I think the point the guy was making is the hypocrisy of vilifying illicit drugs while promoting and tolerating, and the government profiting, from two of the most dangerous drugs.
People who currently use Tobacco/Booze may move to these illicit drugs if they were legalized and it would lower the toll that booze and nicotine is inflicting on society.

Thats a good thing, right ?

No sorry what's being presented here is the sceptical view to the current dogma that recreational drugs are prohibited for our safety, as these are harmful drugs. What is not being put is a argument in favour of legalisation directly but if no valid argument can be presented as to why these drugs remain illegal then we can approach that side of the debate more directly.

It's more an idiotic hypothetical then a good thing.

You have no way of knowing what effect mass usage of currently illegal drugs would have on society and claiming that more drugs would only lead to a positive effect is borderline retarded. By your argument, instead of legalising ecstacy and pot we should be banning alcohol and tobacco.

People who currently use Tobacco/Booze may move to these illicit drugs if they were legalized and it would lower the toll that booze and nicotine is inflicting on society. Thats a good thing, right?

All that would achieve is move the stats from one drug to another. Lower one, increase another. That's not a good thing. Keeping research and awareness to two major drugs would be better than spreading it over three or more.

I'm against bring ecstasy into the picture, legally. People with brains know to avoid it, there are dangers involved. There may be peer pressure to drink at the moment, smoking not so much (declining, from what I see), so why introduce more hassles into the mix?

Mass usage is already occurring.

So you believe drugs are prohibited for our personal safety, but doesn't this article directly counter that claim, the UKs chief drugs advisor has told us that these drugs are less harmful for us the alcohol or tobacco so clearly they are not prohibited for our safety else these drugs should be the same reasoning follow suit.

You have no way of knowing what effect mass usage of currently illegal drugs would have on society

No but the point is leading researchers do and disagree with the currently taken political stance that the effects would be adverse.

I think the point the guy was making is the hypocrisy of vilifying illicit drugs while promoting and tolerating, and the government profiting, from two of the most dangerous drugs.

I'm not sure that the Government and society in general profit much from alcohol and tobacco - I'd be more inclined to believe that there was an offset. Do you have a citation for the profit assertion?

People who currently use Tobacco/Booze may move to these illicit drugs if they were legalized and it would lower the toll that booze and nicotine is inflicting on society.

Thats a good thing, right ?

Because people who use drugs don't generally smoke or drink ... sometimes I don't know why I bother with you FaceMan.

No but the point is leading researchers do and disagree with the currently taken political stance that the effects would be adverse.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence at the moment for this to be 'proven' because by its nature the law prevents proper research. I'm pretty sure that the current consensus among the medicos is that drugs are bad for you.

last edited by Hogfather at 15:51:28 01/Nov/09

I'm against bring ecstasy into the picture, legally. People with brains know to avoid it, there are dangers involved.

You are missing the point we are being greatly misinformed of the dangers and thereby misleading the public on the dangers of these drugs so we cannot have a rational debate on drug law reform. UKs top drugs advisor is saying that taking ecstasy is less dangerour than drinking alcohol. You are just ignoring this point and moving straight to the argument for or against legalisation.

The problem is that MDMA is far more euphoric then alcohol.

Who knows what would happen if it was readily avaliable and legal for everyone to use.

I don't think there is sufficient evidence at the moment for this to be 'proven' because by its nature the law prevents proper research. I'm pretty sure that the current consensus among the medicos is that drugs are bad for you.

This is just not the case and you're using bad in such an abreviated sense here that I'm not even sure what you mean.

UKs top drugs advisor is saying that taking ecstasy is less dangerour than drinking alcohol. You are just ignoring this point and moving straight to the argument for or against legalisation.

So:

1) This UK doc is right. The rest of the medical fraternity and Governments are wrong and involved in a deliberate, global campaign of misinformation. To protect this conspiracy he was sacked.

OR

2) This doctor is wrong and was sacked because he is wrong.

Which is more likely?

last edited by Hogfather at 15:58:03 01/Nov/09

Who knows what would happen if it was readily avaliable and legal for everyone to use.

This is the recurring argument in this thread from everyone against legalisation, so what should we shelter ourselves from all potential change? The internet has given rise to a greater network of child pornography traders than at any time in the previous 100yrs, identity theft is through the roof. Lets all be paralysed by fear the society will change somehow if we make or do anything different to how it is now, or just realise that we're a society / civilisation founded on adventure and freedom of expression.

No.1?

Nothing wrong with MDMA, I just don't think the public could handle it.

It's certaintly a much more positive substance then alcohol.

