Ecstasy should be downgraded, says drugs expert

[Jimity]

^^^ So's alcohol.

Ok, sorry, I dont want to start a Pot vs Alcohol debate.

 

[dm3]

Cannibis use is MUCH higher than average for schitzophrenics. Wether or not this is causation or correlation (there is, obviously, such a thing as 'self medicating') is up for debate. In my own unprofessional basically uninformed opinion, I think cannabis probably does contribute to contribute in some people (and I favor legalization %101). Schitzophrenics are disconnected to reality and dont really relate to people and cannabis certainly isn't going to help with that. Plus cannabis is a minor psychedelic and more powerful psychedelics like acid and pcp (this is a poor arguement because it's comparing apples to oranges but still food for thought). Also a substantial number of people that smoke weed are virtually high all the time which you can't say about acid or pcp users (although there are there are a few hardcore acidheads and probably a few more dustheads but they are the exception, not the rule).

 

[dm3]

fuck it retarded post

 

[dm3]

Prove it

The fact that neurotoxicity MIGHT be caused from recreational doses of ecstasy is enough to make it a "hard drug" (stupid term) in my mind. Just because NIDA propagandists like George Ricaurte use bad methodology to reach questionable conclusions doesn't prove conclusions they reach can't be valid ones. Just as cocaine and heroin users are facing a certain risk of addiction, ecstasy users are facing an uncertain but decidedly serious risk of neurotoxicity which is in some ways worst than addiction.

If x action may or may not lead to y consequence, that does not preclude x action from being a risky action if y consequence is not completely baseless. Taking a risk which might not actually be a risk is still taking a risk.

 

[Dr Mick]

er, here's a thought

I don't think that drugs are illegal because they're dangerous. I think they're illegal because they're fun.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

The fact that neurotoxicity MIGHT be caused from recreational doses of ecstasy is enough to make it a "hard drug" (stupid term) in my mind. Just because NIDA propagandists like George Ricaurte use bad methodology to reach questionable conclusions doesn't prove conclusions they reach can't be valid ones. Just as cocaine and heroin users are facing a certain risk of addiction, ecstasy users are facing an uncertain but decidedly serious risk of neurotoxicity which is in some ways worst than addiction.

If x action may or may not lead to y consequence, that does not preclude x action from being a risky action if y consequence is not completely baseless. Taking a risk which might not actually be a risk is still taking a risk.

Ricaurte's conclusions are invalid. Pretending that they are is nothing but "spin doctoring."

http://www.maps.org/sys/w3pb.pl?mode=show&type=review&r_id=1

Again, prove that MDMA is harmful. I'm not saying that it isn't but recent studies, and about 20 years of population use (as much as 15 million of doses of MDMA taken every weekend worldwide), isn't supporting the neurotoxicity suggested by institutions such as the NIDA.


"Just because NIDA propagandists like George Ricaurte use bad methodology to reach questionable conclusions doesn't prove conclusions they reach can't be valid ones."
Huh? Just because it's not true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe it???

As I said, before. Prove that MDMA is toxic.

 

[vicodelicious]

When's the last time the US downgraded a recreational drug?? That's it, I'm moving to Europe...

 

[David]

When's the last time the US downgraded a recreational drug?? That's it, I'm moving to Europe...

When's the last time the US did anything that wasn't destructive, or counter productive? That would make too much sense after all.8)

 

[kbee]

"Just because NIDA propagandists like George Ricaurte use bad methodology to reach questionable conclusions doesn't prove conclusions they reach can't be valid ones."
Huh? Just because it's not true doesn't mean we shouldn't believe it???

he was saying that just because a researcher is bad at researching or proving something, it doesnt mean that what he is trying to prove isn't still true.