[quote]lildave wrote:
I unintentionally smoked a joint laced with crack on Wednesday. That was a horrible experience I never wanna go through again. I actually was ready to call 911 cuz I thought I was gonna die… [/quote]
Crack need to be vaporized, not burned. If you burn it like in a joint, not much happens.
Well I dont know what I smoked then. Maybe coke?
[quote]lildave wrote:
Well I dont know what I smoked then. Maybe coke?[/quote]
What did it make you feel like? Heart palpitations?
[quote]SeanT wrote:
Oh and by the way, I live in Nevada now, we have near(if not the highest in the USA) the highest rate of meth production, teen pregancy, drop outs, near worst education, and I’m sure we are number one in a lot more things.
[/quote]
–Off topic–
This jumped out at me, now before anyone say’s anything totally destroying me, just look at that.
Now, I know that there are undoubtedly thousands of variables involved in determining why Nevada has as many number spots that can be considered negative. But would it be to presumptuous to think that for the majority of the population couldn’t handle taking meth, which led to "teen pregancy, drop outs, near worst education, and I’m sure we are number one in a lot more things. "?
Not sure if this fits into any arguments as I couldn’t really bother reading too many of them, but to me it would symbolize that even should drugs be legalized and regulated the effects would be to varied for any regulation to be effective.
–Off topic, as I have no experience with recreational drugs–
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Now, I know that there are undoubtedly thousands of variables involved in determining why Nevada has as many number spots that can be considered negative. But would it be to presumptuous to think that for the majority of the population couldn’t handle taking meth, which led to "teen pregancy, drop outs, near worst education, and I’m sure we are number one in a lot more things. "?
[/quote]
No, Nevada is generally just a low income state with many people working at the casino’s. There are a lot of kids that could be smart here in school, but they all are lazy. They have a lack of motivation due to parents not pushing them.
We don’t even have a state income tax…the casinos pay it all.
I would like to reiterate what Professor X said about drug education being screwed up. I was recently browsing through the district mandated health book in Health class. The inaccuracies amaze me.
They listed Marijuana as having PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms. And if you read between the lines, they try and tell you if you try anything once, you’ll be addicted.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Can someone in the know explain if and how LSD can make someone permanently insane?
Usually people who already have a schizoid personality or come from a family that has a history of schizophrenia are at danger. Other than that, I don’t think it is normally an issue.
We are also told that people suffer from “flashbacks”. I have never known anybody to have a “flashback” and I LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO :). This despite the fact that I keep wishing that I would have one 
In an ideal world, people could get some kind of psychological evaluation prior to doing these things. That’s what happened to the weightlifter Doug Hepburn-the world’s strongest man-when he used LSD in a clinical setting to cure his alcoholism.
Part of the problem is that when LSD was scheduled, it became extremely hard to do research on it. In this sense, we can say people are playing with an unknown.
The “scare tactic” of saying, for example, that LSD damaged chromosones was pretty much belied. It turned out that the doctor who made those accusations used only a few patients from a mental health institution who were taking thorazine regularly (which does, from what I understand, cause some damage).
As I recall, people like Leary, Allan Watts, Ginsberg, and other LSD users were tested and shown to have no problems in this regard. I am just mentioning this, because a number of claims have been made about LSD in the past that had no scientific basis.
LSD and the other hallucinogens (psilocbyin, ayahuasca, DMT, etc. etc) are powerful and need to be treated with respect. Proceed with caution. Due to the draconian scheduling, there hasn’t been enough research to talk about any other potential dangers. However, it is, from what I know, a very tiny minority of people who risk a psychotic break due to them (those already schizoid).
I don’t quite agree that “spotters” “sitters” are unneccesary. They can keep you physically safe and, given that bad trips do happen, they can talk you through it. It’s also helpful to have one to “grok” with during a session.
All that said, I wouldn’t touch cocaine, opioids, crack, etc with a ten-foot pole.
