Do spliffs facilitate carb replenishment?
- Thread starter MessenJah
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Rhythm Thief
Legendary Member
- Location
- Ross on Wye
montage said:
Personally, I think there's a massive difference between "illegal" and "wrong". I'm well aware of the difference between right and wrong, but the difference between illegal and wrong is much harder to define.
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
Ah a favourite topic of mine.
Hi montage,
MessenJar is spot on. Drugs are drugs, whether they're illegal or not. It's cultural and historial presidence that has led to more harmful drugs like alcohol and tobbaco being legal and far less harmful drugs like cannabis and ecstasy being illegal.
It was cultural and historical presidence that was the basis of the slave trade, segregation, misogeny laws, laws on womens rights, laws against homosexuality, the list goes on.
Denying someones liberty (threatening them with a 5 year prison sentence) on the basis of historical presidence is morally wrong.
It is also complete hypocricy to treat the user of one drug differently from the user of another especially when the illegal drug is much safer to both the individual and society.
Hi montage,
MessenJar is spot on. Drugs are drugs, whether they're illegal or not. It's cultural and historial presidence that has led to more harmful drugs like alcohol and tobbaco being legal and far less harmful drugs like cannabis and ecstasy being illegal.
It was cultural and historical presidence that was the basis of the slave trade, segregation, misogeny laws, laws on womens rights, laws against homosexuality, the list goes on.
Denying someones liberty (threatening them with a 5 year prison sentence) on the basis of historical presidence is morally wrong.
It is also complete hypocricy to treat the user of one drug differently from the user of another especially when the illegal drug is much safer to both the individual and society.
Riverman said:
So Thomas the Thug who dabbers in a bit of harmless cannabis, but one day decideds to try a bit of heroine or speed, and then causes serious harm to an innocent bystander wether direct or indirect should be seen in the same light as Andrew the aids sufferer who is relying on drugs to keep him alive?
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
No certainly not. I do apologise as I didn't word that properly.
I meant that it is hypocritical to treat the user of a more harmful drug different from the user of a less harmful drug.
Drugs should be regulated according to the harm they cause to the individual and society.
Thus, the most harmful drugs like heroin, speed, alcohol and tobbaco should be most heavily controlled.
Safer drugs such as cannabis and MDMA should have less controls placed on them.
And montage if you read The Misuse of Drugs Act you will find that is the purpose of the law. However The Misuse of Drugs Act is not being applied properly by parliament, because both tobbaco and alcohol fall under its ambit.
Incidently the two drugs you mention, diamorphine and amphetamine are both used medicinally for many things, for eg. diamorphine for pain and amphetamine for ADHD.
Heroin is also a very bad example. People under the influence of heroin do not cause serious harm to innocent bystanders. Heroin addicts generally cause harm to themselves and others when they are trying to get their drugs. In Switzerland this problem has been successfully dealt with for 15 years by legalising heroin on prescription
The drug that is most likely to make Thomas the Thug cause serious harm to an innocent bystander is ALCOHOL and that is legal.
A good start on this topic is to take a look at the lancet graph on the relative harm of several different drugs.
1) The first drugs people tend to try are alcohol and tobbaco, thus they're the gateway drugs
2) In an illegal market, a drug dealer will sell people anything. There are no controls on use, they will sell and do sell to children, and if there isn't any cannabis available, then they will push harder drugs upon people. There is a simple solution to this.
I meant that it is hypocritical to treat the user of a more harmful drug different from the user of a less harmful drug.
Drugs should be regulated according to the harm they cause to the individual and society.
Thus, the most harmful drugs like heroin, speed, alcohol and tobbaco should be most heavily controlled.
Safer drugs such as cannabis and MDMA should have less controls placed on them.
And montage if you read The Misuse of Drugs Act you will find that is the purpose of the law. However The Misuse of Drugs Act is not being applied properly by parliament, because both tobbaco and alcohol fall under its ambit.
Incidently the two drugs you mention, diamorphine and amphetamine are both used medicinally for many things, for eg. diamorphine for pain and amphetamine for ADHD.
Heroin is also a very bad example. People under the influence of heroin do not cause serious harm to innocent bystanders. Heroin addicts generally cause harm to themselves and others when they are trying to get their drugs. In Switzerland this problem has been successfully dealt with for 15 years by legalising heroin on prescription
The drug that is most likely to make Thomas the Thug cause serious harm to an innocent bystander is ALCOHOL and that is legal.
A good start on this topic is to take a look at the lancet graph on the relative harm of several different drugs.
If you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory it's been disproved time and time again but if it exists there are two problems here.
