You could argue “good reasons” to make most things illegal - doesn’t mean much.
No-one is asking you to. If certain drugs are legalised you would not be forced to take them, it would be a personal choice – as is eating deep-fried food, gambling, playing computer games, playing extreme sports, driving and doing many other things that are detrimental to your health or put you at risk.
Folks, I’m starting to think this discussion is about the continued illegality of drugs.
I can’t believe this thread is still going. I had a good time reading this circular thread last night and was reminded of many conversations I have had of this nature (not necessarily about drugs - just pointless circular argument without any clear idea about what is being argued about or for). Guess I’ll just throw in some random comments on statements - nothing better to do right now than get involved in circular discussions I guess…
This is essentially the only reason that i could see for continuing a ban on drugs. It is, however, not sufficient in my mind either. Why not add drugs to it? Let people decide on their own. Going the other way, I also don’t think that it is a good pro-legalisation argument to just point at cigarettes and alcohol and say they’re just as bad for you, therefore legalise other drugs. People should not be totally in control of what choices they are allowed to make - this is assumed by more or less everyone. I am not allowed to drive a car before a certain age, I am not allowed to kill someone, and I am not allowed to drink before a certain age… I guess the difference is that it is claimed that drugs only affect you and you should be in control of your own body. Well, other people here have actually explained this stuff much better in this and other threads around here, so I’ll just leave it at that since who knows if this is even on topic…
Why should I do this? I’ll take it into account when I vote perhaps. And I certainly hope that they are more clear about what they are talking about than you are here.
I was also going to say something about the previous comment on essentially all of us not really having any ability to argue about whatever it is we’re arguing about due to not having the proper credentials, but I think I’ll leave that one for now - I mean I don’t think anyone here actually wants to start arguing over the value of anecdotal evidence…
Perhaps later I’ll check back when I have consumed some of these terrible things… that is if I manage to control the wild rages I tend to fly into after a glass of alcohol or a smoke of other natural plants…
*disclaimer: drugs are illegal in most places, i don’t recommend using them, etc…
:: sigh ::
We need a sticky summing up logical debate for those who just don’t understand the issue. They might not be any better at it, but at least they would understand that it’s the way things are done here.
If you’re making an argument, dougie, you have to find the data to support your position. If you find quotes and can cite them here, bully for you. (Frankly, I don’t care much what the DEA says, as the War on Drugs is one of the more titanic idiocies of our nation’s history.) It’s not our responsibility to find your arguments for you - nor was it earlier in the thread when you decided you thought there were probably 25,000 deaths a year from drug-induced car accidents. You need to find the data, and if you start doing so, and arguing a coherent thesis, than those who disagree will be happy to do the same on the other side.
Until then, the closest thing you have to a cite is a conversation you had thirty years ago with your parents. This doesn’t convince me.
I’m with you. A big fat “meh” for this thread.
It’s a radical new phenomenon - the Reverse Thread that leads from diverse ramblings to a coherent topic!
As a former daily pot smoker who quit for professional and personal reasons, and as one who took acid five times, I completely understand the allure illegal drugs. I think the biggest disservice anyone can do for kids is not to acknowlege and address the same impulses and curiosity in them. They have seen an entire generation before them who took these drugs and are not addicts or mental patients today. When people try to scare them out of trying them many kids - the smarter ones anyway - rightly see through the rhetoric and make up their own minds.
Kids will continue to use drugs regardless of whether or not they are illegal. The best parents can do is to educate them in a way that respects their choice and their intelligence. I suppose if a kid is not too bright and the only thing they understand is fear (and how many of us have or want kids like this?) then go ahead and scare them. Unfortunately they will probably figure out that the truth is a less cut and dried than this.
Otherwise explain all you can to them. Tell them to avoid certain drugs that have high rates of physical addiction (like cocaine or heroin), tell them that all drugs can get you in big trouble with the law and jeopardize their career, tell them you had a great time taking these risks and why you do or do not continue to use. Model for them a rational approach to the issue because like it or not the choice is theirs to make.
As far as I can tell, you seem to be fairly concerned about the risk of overdose and how a “standard” dosage of drug is not easily defined. You compare it to prescription drugs, and this is actually a pretty good analogy, because most of the illicit drugs used today have actually been used medicinally in the past.
LSD and PCP used to be used to induce psychoses “indistinguishable from schizophrenia” in psychiatry, so that the effects of schizophrenia could be measured. “Special K” (ketamine) was used as an anaesthetic on humans for a long time, especially in combat situations where its rapid onset of effect was desirable, and is still used today as an animal tranq. Cocaine of course is a local anaesthetic and is still used in dentistry as well as, occasionally, for eye surgery to anaesthetise the cornea. The effects of most drugs, as well as the dosages required to induce such effects, are all very well understood.
The maximum amount of any chemical you can safely ingest really could only be determined by a pharmacologist or doctor. This is true for nicotine (60mg, all at once, is a lethal dose), ethanol (more like 10000mg per kg of body weight), caffeine (10g), etc. (It’s not really the case for marijuana, but that’s just because there is no recorded case of death by marijuana overdose.) In most cases, however, the amount of drug that will kill you is far, far above that which would induce its psychoactive effects when you take it for the first time. And you can consume far more than its lethal dose if you do so over a long enough time interval (hours for heroin, morphine, cocaine), because the body tends to metabolise most drugs fairly quickly. (Exceptions - LSD, PCP, marijuana.)
