It isn’t (in my opinion) given that almost all addictions will act upon reward pathway dysregulation. An addiction to food, shopping, gambling etc can wreck havoc on one’s life. For whatever reason when drugs (illicit) come into play, the stigma is great… but ehh if it’s just alcohol, food, gambling, sex or whatever it’s not as serious right? Despite the fact that many with eating disorders eat/starve themselves to death… at times rather quickly too
1 Like
Yep we have to think about what we’re getting here. Putting people in prison isn’t cheap. And then if we’re setting up a system where people go to prison then can’t succeed once out we’re destined to fail.
From a monetary standpoint do harsh criminal offenses for drug use make things better or worse?
1 Like
It’s all about the severity of the condition… and once again back to one of my initial points… putting those in prison/criminalising those for the use of substances that aren’t known to harbour addictive potential or even much in the way of acute harm when set/setting is taken into account (psychedelics in particular)… it’s ludicrous.
An eating disorder is FAR more detrimental than taking a tab of LSD… yet we as a society treat the usage of LSD/whatever to be the end of the world. The majority of users aren’t addicts… for those who try/use this shit, a very small portion make up the “addict” portion barring perhaps heroin, meth, other drugs that are legitimately dangerous.
No amount of drug use is “safe”… but some are far safer than others
Can’t compare caffeine and PCP etc
Edit… I don’t account for the incredibly occasional psychotic break… however this can even happen from an overdose of caffeine…
@unreal24278
OK, fine. Before I really go, I’ll say this. . The family member I mentioned served three years in state-mandated rehab, and while on trial was in Riker’s Island for six weeks. (Anyone can look up this hellhole.) The criminal rehab for young offenders was a sentence considering he couldn’t leave. The judge gave him that sentence and had his record was sealed. No employer knows! He now lives in a hot-spot town and makes six figures. It was for distribution, he served his time, but was spared having his whole life wrecked. So that’s where I agree with you.
1 Like
Here in many areas of Canada, the fur trade was engaged in with the First Nations. (the Hudson’s Bay company got its start in the business and helped get the British into the land. Nowadays they are losing money selling formal wear and golf shirts with animals to preppies).
the business model when negotiating exchange for the fur pelts that the First Nations had was to chat them up by the campfire and introduce them to ‘fire water’. this was whiskey that these days you could run your car on. When the natives first drank it they might spit it into the fire, and there would be a flare up. The British would be drinking from a weaker supply. With all the good intentions the alcohol would inspire the natives would be glad to give a great number of beaver pelts for a small amount of compensation.
They would wake up the next morning hung over, with the British gone, and realize they had been had.
Incredibly immoral behaviour… worst of all these people priorly had no tolerance/idea what alcohol was. Must’ve come as quite the shock
I do believe they used cannabis however, something of which the invading soldiers weren’t accustomed to… can’t really compare though
We can continue the convo here
Alrighty… unreal questions
- some when starting testosterone replacement therapy and/or using supraphysiologic dosages of the compound report “flu” like symptoms, feeling under the weather etc… is this etiocholanolone mediated? (Metabolite produced via 5b reductase during the hepatic metabolisation of test)
Induces leukocytosis, fever, immunostimulation etc. I’ve seen labs of guys on 500mg weekly, WBC is elevated, people freak out “brah, you’ve got an infection or something”… I’m not sure if that’s the case
Is the fever/flu like symptoms some get related to this?
- within relation to androgens having varying potency regarding 11-HSD inhibition and a net cortisol blunting effect. For those with a strong tendency to inhibit 11-HSD (inhibiting active cortisone to receptor inactive cortisol) would the net increase in cortisol be greater than the blunting effect? If so, would such a substance (take fluoxymesterone for instance) be profoundly immunosuppressive
Furthermore, in vitro/within rodent models… androgens impact lymphocyte differentiation, antibody production (rate and output) in response to illness etc… in you’re opinion are AAS (higher dosages, say 500mg +) extensively immunosuppressive, you’ve got the broscience that states certain compounds such as primo to be immunostimulatory… then you’ve got rodent studies showing testosterone, stanozolol etc to elicit a net immunosuppressive effect… but oxandrolone induces immunostimulation? WhAt?
