The drugs thread

whadabouchasir

Davidius wrote: »

Whatever about it being a reason for legalisation, it just doesn't sit right with me when people try to make it out to be the government's fault criminals are in business while they themselves go out and buy illegal drugs. It's not like they need those drugs so it just seems fairly selfish of them.

I'd agree with you there.I saw the news this evening and they found €9.5 million worth of cocaine as well as 2 illegal guns.Clearly drug dealers are not nice people and the people who buy drugs off them are just facilitating this sort of criminality.

A Neurotic

Question time:

One post in and I was lost. What's the difference between weed and hash?

EDIT: In future, I'll try reading the thread :rolleyes:

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

A Neurotic wrote: »

Question time:

One post in and I was lost. What's the difference between weed and hash?

strobe wrote: »

Hash is cannabis resin. The buds on the plant produce a sticky resin that prevents them from drying out. Hash is this resin collected and allowed to solidify. That is what hash is supposed to be but some of the hash that you would buy in the street is also mixed with other crap to bulk it out.

Weed is herbal canabis. It is the buds that grow on the plant, the ones that produce the resin collected and allowed to dry out so they can be smoked.

Weed and hash are both cannabis, hash is the resin of the plant a solid brown substance, is generally (from what I've heard) cheaper and more likely to be cut with nasty things. Weed is the buds, leaves etc, greenish in colour, more expensive, more potent and less often (though sometimes) with nasty things in it.

SarcasticFairy

Strobe splained it just up there

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66639968&postcount=46

EDIT: Nevermind! electro~bitch wins!

bythewoods

It might be alright to legalise drugs if most people weren't idiots.

Pygmalion

bythewoods wrote: »

It might be alright to legalise drugs if most people weren't idiots.

Carpay Deum.

Brilliant.

Insect Overlord

I want to post a face-palm picture in response to that, but this is not the appropriate place for it. It's funny though, I've known some highly intelligent people who've used drugs as teenagers. That Lamebook caption only encompasses the typical idiot stoner image, which in reality makes up only a part of the total number of recreational drug users.

I was half-tempted to try salvia when a few friends got some 18 months ago, but never got around to it. Listening to their stories afterwards, I found myself thinking it wouldn't have been worth it. The lads weren't impressed at all.
My lungs have been in a crap state since I was a baby, so any drugs that have to be smoked are out of the question for me anyway!

I'm going through a dry spell in terms of my writing at the moment. Writers' Block sometimes makes me think about looking at the world differently, from an altered viewpoint. However, I've never felt this strongly enough for me to consider drug use.

I see the habit in general as a negative on many different levels (without meaning to pass judgement on anyone here), in no particular order:

funds illegal activity on local, national and world-wide scales
costs money that can otherwise be spent more productivley
can negatively affect athletic performance
may result in permanent negative physical side-effects (depending on the substance)
may result in permanent negative psychological side-effects (I feel mad enough already, thanks)

Basically, it's not for me.

thefly

Ginja Ninja wrote: »

I've smoked a bit of Hash and I've tried weed.
That's all the drugs I have ever and will ever go near.In my opinion marijuana is a much safer drug than most other illegal drugs [class b/a drugs] it's not far removed from tobacco and is completely safe[in the short term at least,no real chance of instant death from use] and isn't "cut" near as much or with chemicals as dangerous as other drugs

As for the sh*t in headshops,it's not legal,there's just no law against it,those are two very different things.I'd much prefer to use the illegal,tried and tested and proven drug than an un proven and as more research is showing much more deadly form of the illegal chemicals.

My general philosophy,if it grows it goes.So: Nicotine[tobacco],THC[weed] and Ethanol[Booze] are all the drugs I would ever have any interest in and in that order most of the time

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


Holy sh1t I have read some crazy stuff on this thread. Alcohol and smokes are a lot worse than ectasy and weed. Weed is still a dangerous drug make no mistake about it.


Read the links and tell me what you think http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/23/constitution.drugsandalcohol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt

TheCardHolder

Having dabbled in a few things I can safely say its not worth it. Come down is horrible for the majority of them, as in prolonged pain. Hangovers don't compare in the slightest. Cost wise it isn't worth it either.

bythewoods

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I want to post a face-palm picture in response to that, but this is not the appropriate place for it. It's funny though, I've known some highly intelligent people who've used drugs as teenagers. That Lamebook caption only encompasses the typical idiot stoner image, which in reality makes up only a part of the total number of recreational drug users.
.

