Recreational Drug Use Legalization

[lookout123]

What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

What exactly is the logical dividing line between hard and soft drugs?

I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates. My list is just based off my research and personal experience so I'm not saying that my list should be concrete.

I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it. There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?


For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.


For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.


Aliantha, I personally have not taken either shrooms or lsd but I know many people that have done them responsibly and they were well in control of themselves. I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.


Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.



For state intervention, what I would like to see is that there is drug education to high school freshman that goes in depth and talks about the realities of drug use and then I will stick with my ideas on regulation and availability. I also think that rehab and hospital treatment should be around the same as it is now.

[monster]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I
Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option. But I personally don't like the idea of the state actually training that many antisocial personalities, though it isn't like jail is much better.

Who said anything about training them? They can take the places of our expensively trained real soldiers, drawing the fire.... so then the real soldiers can go in, do what they have to and come home again. on two legs, not in a bag.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I divided them based on addiction (besides alcohol) and death rates.

Death rates alone do not tell the story.

I would consider acid a soft drug because it is non-addicting and you can not overdose on it.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

There are obviously pretty big health risks that come with it but with proper education it can be a lot safer so people know how to avoid and take care of bad trips and avoid taking a hit a week or anything insane like that.

Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?

There are whole textbooks written on the subject. The effects of LSD drug abuse are highly documented.

For MDMA (ecstasy), I believe most of the negative effects come from impurities, which would be avoided if legalized, and besides that, the three leading causes of death with ecstasy are Hyponatremia (drinking too much water), Hyperthermia (body overheating), and overdose, all which are preventable (keep in mind this is coming from someone that has never taken it). And for addiction, I haven't seen any hard proof that it is addicting because of the real lack of pure ecstasy. This is obviously a drug that would need to be taken with extreme caution and it really is hard to tell without any definite studies.

The studies are very well documented as are the deaths and effects of long term use of MDMA. This is not a new thing here guys. You talk like this is some new fangled thing that people are just playing with on the side. And granted there may be people like that. IMHO the the health risks well out weigh any minor benifit of getting you jollies for a night of bliss.

For shrooms, it is very similar to lsd.

Correct, same negative effects.

I would still say alochol makes people do much stupider things than either shrooms or lsd.

Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.

Monster, people convicted of drug charges have a choice to go the frontline to avoid jailtime so I guess they are already exploring the option.

Completely and utterly incorrect. That option went out in the 70's.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That would be an incorrect assumption.

??

"LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine."
http://www.drug-addiction.com/what_is_lsd.htm

"I must emphasize that there is no danger of death or injury from overdose of LSD, which must have about the highest therapeutic index of any drug known (the ratio of fatal dose to effective dose is unknown since no human being has ever died from an overdose of LSD, but must be very high, as individuals have mistakenly ingested hundreds of doses at a sitting; this is a way of saying that the drug is not at all toxic)."
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml

Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.

When did I ever make an absolute statement? There are rational and irrational drug users, what makes this issue any different than alcohol?

Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.

From the many friends that I've known that has taken acid and shrooms, no one has done anything really stupid, though none of them took large doses and most of them are in fairly good control when under the influence of other drugs as well.

[Cloud]

Does anyone know of any studies of LSD that goes more in depth than Merc's article, specifically the frying of the brain as Cloud mentioned?

I'm sure there are plenty, since LSD is probably the most heavily documented drug of all.

But I'm not basing that statement on studies--I'm basing it on personal knowledge from contact with people who have overdone this particular drug.