UK: Ken Livingstone 'legalise ecstasy'

So check this out. I was worried about trying e because u could die I heard. So my buddy got the best e pill out there it was a red double stack pill pure mdma. ANyways it was so strong I ended up swallowing it then feeling really really sick. I ended up getting really hot and throwing up. Mind you the temperature was 90 degrees this day. Anyways then my friend said "put your head under the cold shower dogg and you'll start rolling" I did that and my terrible headache went away and I started rubbing my head going ahhhhh ahhhh. Then I remember when I was doing nos thinking of all the shit people say on blue light. It kind of reminded me of a yuppy lsd. I had some little visuals and just felt amazing. Then our nas ran out and we instantly stopped rolling. I drove home still felt great and took a shower. As I arrived at my house the air conditioning was going full blast. I went to bed and had a experience I wish I could repeat but cant now that i'm addicted to opiates and benzos.

My whole point is I think drugs like this are good because you dont get addicted to them neccecairly and they stay with you so you dont have to do it over and over.

Ive seen the effects of people doing E way to much and this person was messed up. I believe if you really like E you would do it once a month at the most.
 
foundationx4 said:
......................dont get me wrong though. i love x so im all for it, but studies still have to occur.
Click to expand...
They don't have to occur, they just do because somebody has decided that we need scientific evidence for just about everything.

If you like E (or any other experience) whilst there is no reliable scientific evidence, then surely it implies that you are happy to go it alone. And if you or I decide to go it alone as it were then we enjoy, or suffer, the consequences of our actions.

Any studies will simply run parallel or after the fact. And they will definitely be tainted for some time to come, as we have seen previous studies of E corrupted by vested interests.

I suppose I'm saying that we can put to much reliance on the value of scientific evidence. I am happy to take my chances with E, and let science study other things that they wish to control (e.g. "legit" pharmaceuticals :\ ).

And remember - give a license to some scientific/medical organisation to study a drug, and they will decide who can and cannot use it, so I doubt much would change in respect of legislation & etc. Science territorialises the subjects that it investigates.
 
I am getting tired of articles about drugs, I pretty much never bother reading them anymore. They are rarely from an unbiased source, they are generally very biased towards drugs and refer to all users as the muck of society. It is well known around BL that there are successful and happy drug users as well as junkies and miserable drug users who only use to escape their awful reality.

"Suppose you live in Pennsylvania. Suppose the government in Harrisburg gave you two sacks full of taxpayer money. One sack contains $1.7 billion. The other is bulging with twice as much, $3.5 billion.?

Then you were told that you could fund only two programs: the state's Higher Education system and its War on Drugs. Which program gets the big payoff of $3.5 billion?

Sorry, wrong answer. The enlightened officials of the Keystone State spend twice as much on the War on Drugs as on Higher Education.

Maybe they're the exception.

Let's try another state - New York. You've got two sacks from Albany, one with $4.3 billion and the other with $8.7 billion. Oops, the War effort wins again and gets the big sack.

One more try. The good folks in Lansing give you $1.86 billion and $2.75 billion. And the winner in Michigan is......the War on Drugs."

It looks a bit like the war on drugs is a tremendous waste of resources, not only does it take time away from our police force but it funds gangs and terrorists... you ask how does it fund them? It is fact that a percent of people in society will use drugs no matter the detrimental effect on them, no matter whether the government tells them not to and whether the supply is high or low. Because of prohibition of drugs people must buy from illegal sources these illegal sources often times use the profit gained to aid their own terrorist organizations or gangs. If drugs were controlled and legalized they would no longer be cut with unknown or completely toxic adulterants and illegal organizations would no longer have a source of funds as drugs would be as simple to get as going to your local drug store and providing valid identification.

So the pro's of legalization?

No unknown adulterants, youth would have a harder time getting drugs as they would require identification, less funds for illegal organizations, billions upon billions saved, with legalization would come more studies and research on positive and negative effects of drugs, hundreds of thousands freed from jail..... how is this bad ?