[/quote]
HPPD is a giant fucking sack of shit. One of the main risks of LSD. I “know someone who had” HPPD for a few months, and being that anxiety/depression/lots of shitty feelings come with it, it makes you feel like you ARe having a schizophrenic break.
I personally dont know anyone who has gone “crazy” from lsd, but it did certianly mess “my friends” head up for a good while.
It was apretty average dose, and just once, although “he” was recovering mentally from a bad DMT trip that “he” had, which probably left “him” with the anxiety issues.
LSD definently does need to be respected, like you said, and bad things CAN happen, although its pretty unlikely. “he” was an unlucky guy to get HPPD after two lsd uses, and “he” may never touch the drug again, else “he’ll” risk the symptoms coming back for good.
SeanT… you seem like a pretty alright guy. The fact of the matter is, how do you justify the negatives of drugs with the positive. This whole thread really boils down to that question.
You can question my qualifications, have I done drugs, yes. Do I regret that…the answer is still…yes. Drugs never opened my eyes. You want to call into question which drugs? K. Well acid, shrooms, extacy, coke, …all of the above. And whatever you might throw in my direction. If you want me to say that the law should legalize them all, hey, do it. Legalize drugs. All of them. I’m downright curious to know what would happen. Do you think we’d reach a sudden Utopia? What do you think would be the outcome of such a decision. What society do you think we would live in if all drugs were legal. It seems to be your dream. My dreams are different, but that doesn’t make me any less curious.
Let’s hear about the world according to SeanT.
drugs are fun but they all damage you no matter what there destroying something in your body, memory, nervous system, brain function, liver etc
i done em all and seriously there not the end of the world, but they do damage slowly and surely if u abuse em and use em lots your gonna run into some problems down the line
moderation is a good thing your gonna die one day so sure try em out for the experience, dont let fear stop you from experiencing things in life. see what works for you take it leave it just dont abuse it
if you have any mental illness in your family like a history of it stay away from pysco actives
dont ever fucking do crack or heroine unless your like above the age of 70 and rich and dont give a fuck
E’s drink water and be some wear safe and relaxing when they wear off
just use common sense dont do dumb shit on drugs just sit back chill out enjoy with some friends responsibility
if ya run into trouble dont be a retart and worry what ya mum will think, help ya mate out or ya self do the right thing, then deal with ya mum or cops or watever
i personally think alcohol is pretty high up there on hard drugs, it causes so many social problems, and deaths each year way more than any other drug, but its legal
big strange if you ask me
like a bunch of drunk rednecks or gang members is some scary shit and cause alot of problems
put those boys on LSD and see who they will be bothering fucking no body, put em on Es and they will be cryin and huggin each other
the list goes on and in most cases alcohol is the worst
im not for banning it i used to love to get drunk and fight i know what its all about but its the truth that it causes a shit load of problems
judas, you make some good points.
[quote]Judas wrote:
drugs are fun but they all damage you no matter what there destroying something in your body, memory, nervous system, brain function, liver etc
i done em all and seriously there not the end of the world, but they do damage slowly and surely if u abuse em and use em lots your gonna run into some problems down the line[/quote]
You are right here, especially when talking about street drugs. Pharmaceutical grade drugs actually do far less damage though, most of the damage in street drugs coming from impurities - especially with the likes of heroin where cutting agents are rarely fully soluable so vastly increase the chances of vein collapse and damage to major organs.
We should remember that opiates are used throughout the medical world, sometimes in high doses, with no negative or long term effects.
Very very true.
Referring to heroin again…
“Unlike alcohol or tobacco, heroin causes no ongoing toxicity to the tissues or organs of the body. Apart from causing some constipation, it appears to have no side effects in most who take it. When administered safely, its use may be consistent with a long and productive life. The principal harm comes from the risk of overdose, problems with injecting, drug impurities and adverse legal or financial consequences.”
Source: Byrne, Andrew, MD, “Addict in the Family: How to Cope with the Long Haul” (Redfern, NSW, Australia: Tosca Press, 1996), pp. 33-34, available on the web at http://www.csdp.org/addict/.
