|
On June 01 2011 21:21 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 20:52 Nizaris wrote:On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote:
i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . . better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting. On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote:
It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject. Would you care to name a few? I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences. Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs. We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places. I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless. Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on. Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true. Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths.
It's the same reason that so many people OD on heroin. As heroin is not regulated, there's no way to tell the purity of the heroin you're buying. It's roughly equivalent to people buying Vodka (roughly 40% alcohol), but actually getting Absinthe (roughly 75% alcohol, and I don't meant the hallucinogenic kind)... Well, not quite, but you get the idea.
EDIT: just realized how bad that sounds, opiates are awful for you, don't do them. But it's what happens.
|
On June 01 2011 21:45 Sixotanaka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 21:21 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 20:52 Nizaris wrote:On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote:
i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . . better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting. On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote:
It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject. Would you care to name a few? I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences. Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs. We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places. I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless. Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on. Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true. Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health? The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths.
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Sure if you only use ecstasy at a party every 2 weeks it's not gonna be too bad, but then you're not being objective.
Obviously "clean" ecstasy isnt as bad as the bad quality stuff, but i'm sure it's a lot worse than tobacco.
|
On June 01 2011 21:50 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 21:45 Sixotanaka wrote:On June 01 2011 21:21 Deadlyfish wrote:On June 01 2011 20:52 Nizaris wrote:On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote:
i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . . better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting. On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote:
It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject. Would you care to name a few? I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences. Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs. We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places. I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless. Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on. Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true. Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health? The worst part about drugs like ecstasy is the quality of the production. Clean ecstasy is safer than tobacco (I'm pretty sure), but as these drugs are illegal, no one can regulate them and it's often cut with things like drain cleaner and bleach. Halting the war on drugs would be the first step to regulating these, and stopping unnecessary deaths. If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way. Sure if you only use ecstasy at a party every 2 weeks it's not gonna be too bad, but then you're not being objective. Obviously "clean" ecstasy isnt as bad as the bad quality stuff, but i'm sure it's a lot worse than tobacco.
but because you cant use ecstasy as a recreational drug you cant take it in the same dose as a cigarette. if tobacco was illegal you would see people taking massive doses quickly because thats the easiest way to take 'enough' without getting caught carrying massive amounts of it around -quickly consuming a massive dose.
if X was legal you would see people taking tiny amounts of it much regularly and they would be able to function well at work, or at home, and still 'feel good'.
so i think its you who isnt being objective.
and as far as i know X doesnt give you cancer 
|
Deadly, that's not a fair comparison because even while it's illegal, very few people will go on 40 year ecstasy benders, whereas I know tons of older folks that have smoked for 40 years. And you don't take ecstasy daily. This just isn't a comparison that anyone will take seriously...
|
The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high.
I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison.
And everything gives you cancer btw  even ecstasy.
But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
|
On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote:The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high. I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison. And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy. But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
so what you are saying is that smoking tobacco has no affect on your mental state? :D
sure about that one?
|
On June 01 2011 22:16 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote:The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high. I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison. And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy. But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous. so what you are saying is that smoking tobacco has no affect on your mental state? :D sure about that one?
Compared to ecstasy? Yea. Nobody smokes because they wanna get high, but that is the sole reason you take ecstasy right?
Comparing the mental effects of tobacco to ecstasy seems straight up stupid to me.
|
On June 01 2011 22:12 Deadlyfish wrote:The reason people dont take ecstasy in the same dose as cigarettes is because you take ecstasy to get high. If smoking was illegal you wouldnt see people OD'ing on tobacco, because you dont smoke to get high. I know comparing the daily use of ecstasy isnt a fair comparison, but neither is comparing someone getting lung cancer after 40 years of smoking to someone who uses ecstasy every few weeks for a few years. And even then i'd still say the person doing ecstasy is in more danger. When some dude takes some ecstasy one time and goes "hey look i'm fine! But look at the guy with lung cancer right there! Tobacco is much worse", which is what most people do, that isnt a fair comparison. And everything gives you cancer btw even ecstasy. But anyways, if you go ask any doctor if he thinks using tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i dont think you could find anyone who would say that ecstasy is less dangerous.
Actually Tobacco is considered a much deadlier drug than ecstasy by the scientific community.
Ecstasy dangerosity comes from abuse and low tolerance. Harms caused by tobacco come from... simple use. From 2 packs a week to 1 pack a day.
|
Nicotine calms you and gives you energy. I think you need to re-evaluate what you consider "getting high".
|
On June 01 2011 22:25 Albrithe wrote:
Nicotine calms you and gives you energy. I think you need to re-evaluate what you consider "getting high".
Comparing ecstasy to tobacco is like comparing heroin to weed, seriously. Yes all drugs affect you mentally some sort of way.
But ok, you think that people are high when they smoke.
