Raas said:
You can kill yourself off caffeine if you abuse it enough. Doesn't make it comparable as a substance to class A's.
More drivel. You can be prescribed Class As by a doctor and use them perfectly legitimately for any number of issues. You can also use them responsibly and avoid the problems associated with habitual and/or heavy use. Also, the drug classification system is utterly meaningless and no reputable doctor in the land agrees with it completely. They are arbitrary distinctions brought about for societal reasons not medical or scientific reasons in virtually all cases.
You're missing my point and meandering off with talk irrelevant to it.
I'm saying that just because someone can potentially abuse a substance to the point of mental problems/death... doesn't necessitate that the substance is harmful if used sensibly. This does not apply to many illicit drugs, where moderate use can cause considerable/severe mental or physical problems.
Shambles said:
I can only presume ignorance or stupidity. Or maliciousness but I doubt that cos I know you're not actually malicious no matter how much it may appear to be the case at times. You've heard of the horror stories of people left paralysed in agony for up to half an hour or more whilst some inept technician (doctors are not allowed to perform lethal injections as it breaks the Hippocratic Oath) stabs at them over and over again with a frikkin massive needle, yes? You know the actual way you die from lethal injection, yes? You know it's one of the most painful experiences possible, yes? It may look peaceful to the poor witnesses who have to sit and watch a person be murdered but that's only because the victim is paralysed. What happens next is utterly barbaric. The chemical used is highly caustic and causes severe burns. It does not kill instantly by any means. It can take a very long time indeed. Think nearer an hour in extreme cases than a quick poke and off to sleep. Lethal injection is torture not just execution. The electric chair is probably more humane and that's saying something 8(
As a minor aside, if the death penalty must be used then why not use fentanyl or similar strong opioid? Because it's seen as a soft option because there is no pain involved that's why. The chemicals used for lethal injection currently are hideous and barbaric. You have no idea what you're talking about.
In the survey of capital punishment, lethal injection was only voted because participants believed it to be a humane method of killing
"When asked which method they preferred – regardless of their views on the ethics of the issue – an overwhelming 66 per cent opted for lethal injection, which is widely assumed to be the most humane technique."
As far as I'm aware, standard lethal injection practiced today (and the type that those voting in the survey had in mind) is painless and humane. Wiki appears to agree with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection
Lethal injection is the practice of injecting a person with a fatal dose of drugs (typically a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) for the express purpose of causing immediate death. The main application for this procedure is capital punishment, but the term may also be applied in a broad sense to euthanasia and suicide. It kills the person by first putting the person to sleep, and then stopping the breathing and heart, in that order
While there may have been a few cases in the world where it has been carried out improperly, this is not what the public is referring too when they vote for capital punishment. They are voting for the standard, painless procedure. (If that doesn't exist, you'll have to source me up)
Shambles said:
This is such a pisspoor attempt at justification I really have nothing to say to it. You made yourself look stupid enough as it is. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't see what's so stupid by suggesting alcohol isn't as hard on the brain as most illicit drugs. The amount of mental health problems we've seen on this board alone from drugs such as MDxx, amphet's, meph, acid, shrooms etc
You compare them by looking to deliberate abusers of alcohol (severe alcoholics). Which is an unfair comparison. While I accept that alcohol still does a good job of destroying brain cells, it's hardly comparable in terms of severity to the aforementioned substances.
Shambles said:
No they didn't. It was in place for years after the mix-up was discovered and is still quoted to this day. MDMA was not a new drug on the scene back then - it had been legal and used (sold over the counter at bars no less) in America for well over a decade when that report was made. It had been legal and in use since the mid-60s. It became far more widespread in the 90s, yes. But that is in no way justification for rushing through what was already known to be false evidence to scaremonger the public.
No-one quotes the ricaurte study any more (professionally, at least) and it has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of ecstasy.
It appears the published study was retracted when the meth mix-up was discovered. I assume it would have been retracted quite promptly. Obviously biased Ecstasy opponents still quoted from it years after, but the study was deemed unofficial after that had emerged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Ricaurte
"Ricaurte's retracted article on the neurotoxicity of ecstasy, originally published in Science, has received a great deal of attention.
This article was retracted after it was found that the testing materials were switched from MDMA to methamphetamine."