Any chemical you ingest repeatedly will eventually induce tolerance to that chemical. This is because your body’s biochemical processes are very adaptable. The first time you ingest the chemical it may confuse your body, but over time the body “learns” how to adjust its function so that it performs normally (or even better than normal) in the presence of that drug. Yes; experienced heroin users may use up to 1200mg of heroin in a day, when the dose required to experience its effects is 100mg. This is dangerous, especially because sometimes your tolerance to a drug will fade after a few days of not using it. The physical process that causes tolerance is usually the fact that overstimulation of a neuroreceptor can damage it; usually, the body replaces the neuroreceptors often so that this doesn’t come up, but if you are stimulating the neuroreceptor too frequently, the body can’t keep up with this. By taking “time off” from the drug you’re allowing the body to repair the neuroreceptors and this will mean that a much smaller dose of drug is needed to produce the effects. So, you could “shoot up” 300mg of heroin on Monday, not get high again until Friday, use that same dose on Friday and die.
An informed drug user will know this stuff about the drug they want to use. An uninformed drug user runs many risks when taking drugs. Most of this information can be found in medical or other scientific reference books such as Clarke’s Analysis of Drugs and Poisons and Martindale’s Complete Drug Reference (both published by The Pharmaceutical Press of UK). It’s not inaccessible, but I do think it should be made more accessible.
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m also a teetotaller and an adamant nonsmoker, and have been for years. I’ve never tried alcohol knowingly and I’ve never taken an illicit drug in my life. I do abuse caffeine on a regular basis 
I also believe that if drugs were legalised, they could be used safely, the dosages could be prescribed by doctors to potentially reduce the risk of overdose (although there’s no way to stop anyone from taking an entire bottle of any drug, and dying), and there would be no world-ending, earth-shattering backlash of negativity from an increased informed usage of drugs by those who wish to do so.
I certainly favor an objective discussion.
Incidentally, I had failed to come up with an answer to a poster who said the only distinction between “illegal” and “legal” drugs was that the legal ones ‘were prescribed by a physician and dispensed in a small brown vial,’ or something like that.
Since childhood I have ingested innumerable presicrption medications, to treat conditions as diverse as toothache, kidney infection, ear infection, post-operative eye conditions, blood pressure, and mental distress. All prescribed by physicians or dentists.
And I see that as the important distinction. The licit drugs are used to treat physical disorders (pain, infection, etc.)
But the illicit ones? So far as I’ve been able to tell, their only purpose is to give the user a “buzz.”
Incidentally–my parents’ drug lecture was forty-five years ago, not thirty. And I’ve heard plenty since then–and, yes, from sources other than Dragnet. One such source is a lawyer in the prison system in another state–an old friend of mine.
Dougie, Dougie, Dougie, Dougie, call me crazy but…
As I read through this thread yesterday and again when I read the above today I had the feeling that some part of you wants to try drugs - the illicit kind - although nobody in the thread has suggested that you should. Several times, however, you responded as if they had made the suggestion. Then every time you go near the subject you mention your parents’ lecture and other arguments for not using - your mantra it seems.
If you do not want to use drugs then don’t. Sure - there’s plenty of good reasons not to, so don’t use. For people who do use them, hey big surprise!!! They do it to get a buzz!!! Why else would they do it?
What is really eating at you?
You know, I guess you’ve answered my question–in a straightforward manner.
It puts me in mind of W. C. Fields or Tex Williams’ “Smoke, Smoke, Smoke” character. 
Are you sure you’re sober? Because I’m drunk, and yet I’m pretty sure my last few posts have made a lot more sense than anything you’ve written here.
Anyway, I see you decided not to address my request that you actually provide some evidence for the extraordinary claims you’re making. I guess you discovered there is no hard evidence for most of your statements. It’s ok if you admit it; in fact, if you’ll honestly acknowledge it, we’ll respect you more.
I confess to having blundered–that is, if I endeavored to make some point I did not already comment on in the other thread.
Well, it’s better that I should ask a stupid question than come to a stupid conclusion. Please refresh my memory: Which specific “extraordinary claims” did I make? If possible please tell me in which thread and what date. Then I should be able to answer your instant question objectively.
39.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Get the facts first, bro.
Actually, I believe the “one-half” statistic came from my local newspaper, or from USA Weekend. Perhaps the figures of the National Safety Council are a better source…
I Googled the facts. Google’s server tells me I did it in 0.26 seconds.
Go on…
Hey, just a thought: why don’t you do your research? Are you always so lazy that you make numbers up that seem “reasonable” to you and then expect others to find the actual ones for you?
Or maybe it was a dream, or maybe angels spoke it to me during a séance.
You are as funny as a rubber crutch.
Fine. I will do such research, but it’ll have to wait a week; I have other fish to fry–I’ll be out of town for a week. Sunday next week I’ll see what’s online–perhaps the National Safety Council does have a website, with cogent figures on what percentage of fatalities in highway accidents was the result of one or more drivers under the influence.
I was able to get to a computer this morning; I went to the Ask Jeeves site, and found [url=www.ojp.doj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ac.txt]this link[/url to a source of information published by the U. S. Department of Justice.
Let’s try that again:
this link to the DOJ report.
:o several times!
I have come to think of this thread as “the vampire thread.”
Because it sucks, and it won’t die.