This is the recurring argument in this thread from everyone against legalisation, so what should we shelter ourselves from all potential change?

I would rate MDMA as the most euphoric substance avaliable... it dwarfs drugs such as meth, cocaine, heroin, pot, lsd etc. It would be widely abused by a large amount of people when legalized, there is absolutely no way around it.

last edited by CHUB at 16:02:30 01/Nov/09

Nothing wrong with MDMA, I just don't think the public could handle it.

So its not fit for use by the public ...

How is it a suitable drug for public use then? How can there 'nothing wrong with MDMA' if most people 'couldn't handle it'?

Did you just compare the invention of the internet to making drugs legal imitation? ...

or getting lost in the WELL IF ITS LEGAL EVERYONE WILL ABUSE IT.
Thats like defining anyone who uses Alcohol as an Alcoholic.

I find its hilarious that the stereotyped druggy is painted as an addict with a mental illness who lives on a disability pension.
Yet the stereotyped smoker and boozer is somehow quite normal and doing the right thing by contributing Taxes to justify his drug problem.
The government makes oodles of money from booze and tobacco taxes.
But zero money from the druggy.

UKs top drugs advisor is saying that taking ecstasy is less dangerour than drinking alcohol. You are just ignoring this point and moving straight to the argument for or against legalisation.

So:

1) This UK doc is right. The rest of the medical fraternity and Governments are wrong and involved in a deliberate, global campaign of misinformation. To protect this conspiracy he was sacked.

OR

2) This doctor is wrong and was sacked because he is wrong.

Which is more likely?

Read the article and do more research generally, consensus amongst the scientific community is towards drug law reform, you are not validating yourself by this line you've taken.

Our governments told us they were going to Iraq because Saddam Husein had WMDs, how quickly we're lied to then forgive and forget those lies.

When you say the rest of the medical fraternity please find peer reviewed journal articles and forward them on.

How is it a suitable drug for public use then? How can there 'nothing wrong with MDMA' if most people 'couldn't handle it'?

I don't think it is suitable.

I have no solution, it shouldn't be illegal but I have no faith in the public being able to handle access to pure MDMA, the shit would hit the fan.

It's just far too euphoric not to be widely abused.

No but the point is leading researchers do and disagree with the currently taken political stance that the effects would be adverse.

Find me one researcher, they don't have to be leading but they do need data to back up their claims.

Anyone that claims to know what effects legalisation of recreational drugs would have on society as a whole is a bullshit artist or a witch because you'd need magical powers to calculate all the variables in that situation.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of positives that could come from legalising some of these drugs. For one if ecstacy was legalised it would be sold most likely in drink form making it harder to OD on and dehydrate with and there is still a lot of untapped potential in hemp as a fibre. The thing is though, there isn't any benefit to society from these substances as drugs and like it or not there are plenty of negatives.

I find its hilarious that the stereotyped druggy is painted as an addict with a mental illness who lives on a disability pension. Yet the stereotyped smoker and boozer is somehow quite normal and doing the right thing by contributing Taxes to justify his drug problem. The government makes oodles of money from booze and tobacco taxes. But zero money from the druggy.

Drug abuse and mental illness is not a stereotype - its a fact.

there isn't any benefit to society

Whether that is true or not, it shouldn't be a factor. Individual freedom is important too.

And it does seem to come down to whether people trust other people with drugs, as seen by the last few posts.

Drug abuse and mental illness is not a stereotype - its a fact.

Nonsense.

Show me a study where one group are given medical examinations then given reasonable amounts of drugs and the other group none and compare the results.
Mental illness is just as likely to occur in non-drug users as drug users.
In fact its quite possible people with underlying symptoms move to self-medicate the symptoms via drugs and booze.

If you heavily abuse drugs or booze sure you could develop an illness but i would argue the underlying problem must be present.
Not all alcoholics have Mental Illnesses.
Not all drug addicts have Mental Illnesses.

last edited by FaceMan at 16:31:30 01/Nov/09

A CANNABIS grower has proven himself a real dope by leading police straight to his crop in a bizarre bust on the Gold Coast today.

Police said the man, 30, drove home after crashing his car into a fence at the Park Lake State School at Pacific Pines about 5.30am.

But he left a trail of destruction, including wreckage and gouges in the bitumen, which police followed to his house nearby.

Inside, they found a hydroponic cannabis crop containing about 14 plants.

http://tiny.cc/Di7K8

"It's a good find,'' Gold Coast police inspector Ron Barry said.

"It shows how people can come undone by their own stupidity.''

Police were still looking for the man this afternoon.

"We know who he is,'' Insp Barry said.