No no. Among other reasons, I think drugs shouldn't be legalised because, undoubtedly, a lot of people are idiots.
I mean, in general, people using boards aren't complete plankheads, and I couldn't agree more that a bit'a sneaky weed isn't going to do too much harm every so often, but laws are in place to look at the population as a whole. And a lot of people are idiots.
Why expose more people to drugs than need be?

whadabouchasir

bythewoods wrote: »

Why expose more people to drugs than need be?

The counter argument is that drugs are so widely available that anyone can get a hold of them if they want,and the Gardai will never be able to stop the supply of drugs.

thefly

bythewoods wrote: »

No no. Among other reasons, I think drugs shouldn't be legalised because, undoubtedly, a lot of people are idiots.
I mean, in general, people using boards aren't complete plankheads, and I couldn't agree more that a bit'a sneaky weed isn't going to do too much harm every so often, but laws are in place to look at the population as a whole. And a lot of people are idiots.
Why expose more people to drugs than need be?

Weed is harmful Ecstasy is safer than weed and thats a medical fact. What are you basing you opinion on???? The fact no one dies????


Drugs are everywhere. If you think otherwise then your head is in the sand. I could get anything I wanted in 5 minutes

thefly

Richard Cranium wrote: »

God I'm crap at trying to explain myself! What I was trying to say was that I'm inclined to trust the doctors and all the other experts in the field, who know just what these drugs do to the human body. If they are of the opinion that a certain drug is too dangerous to be legal, then I'll trust their educated conclusion on that matter. I'm sure most doctors will say that, physically and mentally, it will be okay to give your 16 year old son a glass of wine with his dinner the odd time. They'll also say that giving your 16 year old son unrestricted access to alcohol will put him, and his still-developing liver in particular, at risk of serious health problems in the short and long term.
Most doctors I've heard talk about illegal drugs say that they are dangerous and really shouldn't be messed with. Smoking a joint or two won't be the end of the world, but really you should probably just leave them alone. Personally, I'm not going to second guess the experts.

Now read what professor Nutt has to say about drugs!!!!!!!

firstly here is some background information on Prof Nutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt

And here is a piece on his now infamous research

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6899534.ece

Why do people assume that weed is safe?

Ecstasy is safer!!!!!!

thefly

bythewoods wrote: »

No no. Among other reasons, I think drugs shouldn't be legalised because, undoubtedly, a lot of people are idiots.
I mean, in general, people using boards aren't complete plankheads, and I couldn't agree more that a bit'a sneaky weed isn't going to do too much harm every so often, but laws are in place to look at the population as a whole. And a lot of people are idiots.
Why expose more people to drugs than need be?

So president Obama is a plankhead ?

mardybumbum

thefly wrote: »

Ecstasy is safer!!!!!!

Dr Nutt. What an apt name.


As for myself, I smoke grass pretty much every other day with a few friends now that I've finished college. I much prefer it to alcohol, which doesn't agree with me at all. I must say though that the quality of weed is pretty poor here. Looks like it's back to amsterdam at christmas where it's a lot better and cheaper too.

thefly

mardybumbum wrote: »

Dr Nutt. What an apt name.


As for myself, I smoke grass pretty much every other day with a few friends now that I've finished college. I much prefer it to alcohol, which doesn't agree with me at all. I must say though that the quality of weed is pretty poor here. Looks like it's back to amsterdam at christmas where it's a lot better and cheaper too.

Did you even bother to research the links I posted
this so called "nut" has a lot of credentials as ia way more qualified to talk about this than me, you or anyone else on this forum

David J. Nutt is a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in the research of drugs which affect the brain and conditions such as addiction, anxiety and sleep.[1] He is a professor at the University of Bristol heading their Psychopharmacology Unit.[2] He also holds the Edmond J Safra chair in Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London.[3] Nutt is a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and is on the Council and is President of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.


By the way there is lovely weed in Ireland you just need to know the right people. Grow it yourself would be my advice. And the best weed in Amsterdam is considerably more expensive than Ireland





Contents

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#"]hide[/URL

bythewoods

whadabouchasir wrote: »

The counter argument is that drugs are so widely available that anyone can get a hold of them if they want,and the Gardai will never be able to stop the supply of drugs.

thefly wrote: »

Weed is harmful Ecstasy is safer than weed and thats a medical fact. What are you basing you opinion on???? The fact no one dies????


