policy on drugs, based on the out dated Misuse of Drug's act.

Since some of us appear to have missed a beat, back in October 2009, in the run up to the last election, the Head of the government subsidised Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drug's (ACMD) was fired from his position after giving a private lecture at some UK uni where he presented the finding's of a government subsidised study designed to rank the 20 most prominant drugs in terms of their relative harms. The the labour government decided that since alcholol was found to be in the top five most dangerous drugs, (while cannabis, exctacy and lsd were not) that instead of allowing their own advisory panel to present these findings in public, they would instead choose to sensor these findings.

The experts concerning this issue are David Nutt, who was fired, along with 7 other prominent scientists who resigned in protest.

If that doesn't do it for you, a couple of years previously to this, the chief scientific advisor to the government, Sir David King, resigned from his post stating that his whole position in government was an absolute waste of time due to the simple fact that he couldn't find any more than a handful of active politicians who even had the semblence of a grasp of basic scientific principles that were an absolute necessity if he was to able to communicate effectively with any of them.

I don't know which experts you have in mind Raas but I have no doubt in my mind over which one's I put my faith and trust in. Care to offer up any names?

I think the government are under pressure to take a hard stance tackling drugs, so yes I'm sure a bit of bias and inconsistency creeps in. But there is definitely structured sense in the prohibition of drugs. Alcohol is less dangerous than many illicit substances, they also take into consideration views such as other drugs acting as "gateways" to harder ones. It's not a judgement from exact science.

I also feel Shambles was being unfair when quoting alcohol problems of severe alcoholics and then comparing that to the repercussions of illicit drugs. This abusive use of alcohol just isn't applicable to those who enjoy a bottle of wine in the evenings or whatever.



It's essentially the voters which deem it illegal though. The government and the police are more or less carrying out the will of the voters.

It will be interesting to see if the stance lessens in years to come. Because of the introduction of drugs like MDMA, I'm sure more young people are involved with drugs now than in 70's/80's. When our seniors die off, and the young grow up... pressure may be put on the government to be more lenient.

 

[Shambles]

Actually that was quite a pleasant, positive drinking session. Port. That's become my new fave drinkie.

I'll second that. Port is the tits. Especially with baked tomatoes with stilton, herb and breadcrumb stuffing on the side

I think the government are under pressure to take a hard stance tackling drugs, so yes I'm sure a bit of bias and inconsistency creeps in. But there is definitely structured sense in the prohibition of drugs. Alcohol is less dangerous than many illicit substances, they also take into consideration views such as other drugs acting as "gateways" to harder ones.

The "gateway" theory only works when drugs are illegal. Yes cannabis is a "gateway drug" when you have to buy it from dealers who sell other drugs. If the offy sold smack booze would be considered a "gateway drug" (which it is) but as it's legal that's never considered. If all drugs were legal no drug would have exclusive rights on being a "gateway drug" cos there would be no such concept. Booze was my gateway drug. I used to swipe my old man's miniature bottles he collected and take them in to school to share with friends, used to drink them at home alone, used to swig from the various booze bottles then top them up with water so it was less obvious I'd done so (although did hear a few quizzical comments about how watery such and such was tasting all of a sudden from downstairs some nights). It was booze that gave me a taste for altered states more than anything else did cos it was the first thing that put me in to truly altered states (you drink quick when you know you'll get the living shit kicked outta you if caught near the booze cupboard). I'd bet a ball most people who use drugs initially started on booze - before even cannabis in most cases probably. Why is alcohol not a "gateway drug" then? Or is it just a phrase you're parroting without thought as so many who use that phrase are?

There is no structured sense in the prohibition of drugs. Government scientists who advise on that very subject left en masse because their views were being ignored and have since been replaced by yes-wo/men who do nothing but tell the government what they're told to tell them. In what sense is that structured? Structured to fit pre-existing prejudice and policy is how, not in any meaningful way.

I also feel Shambles was being unfair when quoting alcohol problems of severe alcoholics and then comparing that to the repercussions of illicit drugs. This abusive use of alcohol just isn't applicable to those who enjoy a bottle of wine in the evenings or whatever.

You have used heroin for several years without it becoming a problem for you I believe. Same thing with alcohol. This is a non-argument so no point responding further. We're agreeing.

IIt's essentially the voters which deem it illegal though. The government and the police are more or less carrying out the will of the voters.

This is bad even by your low standards, Raas. At which point have voters ever been asked what they feel on the matter? Which party's manifesto had the abolition policy? When has the evidence for and against ever been presented anywhere let alone to the mass voting public. You can't be believing this shit yourself so don't insult the rest of us with it please.

