link

Ecstasy, LSD and cannabis are less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, the Government’s chief drug adviser claims today.
Professor David Nutt is calling for a new ‘index of harm’ to warn the public about the relative dangers of various substances.

wow that guys not going to get taken out the back and shot or anything...

that guy sounds like a bit of a nutt

horse riding is more dangerous than taking ecstacy, yet horse riding is legal!!!!

anyway, it doesnt matter, infi told me that only bad people take drugs

Wow, not the first thing you'd think pollies would want to hear.
You have to wonder how someone with controversial views like that even got promoted to a position described as 'chief drug adviser'.

Ex-home secretary Jacqui Smith accused the scientist of 'trivialising' the dangers of drugs and showing 'insensitivity to the families of victims' of ecstasy.

She instructed him to make apologise to the families of those who had been killed by the dance drug.

Citation? I would like her to explain by what mechanism they died. "Over-dancing" and "drinking too much water" are good hints, things that you can do on alcohol or if you hold your wee for a Wii.

Love the deceiving thread subject. Good job imitation. I also love the first two comments.

parabol: Isn't Ecstasy what causes people to over dance and over drink?

last edited by greazy at 16:57:30 31/Oct/09

obvious conclusion is to ban horse riding, alcohol and transfats

Love the deceiving thread subject. Good job imitation. I also love the first two comments.

Elaborate please, don't understand your comment.

parabol: Isn't Ecstasy what causes people to over dance and over drink?

One can argue that the decision to dance the whole day was made long before they even took the drug. Around the time they bought the ticket to the all-day music gig.

oh yeah take one ekkie and one multivitamin a day. everything will be just peachy.

No need, can get a benzo addiction free from your doctor and then if you try to go cold turkey your heart will stop, even better!!!

yeah but benzos rate higher on the danger drug list, better off to go with a SAFE and HARMLESS RECREATIONAL DRUG (you know like flying a kite or playing beach cricket is recreational).

edit: we should have a pie chart about what percentage of epic threads (100+ posts) have subject of
- drugs
- religions
- airsoft/guns
- dangerous drivers
- dangerous video games
- australian politics;
- other.

last edited by infi at 18:41:01 31/Oct/09

I started playing video games and reading QGL again, I reckon it dumbs me down just the right amount like the drugs used to..

whos up for a large one tonight?

only if you supply the drugs maxe!@!

maxe no one wants to go to your place tonight and play with each others giga swords..unless ur mums gonna be there


o wait wrong thread

i wish i started this thead. then i'd be on the pie chart :(

I've known people to pop eccies all day every day just because thats what they do
the same way some people smoke bongs all day ever day

its not some super scary dangerous/expensive drug to everyone

I've known people to pop eccies all day every day just because thats what they do
the same way some people smoke bongs all day ever day

its not some super scary dangerous/expensive drug to everyone

Sticking your dick in a blender isn't super scary dangerous to everyone either but there's no accounting for fucking idiots.

Someone I know well used to consume pills weekly for 4yrs minimum 2 nights a week, as many as 70 in a week and often 10-20 every week for months on end, this person shows no side effects other than has developed minor tracers in their eye sight which were got pretty noticeable towards the end of this period but have diminshed to being not noticeable at all since they quit, they told me they've been for a medical examination and nothing notable was reported in their blood work. Throughout this time they had above average health just the normal cold here and there but they are from a family who doesn't really get sick ever. Not saying everyone's the same just someone I knew...

I have always been a big supporter of LSD and believe overall it's a largely positive substance that would benefit society. While I'm a big cannabis supporter, I'm not going to try and convince people it's a positive drug, it's somewhere between mildly negative and netural depending on the person.

MDMA isn't a substance that I believe the general population could handle if legalized, it's just far too euphoric, I wouldn't want to see the consequences of widespread MDMA abuse. On the flipside, this whole underground ecstasy market is BULLSHIT. How many people have to die from PMA before the government wakes up and at least educates/pushes test kits.

Someone I know well used to consume pills weekly for 4yrs minimum 2 nights a week, as many as 70 in a week and often 10-20 every week for months on end,

That's not MDMA, that's meth or something else. Lets not confuse "ecstasy" (illegal party pills) with pure MDMA.