Drugs are everywhere. If you think otherwise then your head is in the sand. I could get anything I wanted in 5 minutes

I'm sure I could ring a friend and have a big bag'a drugs in the same time. I'm not saying drugs aren't everywhere, I'm not that sheltered.

I'm saying, if drugs are made legal then we, as a nation, are giving them the thumbs up as such.
I was discussing a similar topic with some friends last night. What are laws put in place for if not to reflect the morals of the country as a whole?
If we make them legal, we're saying it's okay to do them. It'll be just like alcohol- there's nothing stopping us drinking once we reach 18, so we don't.

Personally at least, I've always been more wary of drugs than I have of alcohol (despite the fact that I know the negatives of alcohol blah blahh) because there's a general consensus within society that drugs are "bad", that by buying and taking them you're breaking the law.

When the headshops were at their prime, there were queues outside them every night. Nirvana, beside Spy on whatever-that-street-was-called in Dublin, used to have longer queues outside it than the nightclub did!
Methadrone and all the rest wasn't illegal, it was more accessible, people who'd never have taken cocaine or anything of that sorts were all for them.

I'm not saying that all people who take drugs are idiots. Not even a little bit. Obviously, being easily identifiable on this rather public forum, I'm not going to turn around and talk about enjoying big bags of drugs. I have very intelligent friends who enjoy the occasional joint or whatever, and I don't see any problem with that at all.
I'm saying a lot of the people who do do drugs are in the bracket of people who can be called idiots.

Let's make drugs legal, more accessible, with a big thumbs up all around so people are going to be much less likely to be deterred from taking them?

thefly

bythewoods wrote: »

I'm sure I could ring a friend and have a big bag'a drugs in the same time. I'm not saying drugs aren't everywhere, I'm not that sheltered.

I'm saying, if drugs are made legal then we, as a nation, are giving them the thumbs up as such.
I was discussing a similar topic with some friends last night. What are laws put in place for if not to reflect the morals of the country as a whole?
If we make them legal, we're saying it's okay to do them. It'll be just like alcohol- there's nothing stopping us drinking once we reach 18, so we don't.

Personally at least, I've always been more wary of drugs than I have of alcohol (despite the fact that I know the negatives of alcohol blah blahh) because there's a general consensus within society that drugs are "bad", that by buying and taking them you're breaking the law.

When the headshops were at their prime, there were queues outside them every night. Nirvana, beside Spy on whatever-that-street-was-called in Dublin, used to have longer queues outside it than the nightclub did!
Methadrone and all the rest wasn't illegal, it was more accessible, people who'd never have taken cocaine or anything of that sorts were all for them.

I'm not saying that all people who take drugs are idiots. Not even a little bit. Obviously, being easily identifiable on this rather public forum, I'm not going to turn around and talk about enjoying big bags of drugs. I have very intelligent friends who enjoy the occasional joint or whatever, and I don't see any problem with that at all.
I'm saying a lot of the people who do do drugs are in the bracket of people who can be called idiots.

Let's make drugs legal, more accessible, with a big thumbs up all around so people are going to be much less likely to be deterred from taking them?

What about the occasional E where would you stand on that????

mardybumbum

Just read the Sunday Times article.

Im not sure how his three different factors are weighted but you would assume that for cannabis to be placed above ecstasy that he must have felt "the effect of drug use on families, communities and societies" to be very important, which to be fair has no relevance to the individual danger.
Why is paracetamol not on the list. A lot more people abuse NSAID's than ecstasy???

I just find it very difficult to believe that ecstasy is a safer drug than THC.

thefly

mardybumbum wrote: »

Just read the Sunday Times article.

Im not sure how his three different factors are weighted but you would assume that for cannabis to be placed above ecstasy that he must have felt "the effect of drug use on families, communities and societies" to be very important, which to be fair has no relevance to the individual danger.
Why is paracetamol not on the list. A lot more people abuse NSAID's than ecstasy???

I just find it very difficult to believe that ecstasy is a safer drug than THC.

It is just in it's scientific name and I cant remember which one it is. Steroids are there too.