Does any of this mean I want to take it recreationally? Absolutely not, but it seems to me to highlight the need for education, control and less media hype. Just like all the knee jerk media crap that surrounds AAS.
From personal experience, I did not find heroin addictive to anywhere near the level that I had been told it was by the media. Morphine too.
I should clarify that last paragraph - clinical heroin (Diamorphine) and morphine - both of which I have taken on several occasions, on one occasion for a prolonged period (several weeks).
Just because they were used for pain control makes them no less physically addictive than if taken recreationally.
Alcohol and cigarettes though - Well I’ve not kicked the alcohol habit entirely although it was never out of hand for me, but cigarettes were far far harder to get off than several weeks on diamorphine.
Addiction to any drug can be a terrible thing, and I’ve seen people in such a bad way from alcohol addiction - just as bad as any heroin addict.
So, if we make them all illegal (alcohol and tobacco included) we go back to prohibition which didn’t work. Everything goes underground and carries on as before, with the added risks of dangerous impurities (especially in the likes of distilled alcohol).
If we legalise them all, a degree of control can be had over the quality of the drugs and therefore make them ‘safer’ to take.
There is an argument about ease of supply if the likes of heroin or cocaine were legalised - i.e. would more people be tempted to try them if they were easily available.
Ask yourself this. Would you be any more tempted to shoot up heroin if you could get hold of it easily and legally?
Here’s another thing about supply. It couldn’t get any easier to get hold of as it is! Certainly in many areas of the UK anyway. I know full well that I could pick up just about any recreational drug from several locations near where I live on any given evening. The supply is already there.
I have no problem with drug use for recreational purposes if an individual makes that choice for themselves. I have a far bigger problem with the social and economic pressures and bullshit that turn people towards such drugs as a way to escape their crappy lives.
Some people are vunerable to such pressures and are easy targets for drug addiction. Some people turn to gambling in similar situations - should we make that illegal because a minority can become addicted? Why should the rest of us be denied a little thrill once in a while just because a small percentage of the population are overly susceptible to addiction?
The American sociologist Marshall B Clinard suggested that the term ‘deviance’ should be reserved for behaviour that is so much disapproved of that the community finds it impossible to tolerate.
Individuals that use drugs outside the law (AAS users included) are currently classed as deviants but is that classification socially constructed? Are we guilty of following the croud in our beliefs as opposed to making educated, individual decisions on the matter?
[quote]Renton wrote:
judas, you make some good points.
Judas wrote:
drugs are fun but they all damage you no matter what there destroying something in your body, memory, nervous system, brain function, liver etc
i done em all and seriously there not the end of the world, but they do damage slowly and surely if u abuse em and use em lots your gonna run into some problems down the line
You are right here, especially when talking about street drugs. Pharmaceutical grade drugs actually do far less damage though, most of the damage in street drugs coming from impurities - especially with the likes of heroin where cutting agents are rarely fully soluable so vastly increase the chances of vein collapse and damage to major organs.
We should remember that opiates are used throughout the medical world, sometimes in high doses, with no negative or long term effects.
i personally think alcohol is pretty high up there on hard drugs, it causes so many social problems, and deaths each year way more than any other drug, but its legal
Very very true.
Referring to heroin again…
“Unlike alcohol or tobacco, heroin causes no ongoing toxicity to the tissues or organs of the body. Apart from causing some constipation, it appears to have no side effects in most who take it. When administered safely, its use may be consistent with a long and productive life. The principal harm comes from the risk of overdose, problems with injecting, drug impurities and adverse legal or financial consequences.”
Source: Byrne, Andrew, MD, “Addict in the Family: How to Cope with the Long Haul” (Redfern, NSW, Australia: Tosca Press, 1996), pp. 33-34, available on the web at http://www.csdp.org/addict/.
Does any of this mean I want to take it recreationally? Absolutely not, but it seems to me to highlight the need for education, control and less media hype. Just like all the knee jerk media crap that surrounds AAS.