You can't abuse MDMA to that extent, you wouldn't even get high and you would most definitely suffer very noticeable side effects.

NOBODY is eating 70 doses of 100mg+ MDMA a week, he's just getting charged up on shitty party pills.

last edited by CHUB at 21:01:39 31/Oct/09

drug addicts are just that - addicts, if you're actually addicted to something it doesn't seem unusual
you and I might scoff at the idea of waking up and throwing down a few pills but to some people it is just a way to function

One day later and the guy who made the claims has been given then sack, fucking typical of the government asking its bureaucrats to tell it what they want to hear not what they need to hear, western democracy is a fucking joke link

'/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked'
The link is awesome...

Look how fast the government moved on him.
Its so obvious that the prohibition on drugs is controlled by Big Pharma and the power of Lobbying.
As long as the Sheeple swallow the "Drugs Make you lose your mind and kill you " Mantra Prohibition will continue. The truth about drugs is out there on the Internet. The Truth does not fear investigation.

She instructed him to make apologise to the families of those who had been killed by the dance drug.

Your children were morons that deserved to die.

Natural selection wins again.

Apology accepted.

i got wazsted on alcoohol togiht ndna i can honestly say thta ex aint even worth it




fuck tht ahtis unless someone is giving it to you for free

I haven't read a single thing in this thread, all i can say is the shit ive seen tonight, alcohol is by far the worst drug ive witnesses with my own eyes.

And to bed i go, see you in the morning hangover.

Peace QGL

WOW The British as such scumbags these days. 200 years ago they were a fantastic nation with scientists and poets and free thinkers. Now it's ferals and rapists and cage fighting trannies and idiot politicians with agendas. Down with Britain.

Its so obvious that the prohibition on drugs is controlled by Big Pharma and the power of Lobbying.

Double-take ... wouldn't Big Pharma benefit from controlled manufacture? Every legalisation scenario I've read from supporters has had the drugs produced in a controlled fashion (ie drug labs).

Do you have a reason for this one or could you just have easily inserted CIA/Jews/Illuminati/Aliens/Smoking Man/AusGamers instead of Big Pharma?

last edited by Hogfather at 10:42:56 01/Nov/09

No drug patents on recreational drugs means competition amongst producers would be higher leading to lower prices / margins.

Pharmaceutical companies had to be legislated not to include in their cold and flu medicine the key ingredient for making methamphetamine even though they knew that the majority of their product being sold was being diverted for the use of its manufacture.

No drug patents on recreational drugs means competition amongst producers would be higher leading to lower prices / margins

I agree - but its a market segment that they currently have no access to. The industry would 'enlarge the pie' by getting pingers legalised. Sure they wouldn't be an interferon patent, but there would be money to be made in production of the product - for example basic stuff like aspirin and antacid turns a profit.

I don't see a reason for Pig Pharma to agitate against legalisation? Unless rehab drugs are exxy I guess? Your cold and flu point seems to support the idea that they want to sell ecstacy but are cockblocked by legislation?

last edited by Hogfather at 10:51:02 01/Nov/09

Big Pharma don't make money from manufacturing the make money from patenting thier R&D, Taiwanese factory owners make money from manufacturing...

A new recreational drugs market would open new patent / R&D prospects. One would in fact imagine a massive rush to develop the ultimate safe party drug.

Again, it doesn't explain why big pharma would agitate against legalisation. What money are they making now that they wouldn't make then?

Lobbying isn't free...

last edited by Hogfather at 10:55:25 01/Nov/09

People could use various illegal drugs to self-medicate, a lot of them are at least quite numbing to pain. So they make money on selling other kinds of pain killers. They also probably fear any undiscovered medical benefits of illegal drugs. Keep in mind not much research has been allowed on them in decades.

Why would pharmeceutical companies manufacture MDMA if it was a legal drug anyway?

It seems more likely to me that companies in the alcohol or cigarette business would be a better fit.

my current hangover says that alcohols is bad. very bad. :|

I don't get hang overs, even if i spew up and pass out.. still no hang overs, fk i love the way my body works.