Fact is, driving after you've smoked isnt even frowned upon, while driving under the effects of ecstasy = jail time.
|
i always thought ecstasy fucked your brain up, like stopping chunks of your brain from communicating with each other. Anyways, its apples to oranges what you guys are arguing and that graph is bullshit. how do you quantify health, is a decrease in memory equilvelent to an increase risk of kidney failure?? Thats why its bullshit.
|
No, I don't *think* people are high when they smoke cigarettes, they *are* high. They have consumed chemicals that are not naturally produced in the human body increasing their alertness and reactions. Of course it's stupid to drive while on E. But it doesn't follow that cigarettes don't get you high. I'd agree that you aren't "intoxicated" the same way you are on most recreational drugs, but you keep creating unfair parallels through anecdotal situations that just don't really make a lot of sense.
I think you're missing the overarching idea of ending the "War on Drugs". I think it should be pretty obvious that we aren't all of a sudden going to be going on 40 year E benders or driving while on E. It has always been illegal to drive while intoxicated. What we want is to focus on drug use risk education and legalization so we can refine production methods to create purer (read: safer), and cheaper drugs than the crime lords can offer.
The objective of the war on drugs has always been to take away the user base and pushers so the crime lords starve out. But they haven't for 50 years and the illegal drug trade continues to fund much worse crimes such as human trafficking, arms dealing, etc. By taking their products, making them cheaper, and safer, and educating people on use and abuse, we'll effectively be taking their user base and putting the money towards legitimate business growth and taxes (additionally less tax money will go into unnecessary policing and jail time).
|
On June 01 2011 21:50 Deadlyfish wrote:
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Thats about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Tobacco is much worse than pure ecstasy, especially in long term use.
Its what I've been trying to say all along, people like you need to know about these stuff rather than "just know its bad" and be ok with wasting resources on senseless campaigns.
|
On June 01 2011 22:36 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 22:25 Albrithe wrote:
Nicotine calms you and gives you energy. I think you need to re-evaluate what you consider "getting high". Comparing ecstasy to tobacco is like comparing heroin to weed, seriously. Yes all drugs affect you mentally some sort of way. But ok, you think that people are high when they smoke. Fact is, driving after you've smoked isnt even frowned upon, while driving under the effects of ecstasy = jail time.
and thats nothing to do with dose, true story
something that ive already covered.
|
On June 01 2011 17:49 teekesselchen wrote:Totally signed, legalising is the only way. It is better for absolutely everyone. 1) We cannot win war on drugs with violence, this is an ever-going struggle as long as there are people desperate enough to work in illegal drug trade. 2) There is absolutely no way illegal trade could compete with legal trade, thus it's a guaranteed win against the illegal business. 3) Examples have shown that decriminalisation do not increase the number of addicts. It also becomes easier to reach addicts to help them, when their doings are not illegal. Control who gets hands on drugs (no minors, for example) also becomes easier. Illegal dealers can't be forced to obey age restrictions, legal companies can. 4) There will be way less drug victims when the dose is reliable, and when there are no dangerous cuts to it. 5) Amongst both addicts and non-addicts there are hilarious sentences for drug abuse, even when it was a purely private matter and nobody came to harm. 6) With the number of addicts not rising in decriminalised countries, it is not likely that stuff like drug induced car crashes will increase, either. Obviously driving under drug influence will still be illegal, and obviously coming to work drugged will still cost one his job. 7) Instead of spending on the war on drugs, we'ld rather have income from taxes. The severe monetary difference could be used to fight addiction much better than it is done now, for example. Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 16:54 zizou21 wrote:
can we just legalize weed? i don't think legalizing crack and heroin is a good idea LOL Everyone knows how dangerous this stuff is. The treshhold of "I really shouldn't take this stuff" is the same, whether it is purchased legally or not.
Gonna play the devil's advocate here: why should we fight addiction? Why should the tax payer spend money on people that became addicted to drugs? It's their own fault they got addicted, they knew it was bad for them yet they took drugs anywa. Why not just let those people rot away, they clearly showed no respect for life.
This is NOT my opinion but I can imagine a lot of people thinking this way.
The problem with legalizing drugs is exactly the same as with declaring war on it; they're essentially two opposites that have got one thing in common: they treat the symptom rather than the cause. The only reason to stop drug crime is to stop people from wanting to take them. Most people take drugs because they're miserable. Those who do it for fun are plain decadent (yes, that includes you, pot smokers and people who get drunk on a frequent basis) and should not even be cared about. If we were to find a way to get rid of the enormous poverty a huge part of the world's population is living in, ie. get them a decent job, drug use would plummit. If people are happy, they don't need pychedelics to make them feel better.