It will be interesting to see if the stance lessens in years to come. Because of the introduction of drugs like MDMA, I'm sure more young people are involved with drugs now than in 70's/80's. When our seniors die off, and the young grow up... pressure may be put on the government to be more lenient

I used to have faith in this concept as it's what's long be said about the hippy generation maturing and taking over the reigns of power. Doesn't quite seem to be working out that way though. Admittedly attitudes are a bit (perhaps a lot in some areas) more sane than they used to be but is still a long way off actual sense. I don't think the problem lies so much with convincing politicians of the right way to handle drug issues - they must know if they were honest with themselves - the problem lies more with 50-odd years of wholesale lying to the public and having to admit mistakes have been made (to say the absolute least 8(). The way I'm seeing things is that there appears to be a PR exercise in motion and has been for a few years now. The concept of legalisation is being dripfed to the masses - even the most senior public figures have been seen speaking sense of legalisation these last few years... admittedly only once out of power and retired. This is their role though. They have no votes to win nor corporate sponsors (or public bodies - police and the like to appease. Or less than they did in the case of the latter anyway. Probably. They are "safe" to say such things but big enough names for people to take notice - ex-presidents of several countries, ex-UN leaders, ex-prime ministers and senior politicians and so forth. It's far too many far too "important" people to be saying these things for shits 'n' giggles. It's a campaign. Slow burn but with an endgame planned. That endgame will be major reform of drug laws. What form precisely that will take I'd be less confident in specifying but major reform of drug laws it will be. FACT!

 

[ColtDan]

It's essentially the voters which deem it illegal though. The government and the police are more or less carrying out the will of the voters.

This is bad even by your low standards, Raas. At which point have voters ever been asked what they feel on the matter? Which party's manifesto had the abolition policy? When has the evidence for and against ever been presented anywhere let alone to the mass voting public. You can't be believing this shit yourself so don't insult the rest of us with it please.

^ This.

Raas.... your naive and talk bollocks.

 

[Raasyvibe]

but ColtDan, you're biased as hell towards drugs. Everything that differs from your opinion you dismiss as naïve and bollocks; waste of time arguing. Your response is predictable.

I don't talk bollocks because I don't have agendas. There is structure in my opinion, you won't recognise it because you will not assimilate schools of thought that oppose drugs.

This is bad even by your low standards, Raas.

I don't like your attitude here. It's catty and reeks of bias. In this discussion and previous ones, you take the attitude that anything said against drugs is all nonsense and not worth responding too. Well, I actually find a lot of the things you say to be nonsense and biased. If you could open your mind and not be so opposing in nature, you may see the structure in my thoughts.

For instance

You have used heroin for several years without it becoming a problem for you I believe. Same thing with alcohol. This is a non-argument so no point responding further. We're agreeing

I find this crazy talk. Comparing heroin to alcohol?

If I drink too much alcohol one night and get carried away (and yes I do quite a bit, especially recently) what's the worst that's gonna happen? A few bad posts? banned from another Christian forum? an infraction or 2? maybe some pukage?

But if it's heroin, I might be dead. Also, I only use heroin once every few months... (because I consider it far more dangerous) in fear of addiction. Alcohol this is not such an issue. Completely different.

This is bad even by your low standards, Raas. At which point have voters ever been asked what they feel on the matter? Which party's manifesto had the abolition policy? When has the evidence for and against ever been presented anywhere let alone to the mass voting public. You can't be believing this shit yourself so don't insult the rest of us with it please.

Erm, there's certainly diversity amongst parties. Green party for instance want cannabis decriminalized, Wales Green party leader says he wants it legal. If everyone felt strongly about the legitimacy of drugs, more people would probably vote green. Then other parties would have to adapt, to compete for your vote. This is how democracy works.

While it's true that no-one (that Im aware of) has a policy to abolish the drug war. There's a reason for this - it's not a good idea and no-one would vote for the party!

Party policies are often suited to get votes. So why do you think no party has a manifesto to legalise all drugs!? coz no-one will vote for them! And as for "for and against evidence" for drugs and their dangers - is it not made public over the Internet? Like it or not, most voters oppose drug legalisation. They maybe wrong, or they may be right. But that's certainly going to influence a party's stance towards drugs. No?

 

[Shambles]

I don't talk bollocks because I don't have agendas

This is not true. It cannot be true because we all have agendas. If not we would be unthinking robots with no opinion worth having nor reading.

I find this crazy talk. Comparing heroin to alcohol?

If I drink too much alcohol one night and get carried away (and yes I do quite a bit, especially recently) what's the worst that's gonna happen? A few bad posts? banned from another Christian forum? an infraction or 2? maybe some pukage?