I understand in vitro studies don’t always correlate as what happens on a macro vs microbiological scale differs based on antioxidants, drug metabolism/elimination and more. Rodents have different metabolic and elimination pathways (3b HSD not existing within skeletal muscle comes to mind, DHT is a potent anabolic for rats… for us it’s great for acne and hair loss if predisposed)… though metabolites of DHT and DHT itself are neurologically very important for adequate libido
To anyone else… yes this is off topic. But I didn’t want to derail a different thread… so I chose to ask my questions on here… this should only last a few posts as I don’t have any other questions
Yes, it’s called having a conduct disorder… and it’s not normal, falls under the category of psychiatric disturbances.
Many, many adults and kids alike put a massive premium on getting incredibly drunk. Comparative to many of the substances deemed highly illegal this is arguably worse, yet not looked down upon with judgement or suspicion.
Some people prefer cannabis, it’s not as toxic, typically doesn’t lead to deleterious outcomes. There is a body of kids/young adults who prefer to occasionally take MDMA rather than drink on the sole basis of avoiding the behavioural changes that can be induced via drunkenness… whilst MDMA alters demeanour, it’s typically a positive alteration
Drunk people (when you’re not one of them) are typically loud, obnoxious and rude…
I do… if I can slug back half a bottle of vodka during a concert absent of repercussion but I’m pulled over, have a gloved hand jammed up my ass because I’m smoking a marijuana cigarette… it’s oppression, stigmatisation, excess judgement based on the use of a substance far less dangerous to begin with. It’s stigmitising and attempting to stifle a (pretty large) demographic based on what they decide to do/use.
Granted where I’m at they won’t strip search you (well… actually they might, but it doesn’t usually happen). It’ll be a stop and frisk, fine and a date to go to court (where if it’s youre first time and a small amount you’ll probably get a caution/diversion). If it’s say a singular tablet of MDMA or some ketamine/whatever a criminal record will likely be imposed… Jail time would be a possibility
These punishments aren’t proportionate in any way whatsoever pertaining to how much harm these substances induce to the user, people around the user etc. Out of all examples given, alcohol is still the worst (ketamine being a close second).
One can make the argument “you can have just one drink”… the prospect of microdosing exists for everything, not just booze.
Furthermore, if the halting of said fun was “put that out, don’t let me see it again” or “throw that out now” it’d be slightly different. I still wouldn’t agree with it though. If it’s “well you’re going into this tent now for a cavity search”, “you’re going to prison/getting a permenant record for this” then it’s a huge problem (and this IS what’s happening)
OK, I’ll include them too.
Edited: I’m suspicious of people who put a premium on regularly altering and wrecking their minds and bodies. Yes, I’m judgmental, as is everyone here.
And I say this with having enough experience with them, including a close friend and family members.
No, I’m not talking about getting tipsy here and there over a dinner, at a show, or on a holiday.
I have a few drinks per week, usually a glass of wine with dinner.
Not everyone here is… I’d disagree with that… but yes, I’d be suspicious too if one was getting wrecked every time they go out (though this happens like all the time in college/high school).
I believe moderation is key… though I personally don’t see a problem with outright intoxication on occasion if the individual is aware of the risks.
I actually think we are relatively similar regarding our ideology, though I have a somewhat more progressive stance
- Neither of us believe harsh penalties and/or criminal sentencing is the right answer. The difference is you still believe in some sort of punishment whereas I believe in legalisation (for softer substances) and decriminalisation.
- I make my argument on the basis of repercussions based on penalties and the fact that penalties don’t correlate with amount of harm a substance actually induces. You base you’re argument upon the prospect of freedom, civil rights… you don’t believe one should be able to “choose” based on potential impact upon others… but you also acknowledge that throwing people in jail is ineffective/potentially harmful
Then there’s the differences regarding our opinions on use
- you (my brother would be inclined to agree with you) believe no matter what, it’s all stupid… there’s no good reason to do so. You seem to think that any level of usage barring alcohol equates to someone having a drug problem
- I wholeheartedly agree that drug/alcohol usage in any way, shape or form is unhealthy, but I also think we do unhealthy things all time time… not that it’s an excuse, but the level of harm and associated stigmatisation and/or penalty needs to be looked at realistically. People still drink/smoke/eat badly and drive dangerously, so why would one expect them to draw a sudden line with drugs.