|
On June 01 2011 21:21 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 20:52 Nizaris wrote:On June 01 2011 20:40 methematics wrote:
i signed, but i dont like the idea of the UN dictating policy . . . better them then lobbies aka government. They're not dictating anything either merely suggesting. On June 01 2011 20:14 JFKWT wrote:On June 01 2011 19:18 TheSwamp wrote:
It's sickening that people would rather sit back and let people die, then let drugs be legal and as safe as possible. This would end not only drugs wars, but also would end all the pointless killings over one crack rock or the dime bag of weed. I love how brainwashed people are. There are just as many legal drugs that are utterly terrible for your health and just as addictive. If you deny that fact, then you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on this subject. Would you care to name a few? I would like to see a limited area trial legalisation of such drugs to see the practical consequences. Originally thought that it would be referring to the war in Iraq... sigh Tobacco, Alcohol and Benzodiazepines (anti-depressants: Zanax etc..) are worse then allot of the street drugs. We don't need localized trials, we have already seen it work in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other places. I also originally tought it was about Iraq but i agree with OP that war on drugs is even more senseless. Hmm, you got a source of that graph? I'd like to know what the numbers are based on. Saying that tobacco is more dangerous than ecstasy is just... I dont know, plain wrong? Actually even though i'm not a doctor or anything, i KNOW that isnt true. Would you be more willing to use ecstasy than to smoke? Do you think it would be better for your health?
Lung cancer,Kidney Cancer, Laryngeal cancer,breast cancer, Esophageal Cancer, Pancreatic Cancer, Stomach Cancer, lowers your life span by 13.7 years, male or female. The List Goes on, it's even worse for people exposed to Second Hand Smoke. saying Tobacco is worse then Ecstasy? (MDMA) YES. Health Effects of MDMA? Hyponatremia, whic is not caused my mdma BY ITSELF it's a result of drinking too much water after consuming MDMA, and guess what else? it also happens natural to marathon runners/bodybuilders. and the other health risks? Hyperthermia, which is ( I believe the major cause of death amongst ecstasy users)....so Yes Tobacco smoking is more harmful then ecstasy....
"Due to the difference between the recreational dose and the lethality dose, it is extremely rare for a death to be accredited just to the consumption of MDMA"
|
If you use ecstasy everyday for 40 years, and you do the same with tobacco, i'm 120% sure that the ecstasy would kill you long before tobacco would. Maybe you'd commit suicide, become psychotic, or overdose and fry your kidneys, either way.
Ecstasy may kill you lonng before tobacco does, but Does ONE PERSON using ecstasy carry the risk of x people getting cancer from Second hand use? what about ALL the other health conditions they CAN develop JUST from being around someone that smokes? As for going psychotic from mdma, if you don't know anything you should not talk about it imo. the only proven Long-Term effects of MDMA that affect a person psychologically is that it could lead to subtle decreases in learning, memory, attention, executive function, mood, and decision making. did you see "Psychosis" anywhere in there?...me either.
|
On June 01 2011 22:59 Albrithe wrote:
No, I don't *think* people are high when they smoke cigarettes, they *are* high. They have consumed chemicals that are not naturally produced in the human body increasing their alertness and reactions. Of course it's stupid to drive while on E. But it doesn't follow that cigarettes don't get you high. I'd agree that you aren't "intoxicated" the same way you are on most recreational drugs, but you keep creating unfair parallels through anecdotal situations that just don't really make a lot of sense.
I think you're missing the overarching idea of ending the "War on Drugs". I think it should be pretty obvious that we aren't all of a sudden going to be going on 40 year E benders or driving while on E. It has always been illegal to drive while intoxicated. What we want is to focus on drug use risk education and legalization so we can refine production methods to create purer (read: safer), and cheaper drugs than the crime lords can offer.
The objective of the war on drugs has always been to take away the user base and pushers so the crime lords starve out. But they haven't for 50 years and the illegal drug trade continues to fund much worse crimes such as human trafficking, arms dealing, etc. By taking their products, making them cheaper, and safer, and educating people on use and abuse, we'll effectively be taking their user base and putting the money towards legitimate business growth and taxes (additionally less tax money will go into unnecessary policing and jail time).
The problem is, you cant just make everything legal just because it is a cause of crime. Guns/drugs/bombs/whatever. You can just say "oh well, i guess we'll just sell it ourselves and that way get rid of the crime".
The reason it was a crime in the first place wasnt just because they thought it would be fun. There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt. A good reason. (hint, medical experts/police decide this stuff). You think they just made it illegal for some random reason?
I dont get the logic that "oh well we cant stop people from using heroin, might just sell it at walmart then". (yes i am exaggerating )
It's about sending a message to people, and i agree that the "war on drugs" isnt as efficient as it should be, and that there may be another approach. But the right approach isnt to make it legal.
I refuse to argue about whether tobacco or ecstasy is more dangerous, i view it as common knowledge that smoking a cigarette and taking a pill of ecstasy are widely different. Apparently some people think otherwise, and we wont get anywhere discussing it. None of us are doctors and it just turns into amateur hour where people google stuff and copy paste it, so whatever.
|
Signed !
I surely agree that this "war" is one of the biggest money-dumps on this planet which produces negative results of the ones aimed for.
|
On June 01 2011 23:36 Deadlyfish wrote:
There is another reason: it's dangerous. There is a reason tobacco is legal and ecstasy isnt.
I agree that some drugs shouldn't be just 'made legal' (coke, meth, heroin, you get the idea), but I can't take you seriously when you say tobacco isn't dangerous...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