From personal experience, I did not find heroin addictive to anywhere near the level that I had been told it was by the media. Morphine too.
I should clarify that last paragraph - clinical heroin (Diamorphine) and morphine - both of which I have taken on several occasions, on one occasion for a prolonged period (several weeks).
Just because they were used for pain control makes them no less physically addictive than if taken recreationally.
Alcohol and cigarettes though - Well I’ve not kicked the alcohol habit entirely although it was never out of hand for me, but cigarettes were far far harder to get off than several weeks on diamorphine.
Addiction to any drug can be a terrible thing, and I’ve seen people in such a bad way from alcohol addiction - just as bad as any heroin addict.
So, if we make them all illegal (alcohol and tobacco included) we go back to prohibition which didn’t work. Everything goes underground and carries on as before, with the added risks of dangerous impurities (especially in the likes of distilled alcohol).
If we legalise them all, a degree of control can be had over the quality of the drugs and therefore make them ‘safer’ to take.
There is an argument about ease of supply if the likes of heroin or cocaine were legalised - i.e. would more people be tempted to try them if they were easily available.
Ask yourself this. Would you be any more tempted to shoot up heroin if you could get hold of it easily and legally?
Here’s another thing about supply. It couldn’t get any easier to get hold of as it is! Certainly in many areas of the UK anyway. I know full well that I could pick up just about any recreational drug from several locations near where I live on any given evening. The supply is already there.
I have no problem with drug use for recreational purposes if an individual makes that choice for themselves. I have a far bigger problem with the social and economic pressures and bullshit that turn people towards such drugs as a way to escape their crappy lives.
Some people are vunerable to such pressures and are easy targets for drug addiction. Some people turn to gambling in similar situations - should we make that illegal because a minority can become addicted? Why should the rest of us be denied a little thrill once in a while just because a small percentage of the population are overly susceptible to addiction?
The American sociologist Marshall B Clinard suggested that the term ‘deviance’ should be reserved for behaviour that is so much disapproved of that the community finds it impossible to tolerate.
Individuals that use drugs outside the law (AAS users included) are currently classed as deviants but is that classification socially constructed? Are we guilty of following the croud in our beliefs as opposed to making educated, individual decisions on the matter?[/quote]
Good post.
Amongst those who study drug policy, a predominant view is that with legalization there would be a short term rise in the use of most drugs, as some pent up demand is worked out, but over the long term only the most harmless drugs would see permenant increases in usage.
This view comes in part from observation of the introduction of new hard drugs to individual communities in the past. First the drug is a novelty among the drug experimenting members of the community, then as it reaches its apogee of popularity (when everyone who wants to try it has done so) the consequences if it’s a dangerous drug become most visible. After this point the popularity declines amongst most of the otherwise willing members of the community as many more people “know someone” who blew up on it. The cycle then repeats with something else.
Another observation underlying this view is that the usage rates of cannabis and psychedelics in the Netherlands are lower than in the US. How much of this is due to societal differences vs the legal distinction is debatable, but the differences numbers aren’t trivial. This suggests the novelty and taboo factors may be major drivers of usage.
There are of course a few other factors underlying this view.
This is unrelated, but I think its funny that I can get weed, cocain, lsd, oxycontin, a bunch of other random opiates, MDMA, and DMT, easier than I can get alchohol. Something here is flawed.
[quote]Renton wrote:
judas, you make some good points.
Judas wrote:
drugs are fun but they all damage you no matter what there destroying something in your body, memory, nervous system, brain function, liver etc
i done em all and seriously there not the end of the world, but they do damage slowly and surely if u abuse em and use em lots your gonna run into some problems down the line
You are right here, especially when talking about street drugs. Pharmaceutical grade drugs actually do far less damage though, most of the damage in street drugs coming from impurities - especially with the likes of heroin where cutting agents are rarely fully soluable so vastly increase the chances of vein collapse and damage to major organs.