I found it hard to believe too but this guy knows his stuff. He stepped down from his position as the Government wouldn't change there policy and several others resigned in protest too.

thefly

mardybumbum wrote: »

Just read the Sunday Times article.

Im not sure how his three different factors are weighted but you would assume that for cannabis to be placed above ecstasy that he must have felt "the effect of drug use on families, communities and societies" to be very important, which to be fair has no relevance to the individual danger.
Why is paracetamol not on the list. A lot more people abuse NSAID's than ecstasy???

I just find it very difficult to believe that ecstasy is a safer drug than THC.

He identifies three main factors that determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: a) the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; b) the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; c) the effect of drug use on families, communities and society.

Pygmalion

mardybumbum wrote: »

I just find it very difficult to believe that ecstasy is a safer drug than THC.

It's because if you go to a nightclub and buy "ecstasy" you're getting something much more dangerous than THC.
The study IIRC was based on properly prepared, non-contaminated, non-cut drugs, whereas in reality that never happens.
If, however, they were legalised and regulated (proper, strong regulation) you'd expect to see something like what he predicted.

Of course, that's assuming you trust his measurements at all, he considered "Psychological" and "Social" harm in addition to Physical, these would pretty much be impossible to measure accurately, especially social harm, so I imagine he either had to throw in some guesses or use questionable data to support it.
Not saying that these 2 factors aren't important, but I'm saying that it's not that easily to rank drugs by how much social harm they do.
Also you have to consider the weights as you said, if something destroys you physically but doesn't cause any psychological harm, is it equal to something that destroys you mentally but causes no physical harm?

mardybumbum

thefly wrote: »

It is just in it's scientific name and I cant remember which one it is. Steroids are there too.

Im embarassed to say I cant find it even though I should be able to by now.
Are you sure NSAID's are up there?

He stepped down from his position as the Government wouldn't change there policy and several others resigned in protest too.

Was he not fired?

He identifies three main factors that determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: a) the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; b) the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; c) the effect of drug use on families, communities and society.

I see that but I'm interested in knowing how important he feels each one is.
In reality, the most harmful drug on that list is nicotine, taking his factors into account.

His comment regarding horse riding was a tad simplistic as well.
He mentioned that 30 people died each year in horse riding accidents whereas only 10 died from MDMA.
Has he not taken into account that most people who take MDMA do so in private/discreetly as it's not something they wish to advertise. The only reason the drug is "safer" than horse riding is due to the fact that it's illegal.
If it was to be accepted, how many deaths would we have from people driving cars off their face?

It's because if you go to a nightclub and buy "ecstasy" you're getting something much more dangerous than THC.
The study IIRC was based on properly prepared, non-contaminated, non-cut drugs, whereas in reality that never happens.
If, however, they were legalised and regulated (proper, strong regulation) you'd expect to see something like what he predicted.

Of course, that's assuming you trust his measurements at all, he considered "Psychological" and "Social" harm in addition to Physical, these would pretty much be impossible to measure accurately, especially social harm, so I imagine he either had to throw in some guesses or use questionable data to support it.
Not saying that these 2 factors aren't important, but I'm saying that it's not that easily to rank drugs by how much social harm they do.
Also you have to consider the weights as you said, if something destroys you physically but doesn't cause any psychological harm, is it equal to something that destroys you mentally but causes no physical harm?

Have you got a link to the paper?
When he was evaluating the physical harm of the drug did he do so for a given concentration of the active ingredient, a line of coke vs. a tab of E vs. a spliff, or did he just guess that most people that smoke weed smoke ten joints a week, cokeheads do five lines a week, ravers do 2 tabs a week?
The fact that the study was based on pure drugs really undermines its accuracy in my opinion.

thefly

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im embarassed to say I cant find it even though I should be able to by now.
Are you sure NSAID's are up there?



Was he not fired?



I see that but I'm interested in knowing how important he feels each one is.
In reality, the most harmful drug on that list is nicotine, taking his factors into account.

His comment regarding horse riding was a tad simplistic as well.
He mentioned that 30 people died each year in horse riding accidents whereas only 10 died from MDMA.
Has he not taken into account that most people who take MDMA do so in private/discreetly as it's not something they wish to advertise. The only reason the drug is "safer" than horse riding is due to the fact that it's illegal.
If it was to be accepted, how many deaths would we have from people driving cars off their face?