1) The first drugs people tend to try are alcohol and tobbaco, thus they're the gateway drugs
2) In an illegal market, a drug dealer will sell people anything. There are no controls on use, they will sell and do sell to children, and if there isn't any cannabis available, then they will push harder drugs upon people. There is a simple solution to this.
I agree that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug ..... and I have not suggested otherwise. But because alcohol is so dangerous, does this make less dangerous drugs such as cannabis acceptable? It isn't like I am encouraging people to drink alcohol, nothing of the sort. I have just stated my opinion that it is wrong to encourage people to take drugs, even if they are less harmful than others
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
No worries. I agree alcohol can be quite dangerous if misused. Out of interest, what do you think the solution is to drug misuse?
Toe be honest I'd rather they came here and asked for advice rather than just took them without doing any research.
To be fair though, you did also say it was wrong to take drugs. That is very much a matter of opinion.
I respect that. Personally I would say there's nothing wrong in talking about and giving people advice about drugs, because people will always take mind altering substances, inevitably though some people may end up encouraging others.
Toe be honest I'd rather they came here and asked for advice rather than just took them without doing any research.
To be fair though, you did also say it was wrong to take drugs. That is very much a matter of opinion.
Ben M
Senior Member
- Location
- Chester/Oxford
Getting baked to aid carbo-loading... hmm I might pose this to the guys, see if we should stock up for our tour 
Well it worked. Constant bouts of 'the munchies' has certainly prevented me from failing to eat adequate quantities of energy-rich foodstuffs. Its sleep-inducing properties ensured that I was always fast asleep before 11pm and awake before 7am. Buying from coffeeshops meant that I was buying from someone who is only allowed to sell cannabis, thus I had almost zero chance of coming into contact with harder drugs - so-called 'gateway' effect is thus prevented, in theory at least. Tobacco and alcohol consumption are not allowed in coffeeshops either, so my exposure to those drugs was greatly reduced during my stay in the country. There is a limit to how much you may posess and how much a coffeeshop may sell to you, so I stayed well under the 5g limit. 2 grammes was more than enough though.
Opiates, cocaine derivatives and amphetamine derivatives are still being used for medical purposes. Chances are if you've ever had dental work done, you've done a bit of pseudo-coke for the old numb gum effect.
It is perfectly possible to use recreational drugs without becoming an addict, or causing harm to other people, or significant harm to yourself. I've taken cocaine and amphetamine on three or four occasions (not both at the same time), and they are both pretty easy to get hold of for me, but I never made it a habit because I never felt the need to take more. I don't feel the need to take cannabis at all, despite the fact that I could phone one of ten people in order to get it, and faster than a pizza delivery. That's because the whole effect of drug use depends on the person taking them, and not just on the drug itself.
I'm not saying that this means that they're safe or that their use should be promoted or encouraged. Far from it. But what I'm saying is that taking any sort of drug is not inherently wrong or bad, regardless of its legal status. To think of any sort of recreational drug use as 'bad' or 'wrong' is quite an ignorant viewpoint, most often held by people who haven't read the scientific facts available, only taking in biased information and propaganda from those with vested interests - i.e. the media, the government and the police. If more people put their uninformed misconceptions aside and took some time to read scientific studies and history books, they might gain a better understanding of the whole subject of drugs...
Opiates, cocaine derivatives and amphetamine derivatives are still being used for medical purposes. Chances are if you've ever had dental work done, you've done a bit of pseudo-coke for the old numb gum effect.
It is perfectly possible to use recreational drugs without becoming an addict, or causing harm to other people, or significant harm to yourself. I've taken cocaine and amphetamine on three or four occasions (not both at the same time), and they are both pretty easy to get hold of for me, but I never made it a habit because I never felt the need to take more. I don't feel the need to take cannabis at all, despite the fact that I could phone one of ten people in order to get it, and faster than a pizza delivery. That's because the whole effect of drug use depends on the person taking them, and not just on the drug itself.
I'm not saying that this means that they're safe or that their use should be promoted or encouraged. Far from it. But what I'm saying is that taking any sort of drug is not inherently wrong or bad, regardless of its legal status. To think of any sort of recreational drug use as 'bad' or 'wrong' is quite an ignorant viewpoint, most often held by people who haven't read the scientific facts available, only taking in biased information and propaganda from those with vested interests - i.e. the media, the government and the police. If more people put their uninformed misconceptions aside and took some time to read scientific studies and history books, they might gain a better understanding of the whole subject of drugs...
Rhythm Thief
Legendary Member
- Location
- Ross on Wye
^^ Good post.