Who knows what would happen if it was readily avaliable and legal for everyone to use.

lots of people would have a good time, and id probably see some boobies

i dunno that you can abuse mdma to be honest, you only have so much seretonin to give, your body cant manufacture more of it, just because its being told to

Are you a drug user Faceman?

Libertarian ?

Made my opinion pretty clear; don't have the time to waste back and forth (again) on an issue that's effectively all opinion.

As always, good times QGL.

you only have so much seretonin to give, your body cant manufacture more of it, just because its being told to

And what happens to the mood of the person when this occurs?
Perhaps this symptom/disorder even has a name?

...(changes in the gene responsible for serotonin generation) ... associated with risk of MDD (major depressive disorder)

Article title: Tph1 218a/c polymorphism is associated with major depressive disorder and its treatment response. Oct 26 2009

...decreased serotonin levels, have often been implicated in the pathogenesis of (depression)

Article title: Major depression, cognitive dysfunction and Alzheimer's disease: Is there a link? Oct 19 2009

...serotonin transporter gene ... have been investigated in a large number of pharmacogenetic studies of depression...

Article title: The role of pharmacogenetics in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. To be included in Nov 2009 issue


Excess euphoric drug use is likely to deplete serotonin levels. Serotonin depletion is likely to induce depression. Depression is a serious issue in society as it is.

last edited by Seven at 17:18:30 01/Nov/09

suprisingly, doing too much of stuff can be bad for you;

doesnt mean moderation is bad for you

I had faceman painted as a living in mum's garage anarchist

that's what i figured too

Im an international man of mystery.

I think you're just a fuckhead tbh :)

Its the thought that counts.

Hogfather your an arrogant fuck and an asshole. All your posts are generally retarded conjecture and opinion.

^ Don't hold back, tell us what you really think!

Yes but Corrupt you are proven to be mentally ill.

Excess euphoric drug use is likely to deplete serotonin levels. Serotonin depletion is likely to induce depression. Depression is a serious issue in society as it is.

Alcohol and depression have been shown to be linked as well, once again you simply sidestep this threads topic, Ecstasy is less dangerous than Alcohol, no one is saying it does not have the potential for harm, but this characteristic is clearly not enough in anyone on this forum's mind to be sufficient to prohibit a substance or you'd all be creating threads titled "Petition for Criminilisation of Alcohol Sale" and not "OMG Got Pissed Down the RE".

faceman isn't a good advertisement for drugs

there is no way anyone can say that alco is worse than e's

every single batch of pingers is made with different ingredients.

true scoobs, old mate doc would be talking about propper pingas rather than the shit we get these days

whats the point of his findings then?

"oh i just spent 3million of tax payers money to find out that the pingers from back in the 60's, where less harmull than alco today"

im sure all of these so called "bad drugs" are perfectly fine for u if they are taken in their natural state and not cut with dangerous chemicals etc.

ciggies these days are 1million times worse than back in the day cause they have so much shit in them and sprayed on them, back then it was just tabacco with no poisons or any shit in it.

Hogfather your an arrogant fuck and an asshole. All your posts are generally retarded conjecture and opinion.

Haha and people reckon I'm an angry poster..

im pretty sure that tobacco (and nicotine) is still bad for you


and i guess the point is, how serious governments are about protecting their citizens (form themselves)

dont deciminalise pills = people continue to take dangerous gear
decrminalise and regulate = people take less dangerous gear

if governments were serious about protecting their citizens they would make ciggies and alco illegal, instead of taking a percentage of these "deadly drugs" income.

dingasssssssssssss~!~!@~~~!!

Update link

Leading members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are expected to resign over the sacking of its chairman, leaving the service in disarray, one of its leading scientists has warned.

last edited by imitation at 15:29:19 02/Nov/09

Following the sacking, there are now 30 members of the council, fewer than half of whom are scientists.

From that most recent article and here's the honest truth, government policy is not formed from scientific review nor does advice on policy creation even come necessarily from scientific researchers specialising in drug use management / harm minimisation.

governments are serious about makin money

Haha and people reckon I'm an angry poster..

No but you do tend to go MIA when someone questions what you believe in.
Throw a Huff and run away.

The Drugs Policy isnt about Science. Its about choosing the Science that best fits the Policy and ignoring or vilifying contradictory evidence.
These 3rd world South American countries are moving their societies forward with new Drug Policies based around tolerance and acceptance of the use of drugs.

The fact is the wests Drugs Policy is formed around Myths Superstition and Ignorance the same ingredients as nightmares.
The War On Drugs is a nightmare.
Its failed horribly and wasted the lives of so many young people.
Drug Laws destroy far more lives than the drugs themselves could ever do.