But if it's heroin, I might be dead. Also, I only use heroin once every few months... (because I consider it far more dangerous) in fear of addiction. Alcohol this is not such an issue. Completely different.

Do I need to pull up references for people (most commonly young people) who have died from acute alcohol poisoning? I'm sure I don't. I'm not saying they are of exact compatibility in terms of acute intoxication and overdose risk, I was making a point in reference to your own which I quoted. That still stands. If you wish to talk about overdose risk that's a different matter. All drugs - including ethanol - carry that risk (with the possible exception of cannabis... although there was that one oddball report...). These risks stem from ignorance and from the perils of prohibition for the most part though. You know as well as I do that heroin at correct dose is bordering on harmless as a one-off incident. Same is true of alcohol. Overdo it with either and you risk death. Heroin actually has a pretty good safety margin oddly enough - it's something opiates in general are often praised for (with some obvious exceptions like fentanyl).

I've never claimed drugs other than alcohol are completely safe or without risk. All I'm saying is that those risks are entirely in line with alcohol if all things were equal. All things are not equal and every attempt at an argument you've made completely fails to take that into account which is why I've been rather dismissive. If you're not even bothering to compare like with like it's not a debate it's a pissing contest.

Your stuff on political parties is also missing the point completely. Do you really think anybody - even somebody as rabidly pro-legalisation as me - bases their vote on drug policy alone? Or even primarily? I'm sure you don't. Neither do I. So again it's arguing for the sake of arguing without making any valid point worthy of debate.

 

[Raasyvibe]

All I'm saying is that those risks are entirely in line with alcohol if all things were equal.

I guess this is where we disagree.

Being on this forum over years, many, many times have I seen people refer to the problems alcohol causes in an attempt justify the legalisation of other drugs. This is very common and you yourself have taken this stance previously. But I feel in this instance and many others, people refer to extreme alcohol abuse cases to form their arguments and this is not a fair comparison to the illicit drugs which may cause problems without such heavy abuse.

With moderate alcohol use: If you have a few pints in the pub, or a bottle of wine in the evening... you know the score. It's not healthy, but risks are minimal.

Look at illicit drugs, though:

Moderate heroin use you are far more likely to develop a severe addiction. Coke/crack may give you cardiovascular difficulties. Ecstasy may give you mental health problems (anxiety, panic attacks), acid or shrooms may give you an awful trip and give you mental problems. Even weed I have developed anxiety problems from.

While I willingly accept that alcohol can be a very damaging, addictive drug... I feel it's much easier to develop problems with the aforementioned drugs and alcohol as a substance is far easier to control and predict.

Your stuff on political parties is also missing the point completely. Do you really think anybody - even somebody as rabidly pro-legalisation as me - bases their vote on drug policy alone? Or even primarily? I'm sure you don't. Neither do I. So again it's arguing for the sake of arguing without making any valid point worthy of debate.

I'm not denying this, but in a democratic system the voter undoubtedly has a strong influence.

This is not true. It cannot be true because we all have agendas. If not we would be unthinking robots with no opinion worth having nor reading

I was going to re-word this more suitably, but couldn't be bothered. Stop nitpicking!

 

[Shambles]

I appreciate the more considered response

I'd still say you're not comparing like with like though. Illicit drugs are impure and people rarely think twice about what dose they are taking or what other drugs they are taking concurrently - this in itself accounts for a great many of the issues relating to them. The very fact that they are illegal is also a contributing factor. People - especially young, rebellious (although don't have to be young for that it tends to be more pronounced and less thought through during teenage years) - tend to overdo things - or just do them in the first place for that matter - because there is "romance" and "danger" and all kindsa other attractive (to a certain type of mind and maturity) stuff like that. Illegal = cool. At least it does when it's a drug cos people know damn well they are lied about in the media so they tend to disbelieve everything said about drugs - throw baby out with bathwater - and get themselves into all kindsa trouble. If you had to go to a licensed chemist or similar establishment and buy your drugs over the counter (with ID to prove age as with booze) I'd bet a ball it'd be a helluva lot less exciting to many if not most. Much of all that romance and danger and rebelliousness is cut off at the knees. It becomes simply another method for intoxication - nothing more, nothing less - and people will gravitate towards those they enjoy and avoid those they don't. Far less harmful overall. I strongly suspect problematic drinking - especially amongst the young - would also drop dramatically if other - I'd argue safer (if used correctly and responsibly and drugs are pure and of known dose) - options were available.