I agree with you having lost a good friendship on the basis of (his) drug use, having been around quite a lot of drugs… though in the majority of cases I’ve found softer substances, even MDMA (when it’s actually MDMA) to be (acutely) rather benign. I’ve read the literature and I’m well versed regarding the pharmacokinetics of the substance… But most forget that the deleterious effects (increase in body temperature, heart rate and blood pressure) are highly dose dependent, dosed reasonably… pure MDMA is rather safe compared to other, harder substances like cocaine, booze, meth etc. There are potential complications with all substances, but when looking at hospitalisation statistics regarding booze vs many other substances, the hospitalisation rates for booze are quite a lot higher irrespective of the rate of use.
Should clarify I’ve never used MDMA… I don’t trust random, untested pills
I have no problem with this, each to their own. I view you’re few drinks per week the same way as I perceive my usage of cannabis (say once or twice per month)
1 Like
Uh… have you ever perused the PWI and off-topic forums? 
What is the PWI? I’m referring to this forum in general. The guys in the pharma section certainly don’t judge regarding drug use given consideration that AAS usage is a form of recreational drug use. Albeit not akin to that of psychoactive drugs
If you’re getting at “they’d all judge if you pounded back a bottle of vodka every time you went out”… understandable
Just thought I’d link this video for discussion
As everyone else is, Im ignorant on a variety of topics. So I’ve never heard of a justifiable case of a policeman sticking a finger in someone’s anus for smoking weed.
Regarding judgment, most reasonable people aren’t going to express the same disdain they might have for pot with, say, crack, heroine, and PCP.
Even if it’s unfair, and perhaps this is indeed judgmental, I think you, living in the West, in which you might have some opportunities to live a high-quality life and self-actualization, plenty of food, safety, plenty of time to goof off and navel gaze, technology, ceaseless recreation and entertainment, and on and on, to reconsider what oppression is despite your government and some people interfering with your use of a recreational drug.
(Pardon my sarcasm but I indulge here and there.) One less thrill and diversion totally unnecessary for a high quality of life. Oh no…
And you will be judged til the day you die, fairly or unfairly, just like I’ll be.
1 Like
Why would they? Pot…Kettle… and all that jazz.
Right. And it some don’t judge on certain matters does this make it so that others shouldn’t?
So test and all of its esters, derivatives, etc. (anabolic in general) are neurotransmitters with both documented and anecdotal support that they clearly change the way your brain works, and subjectively “make people feel better”…
But
They aren’t psychoactive?
Ooo boy.
Of course, it should be noted that I’m just zinging you a little.
I know it’s not a typical party/abuse drug that people get acutely high on.
It’s more of a lifestyle family of drugs that people use to feel better.
Indeed. I still think it’s a bit hypocritical of one to be dead set against weed, pills, coke, etc yet have no problem with steroid use for anabolic purposes. We’re still talking about stuff that if improperly used (and sometimes even with knowledge and properly used) can have significant health consequences. To me at least to be a bit consistent it’s hard to think cocaine is the devil but steroids are no big deal. And I don’t say that as someone who supports cocaine use or is judgmental of the people on here who inject.
I don’t think we need prohibition of alcohol again just because it has the potential to destroy lives. The vast majority of any substance can if misused.
But completely anyone who has done any research should realize the effects the stuff is going to have on the ol brain.
Agreed, for whatever reason when I argue about this (with Australian conservatives) people acquire the notion “if I’m talking about decriminalising drug use, legalising/regulating pot etc” then I must condone, support and encourage drug use. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. What I’m explicitly stating is, I’m sick of this being treated as a criminal issue rather than a health based ailment within society. If we are willing to tolerate alcohol and tobacco; an addictive, psychoactive drug that roughly kills two thirds of it’s regular users… then we should be willing to regulate, tolerate and tax substances considerably less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, let funding be directed towards campaigns similar to that of those currently poised against tobacco. With this style of legalisation/regulation present, substances of abuse won’t be “normalised” when legalised/decriminalised.