I think the media needs to be held credible for the information they give, I am tired of biased sources and completely unknown facts being treated as proven fact because it sways the uneducated population of millions which is the majority of the voting populace. The media sways public opinion and pretty much has made millions puppets on a string, I no longer watch TV or take the news as gospel. I am not stating that people cant filter out the biased or false information or make up their own minds but I believe it is true that many cant.
 
Last edited:
Ecstasy if made legal would kill less than 50 people a year as the drug would now be in a known dose and free of adulterants and if used by itself is very hard to OD.

HOWEVER you would easily double the number of people now taking MDMA, is this what people want? You can't deny it doesn't cause short term problems, anxiety, depression etc.
 
Well I guess that would be down to how it was delivered and the education. Either way doesn't really look to good, not something I really want to happen.
 
i would think buprenorphine is less addictive than methamphetamine and cocaine? But according to the chart, they are almost tied.
 
callupjah said:
legalizing mdma would kill more people, mainly due to people using it in combinations with other drugs, and stupid people who presume that if its legal, its safe! I can see the headlines now: 'Man dies after 5 grams of MDMA' ok, maybe thats a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what i mean.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a short time span when it was legalized, but in the long turn, it would def reduce "ecstasy deaths" more so because the public would be more educated and the main ingredient would not be adulterated like it is now....

Most of alcohol deaths during prohibition were due to badly synthesized basement lab alcohol killing people.....
 
Crazeee said:
Most of alcohol deaths during prohibition were due to badly synthesized basement lab alcohol killing people.....
Click to expand...

Speaking of that I know someone who almost hospitalised half a party when he feed them home made brandy (vodka with flavouring) had heaps of methanol on it and people were vomiting all night and morning from only a few drinks.
 
callupjah said:
legalizing mdma would kill more people, mainly due to people using it in combinations with other drugs, and stupid people who presume that if its legal, its safe! I can see the headlines now: 'Man dies after 5 grams of MDMA' ok, maybe thats a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what i mean.
Click to expand...

Which is why if it were legalised there would be some sort of education given to potential users, probably on the packaging, that mentions lethal/dangerous combos (MDMA + DXM, MDMA + alcohol, MDMA + too much water) and suggested dosages.

It's EXTREMELY hard to overdose on MDMA alone, especially when you know the exact dosage you're getting - which you would if it were legal.
 
callupjah said:
Yeah, and this is why I don't feel it will ever be legal, i mean, what politician will have the nerve to endure a few months of regular deaths and constant damnation from all groups. Its going to be disastrous for them when people cast their votes.
Click to expand...

Alcohol and tobacco is killing shit loads of people per year and I don't really see anyone blaming the government for that.

If the media chooses to make MDMA seem harmless, than the public will believe it. Too bad it is the contrary at the moment.
 
Is Alcohol, More Dangerous, Than Ecstacy

Hello everyone.
I thought that this would interest you all.
I don't know if any of you use torrents but there is a program.
That was aired on the BBC like 3-5 months ago.
It was called is Alcohol more Dangerous than Ecstacy.
They list all of the U.K.s top 20 most dangerous drugs.
and Ecstacy fell 18th on the list.
it kills roughly 12 people per year.
THIS SHOW ACTUALLY USES SCIENCE TO SHOW YOU
THAT ALCOHOL has a higher % of date rape than GHB.

http://btjunkie.org/torrent/BBC-Hor.../332369219d543d6f1cea8e8c86ebf5d41a4ac84511fa

Alcohol falls number 5 on the list.
Pot is number 11.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU ALL WATCH THIS FILM
it really erases ALL OF that AMERICAN JARGON
your brain gets filled with in school.
 
def wont legalize it

Hey everyone my first post here. happy to be a part of this board and talking to all the cool ppl here.

they would never legalise e look at all the flak they got for just downgrading canabis and this would be a drug that u can see stupid ppl taking and going way way to far with on a whole host of levels, think about it. i mean me myself i abused xtc quite hard and def had probs from it but it came at a dark part of my life and tho it brought much light it brought alot of darker things too. dont get me wrong tho i only do it every 6 odd mths by far my favourite drug is xtc nothing comes close to it but legislation would be a bad idea. tho it would bring back better quality pills theyve been rubbish last coupla yrs. have to stick to mdma nowadays....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top