You are comparing illegal drugs with a legal drug and not taking into account the societal changes that would be necessitated in world with legal drugs across the board. You also seem to be extrapolating largely from your own experience (which we all do to an extent) and not considering the bigger picture so much. You have apparently had problems relating to use of illicit drugs (whilst they are illegal - that point is important enough to keep bringing up) and so have many others. I don't deny this for one moment as it would be ridiculous to do so. But people who have such negative consequences from many of the drugs you mention are very much in the minority - somewhat akin to those who develop serious problems from alcohol use I'd suggest.

 

[clord0]

I just snorted 200mg of Mephedrone, as you do.

 

[Shambles]

Actually I don't. But enjoy all the same, as you do.

 

[Raasyvibe]

I appreciate the more considered response

I'd still say you're not comparing like with like though. Illicit drugs are impure and people rarely think twice about what dose they are taking or what other drugs they are taking concurrently - this in itself accounts for a great many of the issues relating to them. The very fact that they are illegal is also a contributing factor.

I think first off the law acts as an example, a stance and a guide. It insinuates drugs are not good things and you are advised to stay away. Legitimising them would remove this implication. I feel this is an important emphasis behind the illegitimacy.

Though it is true that your problems of impurity would be eradicated, if drugs were legal usage may well rise due to availability and more associated health problems would incur. I accept we're venturing to a matter of prediction and opinion, as there is no countries we can refer too where drugs like crack are sold legally behind the counter.

People - especially young, rebellious (although don't have to be young for that it tends to be more pronounced and less thought through during teenage years) - tend to overdo things - or just do them in the first place for that matter - because there is "romance" and "danger" and all kindsa other attractive (to a certain type of mind and maturity) stuff like that. Illegal = cool.

Again, valid point. Legitimacy of drugs would remove the excitation factor, but I feel the availability would make people more accepting of drugs and lead to increased usage/increased health problems.

I strongly suspect problematic drinking - especially amongst the young - would also drop dramatically if other - I'd argue safer (if used correctly and responsibly and drugs are pure and of known dose) - options were available.

I disagree with this. I feel the availability may well lead to more mixture of drugs. For instance, more people may decide to use cocaine with alcohol. A combination which is very bad for the liver.

You also seem to be extrapolating largely from your own experience (which we all do to an extent) and not considering the bigger picture so much.

It's true I can't be arsed to dig out scientific research. But I feel my understanding is suitable, considering the amount of years of discussion with people across this site and real life. I would like to think we have enough experience, to agree that moderate alcohol use is softer and more predictable than most illegal drugs.

You have apparently had problems relating to use of illicit drugs (whilst they are illegal - that point is important enough to keep bringing up) and so have many others. I don't deny this for one moment as it would be ridiculous to do so. But people who have such negative consequences from many of the drugs you mention are very much in the minority - somewhat akin to those who develop serious problems from alcohol use I'd suggest.

As said before, people can develop problems from those drugs from moderate use. Whereas alcohol, you have to abuse very heavily to get your liver failure, irreversible brain damage etc

 

[Shambles]

I'm just off to bed but in response to the majority of your points look up Portugal's drug policy and related figures. Nighty

 

[Raasyvibe]

Increased drug usage and lowered street prices.... deaths about the same.... Less HIV from needles... police spend more time fighting real crime.

pro's and cons, man. But I agree that punishing people for choosing to take drugs (our current system) is wrong.

G'night... you filthy druggie

 

[clord0]

boooo whys everyone sleeping when I'm buzzing my tits off

 

[plmar]

Fuck sleep

 

[yoyo50]

bUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR

 

[Swarm]

Raas, am currently in possibly the worst state I've been in since joining BL (a serious statement coming from me, and unlikely to be true - though I'm running it pretty close). The basic gist goes some thing along the lines of 10 hour pee vee binge and no downers - also run out of mexxy, maybe just 60 mg left.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that while I did my best to process your latest response to my post I can't really claim to be in anywhere near the mental clarity to give a proper response - not least due to my inability to even register what you said in your post to begin with. While this fact alone ought to obviously render this a pointless excerise, the fact is I cant think of anything else to do right now. Apologies for my rambling.

First off, having noted the number of posts from shambles I feel it a safe bet that he will have covered what ever I would have said myself so I feel I'm probably not gonna be adding much new. I also saw coltdan s been in the mix too so I definitely know most bases will have been covered.

The only thing I wanna say right now is that while I may be in a shocking state right now, I know my family, who I am currently back living with right now, are having a nights sleep - well mostly anyway. The same situation would not apply if I was still drinking. Not to mention the sleepless nights I endured as a child due to my dads choice to take alcohol over other drugs. He used to come home and smash the house up about 3 nights a week, until I grew up and put a stop to it myself.

I'm gonna have to bail now. catch you guys in a bit.