We should remember that opiates are used throughout the medical world, sometimes in high doses, with no negative or long term effects.
i personally think alcohol is pretty high up there on hard drugs, it causes so many social problems, and deaths each year way more than any other drug, but its legal
Very very true.
Referring to heroin again…
“Unlike alcohol or tobacco, heroin causes no ongoing toxicity to the tissues or organs of the body. Apart from causing some constipation, it appears to have no side effects in most who take it. When administered safely, its use may be consistent with a long and productive life. The principal harm comes from the risk of overdose, problems with injecting, drug impurities and adverse legal or financial consequences.”
Source: Byrne, Andrew, MD, “Addict in the Family: How to Cope with the Long Haul” (Redfern, NSW, Australia: Tosca Press, 1996), pp. 33-34, available on the web at http://www.csdp.org/addict/.
Does any of this mean I want to take it recreationally? Absolutely not, but it seems to me to highlight the need for education, control and less media hype. Just like all the knee jerk media crap that surrounds AAS.
From personal experience, I did not find heroin addictive to anywhere near the level that I had been told it was by the media. Morphine too.
I should clarify that last paragraph - clinical heroin (Diamorphine) and morphine - both of which I have taken on several occasions, on one occasion for a prolonged period (several weeks).
Just because they were used for pain control makes them no less physically addictive than if taken recreationally.
Alcohol and cigarettes though - Well I’ve not kicked the alcohol habit entirely although it was never out of hand for me, but cigarettes were far far harder to get off than several weeks on diamorphine.
Addiction to any drug can be a terrible thing, and I’ve seen people in such a bad way from alcohol addiction - just as bad as any heroin addict.
So, if we make them all illegal (alcohol and tobacco included) we go back to prohibition which didn’t work. Everything goes underground and carries on as before, with the added risks of dangerous impurities (especially in the likes of distilled alcohol).
If we legalise them all, a degree of control can be had over the quality of the drugs and therefore make them ‘safer’ to take.
There is an argument about ease of supply if the likes of heroin or cocaine were legalised - i.e. would more people be tempted to try them if they were easily available.
Ask yourself this. Would you be any more tempted to shoot up heroin if you could get hold of it easily and legally?
Here’s another thing about supply. It couldn’t get any easier to get hold of as it is! Certainly in many areas of the UK anyway. I know full well that I could pick up just about any recreational drug from several locations near where I live on any given evening. The supply is already there.
I have no problem with drug use for recreational purposes if an individual makes that choice for themselves. I have a far bigger problem with the social and economic pressures and bullshit that turn people towards such drugs as a way to escape their crappy lives.
Some people are vunerable to such pressures and are easy targets for drug addiction. Some people turn to gambling in similar situations - should we make that illegal because a minority can become addicted? Why should the rest of us be denied a little thrill once in a while just because a small percentage of the population are overly susceptible to addiction?
The American sociologist Marshall B Clinard suggested that the term ‘deviance’ should be reserved for behaviour that is so much disapproved of that the community finds it impossible to tolerate.
Individuals that use drugs outside the law (AAS users included) are currently classed as deviants but is that classification socially constructed? Are we guilty of following the croud in our beliefs as opposed to making educated, individual decisions on the matter?[/quote]
I agree completly with this post. I’ve never tried heroin, but I have gone on a few oxy binges of a week or so, and was able to quit cold turkey every time. (granted it wouldve been a bit harder had I experienced withdrawls) there was no craving, no anything
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
[quote]Defekt wrote:
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
[/quote]
It takes a long time to get addicted to coke. At first your body doesn’t really know what it is and you don’t get the same hit that a more experienced user. I would say someone who has a coke habit has been very consistent with taking MINIMUM once or twice a week for many months - NOT weak minded.
[quote]Intersweat wrote:
Defekt wrote:
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
It takes a long time to get addicted to coke. At first your body doesn’t really know what it is and you don’t get the same hit that a more experienced user. I would say someone who has a coke habit has been very consistent with taking MINIMUM once or twice a week for many months - NOT weak minded.