I’m not advocating for the legalisation of crack, heroin, cocaine or Phencyclidine. I was actually thinking about this the other night, perhaps an optimal route would be to decriminalise the possession of hard drugs, instate a net fine for those caught (absent of inducing a criminal record)… After a certain point (say, four strike rule)… if you’re caught with hard drugs four separate times one can assume within reasonable doubt that said individual is a habitual user) impose mandatory rehabilitation. The biggest problem I’ve got with such an idea stems from the fact that mandatory rehab typically has a poor outcome. The decision to stop using drugs needs to be one made individualistically, not a decision forced upon someone… it’s complicated, but prison (statistically) doesn’t work and within many cases makes the initial issue worse. Not only that, but it’s a tremendous waste of public resources/tax-payers money. Why spend exorbitant amounts of money to feed, detain (in the US avg 31,000$ per inmate per year) those who have been caught with a gram of coke?
I’ve gotten this arguement before… No offence but I think it’s a moot point, somewhat of a stupid argument to make. Say the United States were to make same sex marriage illegal again, reinstate prohibition would you say “but in Chechnya they kill homosexuals, so who cares”? Or “But third world muslim countries ban booze and they struggle with fragrant human rights violations, women can’t drive in half of these countries… so who cares what the US imposes?”
No, because the argument is irrelevant, numerous fragrant violations in third world/authoritative countries don’t equate to unfair policies enacted within developed countries being fair or inherently acceptable. We don’t live in these countries, and whilst what goes on over in North Korea, Syria (especially the civilian gassings…), The Phillipines etc is a moot point. More action/effort and funding should be put in focusing on dismantling these regimes, yet this doesn’t equate too "they’re worse than us so we shouldn’t do anything about our current policies if they’re unfair, cater to hypocrisy ".
Look into the NSW strip searches, esp the ones within music festivals. These dogs indiscriminately look for
- Weed
- meth
- GHB
- Ketamine
- Cocaine
and more, upon detection (these dogs statistically aren’t particularly effective), you’ll be pulled into a tent, forced to strip, ‘squat and cough’, whilst an officer looks under you, move you’re genitals around and more.
A high quality of life to ME pertains to freedom of choice, freedom of expression, being able to convey my vested ideologies without being stifled or censored. To say “you can live a high quality of so long as you follow 20,000 rules, 5,000 of them which don’t make sense” is ludicrous. I’m sure a citizen of Singapore can live a high quality of life so long as they don’t.
- speak out openly against government administration (sedition act 2009)
- they aren’t gay
- use drugs
the right to a fair trial (esp for possession of ANY amount of narcotic, say a gram of cannabis… doesn’t typically exist. Imprisonment without trial under the code designated via criminal law is common
But if you follow these “rules” one of which severely represses free speech, then you can live an adequate quality of life… You’re ideology may dictate adequate quality of life to be “a house, income and food”… I base quality of life around freedom of rational choice.
As to judgement, prior you mentioned you drink a few times per week, shouldn’t you receive judgement for this? What’s the difference between having a drink and having a quick toke off a joint… the same philosophy could be applied to a micro-dose of psilocybin. You priorly said “I can’t understand why I smoked weed in high school, I had no reason to…”
Then why do you drink? I dislike the argument of “but these drugs are incapacitating, one drink isn’t”… micro-dosing exists for more than just alcohol.
Sure, both are forms of recreational drug use. But the comparison between those who use anabolic steroids and those who shoot Herion/smoke meth is defunct, it’s a stupid… stupid comparison to make. How many guys on test/deca/anavar or whatever do you know who take a shot, deteriorate rapidly, can’t keep down a job. Recreational drug use is recreational drug use… you’re right about that, but in terms of acute/intermittent consequence you can’t compare the two.
There are many societies that don’t tend to judge as harshly, the Netherlands for one… and statistically they’re pretty well off… FAR less people in prison comparative to Aus or America.
lol noted 
AAS ARE psychoactive, but so is acetaminophen, so is coffee, so are SSRI’s. Psychoactive merely pertains to
a substance that changes neurology (brain function), alters mood, perception, behaviour, state of consciousness, cognition or behaviour… that covers a fairly wide variety of substances doesn’t it… any medication that modifies behaviour, cognition, neurotransmission etc is “psychoactive”… Not all psychoactive drugs are compounds that can be used recreationally.