Why would pharmeceutical companies manufacture MDMA if it was a legal drug anyway?

It seems more likely to me that companies in the alcohol or cigarette business would be a better fit.

I don't see pingers being sold over the counter like booze anytime soon - even if legalisation is any sort of likely outcome. It would be fucking chaos, and just wouldn't make it through any Government in AU.

IMO if legalisation is any sort of real prospect then it would bein the form of a harm minimisation programme, habit management and therapy (ala methodone) rather than a free for all at your local pub via a vending machine.

This would imply strict supply controls and regulation, suitable for drug distributors rather than alcohol / tobacco manufacturers.

Because you cant Patent Pot ?
Couple of seeds and you are already producing medication for FREE.

Why would you buy it from a store if you could get it at home for virtually nothing. Im sure a market would be there but for many people they'd just grow there own.

I don't see pingers being sold over the counter like booze anytime soon - even if legalisation is any sort of likely outcome. It would be fucking chaos, and just wouldn't make it through any Government in AU.

You mean like the chaos that selling booze over the counter creates ?
Take a look at some of the Aboriginal towns where booze is sold.
You cant ban something just because a few people might use it the wrong way.

The problems with other drugs tend to come when people mix them with Alcohol.
Seems to be a lot of aggression out there at bars and pubs. Bit of the magic 'erb flowin' around and mun everybody be feelin' all good bro'

FaceMan - this thread isn't about pot, FYI.

You can see this by reading the heading, or the OP.

I don't see pingers being sold over the counter like booze anytime soon - even if legalisation is any sort of likely outcome. It would be fucking chaos, and just wouldn't make it through any Government in AU.

I don't understand this statement what is the chaos you refer to? Do you mean it would be difficult to produce adequate legislation which covered for the ecstasy market as a result of the current adulterants included in many pills? The laws would need to be well researched to ensure that only some recreational chemicals were legalised and not others?

You have a problem with drugs hogsta ?
bad experience ?
Plenty of people choose not to drink for a variety of reasons.
Doesnt mean Booze should be banned.

The majority of drug overdoses come from the user not knowing the strength of the drug. If you knew one eccy was rated at a safe level you wouldnt take two.
But if you took two you would know for certain that it was twice the regulated strength of one.
Prohibition of drugs just puts young peoples lives at risk.
The criminalizing aspect leads young people into highly risky situations and ruins there lives far more often than any experimentation does.
Prohibition creates more unproductive people in society.

poor old demon.

my champion bottle of bacardi effort last night and everything is sparkly this morning. (well by lunch time anyways).

You have a problem with drugs hogsta ?
bad experience ?

No?

Plenty of people choose not to drink for a variety of reasons.
Doesnt mean Booze should be banned.

Did I say that booze should be banned somewhere?

Hogfather alcohol prohibition is an analogous time throughout recent history to the current prohibition on recreational drugs, some of the lessons learnt in that period of time need to be at least considered if not applied to our current methodology for dealing with recreational drug use / misuse. Agreed?

I'm not sure what we are driving at with the alcohol bit ...

My point is that any legalisation of pills would be best done (at least initially) via a medically-supervised programme. This would provide the opportunity to clinically evaluate the effects of consumption on the health of users - and probably get some solid data with commercial grade product for the first time.

The prohibition of the substances makes good science on the matter quite difficult.

I just think that moves to add MDMA to every tobacconist and pub in the country are rather premature. In any case they'd be soundly defeated in every house of legislature in the country so aren't a realistic option for those pursuing legalisation.

You might think that because anyone can buy alcohol that the appropriate first step is to make pingers similarly available, but I disagree.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:30:32 01/Nov/09

I like it how you guys are arguing for legalisation of recreational drugs based on the "alcohol is worse and we allow that" argument. So we are having trouble with people abusing a legal substance and you think it'd be a good idea to add more legal substances for them to abuse?

There are probably a lot of good reasons to legalise recreational drugs like ecstasy and decriminalise pot. None of them have anything to do with alcohol.