Have you got a link to the paper?
When he was evaluating the physical harm of the drug did he do so for a given concentration of the active ingredient, a line of coke vs. a tab of E vs. a spliff, or did he just guess that most people that smoke weed smoke ten joints a week, cokeheads do five lines a week, ravers do 2 tabs a week?
The fact that the study was based on pure drugs really undermines its accuracy in my opinion.

Basically I'm in work so I have restricted interweb access. I actually watched the whole documentary on the BBC. I'll try and find it when I get home and post it.

If I can post the documentary you will see that it's not just Poff Nutt that takes part. Leading drugs councilors members of the Police, Professors and doctors. People who are way more qualified than you or I. The list and the figure they got are all explained.


I actually liked the horse riding equation. If 10,000 people ride a horse and 10,000 people take and E, study's prove than more people will die/be injured from horse riding

Pygmalion

mardybumbum wrote: »

Have you got a link to the paper?

I think it's this one.
Skimming through it now and I think I may have been wrong about it being based on pure drugs, since he mentions specific cases a couple of times, but he doesn't really say (Or I missed it since I'm only skimming through).
It actually seems to be more of a summary of the study and results than the actual study after looking through it, it doesn't really give figures, just the first I saw.

One thing that kinda stands out to me is that "Intensity of Pleasure" is one of the "harms" they measure, which seems a bit stupid.
A drug that is "fun" would therefore be marked as more dangerous than a drug which isn't, all other things equal, purely because people are more likely to want to do it? Not sure I can agree with that.

thefly

Thats the paper alright.


Very interesting the way they go into how deaths from drugs are reported in the news.

One year 265 people died from misuse of Paracetamol yet only one death was reported.

The same year 28 people die from ecstasy and 26 deaths are reported.

It's figure like this that have the public scared and possibly why Mardybumbum found it hard to accept the e was safer than weed

Pygmalion

thefly wrote: »

One year 265 people died from misuse of Paracetamol yet only one death was reported.

The same year 28 people die from ecstasy and 26 deaths are reported.

It's figure like this that have the public scared and possibly why Mardybumbum found it hard to accept the e was safer than weed

True but then again 0 people died from weed, which is why I'd say it's hard to believe (I have trouble believing it myself).
IMO it takes a lot of Social and Psychological damage to become more dangerous than something which kills people, even if it is in very low numbers (especially when you consider that e probably isn't immune to accusations of social/psychological harm too).
I'd say that the results may have been weighted in a way that people would disagree with.

It is amazing looking at the reports though, but I guess "Ecstasy kills everyone" is a lot more believable than "Paracetamol kills everyone".
No-one would take the latter seriously.

byrnem31

mardybumbum wrote: »

Dr Nutt. What an apt name.


As for myself, I smoke grass pretty much every other day with a few friends now that I've finished college. I much prefer it to alcohol, which doesn't agree with me at all. I must say though that the quality of weed is pretty poor here. Looks like it's back to amsterdam at christmas where it's a lot better and cheaper too.

Wait untill your older and you have turned into a cabbage with no ambitions, you are paranoid, lazy, unsociable, all symptoms my friends have from years of smoking it. One of them doesnt even wash himself, he lives in a s**thole of a house and does not eat food. All his money goes on weed. He eats biscuits in my mates house. Its nice now alright but long term use can be dangerous. Did you ever talk to long term smokers of hash or weed. You know by talking to them they have issues.
Health wise it can be very damaging. 1 joint is like 10 cigarettes and thats what you put into your system. So top that with mental health issues and it doesnt sound too appealing. Be my guest smoke away, Ive heard it all before. You will remember this when you have gone off the rocker.

Pygmalion

byrnem31 wrote: »

You will remember this when you have gone off the rocker.

He won't lose his memory then?
That's a nice upside, I guess.

Insect Overlord

byrnem31 wrote: »

One of them doesnt even wash himself, he lives in a s**thole of a house and does not eat food. All his money goes on weed. He eats biscuits in my mates house. Its nice now alright but long term use can be dangerous. Did you ever talk to long term smokers of hash or weed. You know by talking to them they have issues.

I hate to appear a parrot, but :

A Neurotic wrote: »

"The plural of anecdote is not data"

I know first-hand experience is great in debates like this, but it's still not accurate to apply one individual's situation as a blanket out-come for all users.