[/quote]
which is exactly what I’ve said all along. The shit is formed through consistancy of habit. You don’t do coke once and become an addict. You choose to continue to do it, until you get to the point where beign sober sucks ass.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Intersweat wrote:
Defekt wrote:
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
It takes a long time to get addicted to coke. At first your body doesn’t really know what it is and you don’t get the same hit that a more experienced user. I would say someone who has a coke habit has been very consistent with taking MINIMUM once or twice a week for many months - NOT weak minded.
which is exactly what I’ve said all along. The shit is formed through consistancy of habit. You don’t do coke once and become an addict. You choose to continue to do it, until you get to the point where coming off it sucks ass.[/quote]
Imagine how much discipline it takes to use that much coke consistently. I can’t even bring myself to do HIIT more than twice a week…
[quote]Intersweat wrote:
Defekt wrote:
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
It takes a long time to get addicted to coke. At first your body doesn’t really know what it is and you don’t get the same hit that a more experienced user. I would say someone who has a coke habit has been very consistent with taking MINIMUM once or twice a week for many months - NOT weak minded.
[/quote]
coke has no withdrawls, and the only effects from abstaining are mental, I have known people who do coke almost every day for 6 months straight, and have been able to stop instantly with relative ease, trying to do something like that with benzos or opiates would be a lot more difficult
[quote]Defekt wrote:I agree completly with this post. I’ve never tried heroin, but I have gone on a few oxy binges of a week or so, and was able to quit cold turkey every time. (granted it wouldve been a bit harder had I experienced withdrawls) there was no craving, no anything
[/quote]
I strongly suspect that you did experience withdrawal but as an individual not susceptible to addiction your mind overuled any physical ‘need’ for more oxy - effectively you ignored it.
Those predisposed to addiction may not have this level of self control (at least where drugs are concerned) and allow the physical need for the drug to become the major factor in their coming down.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
SeanT… you seem like a pretty alright guy. The fact of the matter is, how do you justify the negatives of drugs with the positive. This whole thread really boils down to that question.
You can question my qualifications, have I done drugs, yes. Do I regret that…the answer is still…yes. Drugs never opened my eyes. You want to call into question which drugs? K. Well acid, shrooms, extacy, coke, …all of the above. And whatever you might throw in my direction. If you want me to say that the law should legalize them all, hey, do it. Legalize drugs. All of them. I’m downright curious to know what would happen. Do you think we’d reach a sudden Utopia? What do you think would be the outcome of such a decision. What society do you think we would live in if all drugs were legal. It seems to be your dream. My dreams are different, but that doesn’t make me any less curious.
Let’s hear about the world according to SeanT. [/quote]
Well I’m very tired right now so I will be writing my response later.
I would just like to point out that although I favor legalization, it would be severely restricted. To tell you the truth, I don’t trust the average Joe out there with many drugs. People do not know their limits and often exceed them. If they can’t handle alcohol, how could I expect them to handle ecstasy. They will go out and drink them selfs till they pass out in a bathtub and throw everything up and talk about it like it cool. Nobody researches the information about how to stay safe. I’m going to go take a nap. I’ll post a full response later.
[quote]Defekt wrote:
Intersweat wrote:
Defekt wrote:
I feel those that get addicted to coke are simply weak minded. I would be hard pressed to even call cocaine a “hard drug”, from my experience with it. (yes it was quality cocaine)
It takes a long time to get addicted to coke. At first your body doesn’t really know what it is and you don’t get the same hit that a more experienced user. I would say someone who has a coke habit has been very consistent with taking MINIMUM once or twice a week for many months - NOT weak minded.
coke has no withdrawls, and the only effects from abstaining are mental, I have known people who do coke almost every day for 6 months straight, and have been able to stop instantly with relative ease, trying to do something like that with benzos or opiates would be a lot more difficult
[/quote]
While never experience coke withdrawals, I have seen people on coke comedown off binges. If you have nothing better to do than coke, then you may get comedowns. If you keep busy, it is much easier to stay away. If someone stopped cold turkey with benzos, it can be fatal.