Yes however when abused the consequence of alcohol tends too far surpass that of many recreational drugs (physically and psychologically). If you don’t believe me I can link MANY studies and say “find me case reports regarding cannabis inducing fatty liver disease, dilated cardiomyopathy, Wernicke Korsakoff syndrome etc”. Then when you’ve found the case reports compare them to (how many case reports regarding this vs alcohol do we have). Find me statistics implicating cannabis or even a harder drug such as MDMA being implicated within CLOSE to the sheer amount of homicides booze tends to be a precipitating factor towards.
That being said… cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin are comparatively worse than booze. That being said in this particular study (Australian) the most harmful substances the the USER were
1: fentanyl
2: Heroin
3: Crystal Methamphetamine
Whereas the most harmful substances to OTHERS (direct consequence to others in response to a users excess intake/abuse)
1: Alcohol
2: Meth
3: Tobacco
When both harm to users + others were combined (scores), the most harmful drug within Australian society was deemed to be
1: Alcohol
Yet I’ll get a prison sentence for shrooms. I’m not saying psychedelic drugs are healthy to take, they’re probably not (5ht2b agonist induced cardiac toxicity). Some are prone to seriously adverse reactions, particularly those predisposed to psychiatric ailment… but compared to the consequence from heavy drinking, the amount of those who have regrettable nights out stemming from drinking and drinking only it’s a far cry away from booze. These substances aren’t implicated within inducing extensive neurotoxicity, whereas even occasional binge drinking has.
I’m not basing the policy over “it’s not as bad so it’s okay”, I’m basing it off “all of this shit is unhealthy, people shouldn’t be doing it but we DO, esp alcohol as it’s seen as acceptable. People are going to prison, lives are being ruined via criminal records… our current prohibitive approach isn’t reducing usage rates… despite harsh sentencing, rates of meth use are increasing.” Australia has the highest rate of amphetamine dependence in the WORLD, rates of use are increasing rapidly. According to recent statistics in Australia 6.3 percent of the populace 14 and over has used crystal meth compared to 0.6% in the USA (you’ve got the opiate epidemic)… that’s almost 1 in 10… We can’t just lock up 6.4 percent of The Australian populace.
https://www.cuinjuryresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Li-et-al-AAP-2013.pdf
Weed doubles the risk of fatal crashes, alcohol induced increase is 14x… but I’ll lose my license for 6 months, cop a 1000$ fine + and probably have such a violation on my record if I’m caught having gotten behind the wheel after having smoked a joint 24 hours ago.
I’ve already posted this one, but a different study ranking the harms of numerous illicit substances. Booze isn’t the worst contender within this one, but it’s high up there.
I’m not a “drug user”, I very rarely use anything besides cannabis. With cannabis I’ve used it once within the past month. However this issue bothers me given the blatant retardation behind current policies enacted. Reform should be quicker than this given how much revenue could be generated from users, tourism etc… especially pertaining to cannabis.
As to all those all worried about PCP… it’s dangerous for sure, ketamine is an analogue of PCP though, most aren’t aware of this. PCP is NOT safe, has a high predispensity for inducing mania/psychsois. Most cases of “that guy bit some there dudes face off” don’t stem from PCP alone. Amongst youth, ketamine is a very commonly abused substance, I’ve anecdotally seen no serious acute consequence from ketamine imposed on others from the user (esp violence, people aren’t violent on this stuff). The worst consequence I’ve seen is acute injury, those under the influence hardly feel pain, I’ve seen someone break bones under the influence of ketamine, only realise 5-10 minutes afterwards (though I’ve seen this exact scenario happen heavily under the influence of alcohol)
Granted analogue doesn’t refer to the exact same effect, just means “very similar chemical structure but somewhat different within retrospect to a certain component”. PCP was priorly used as an anaesthetic, but had a predisposition for inducing residual hallucinations/acute behavioural alterations within a very small subset of the demographic it was used upon.
Had cannabis been legalised and regulated, I would’ve never tried PCP… accidentally smoked cannabis once that had been dipped in/laced with PCP, I didn’t get into a fight, I didn’t damage any property nor did I hurt myself… but it was a very bizarre, somewhat unpleasant experience.
Drug use isn’t healthy by any means, but saying “no, you can’t do that or you’ll go to prison” hasn’t worked… what now? Execute 40-50% of the populace for having tried anything besides booze… It doesn’t help, look at the Phillipines, they’ve STILL got a drug problem.