The drugs thread

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

There is, of course, a gaping flaw in your logic here - you assume we were just talking about alcohol and cannabis. We were not. We were referring to alcohol and "illegal drugs" which of course is a vast umbrella for many wide ranging drugs, with wide ranging varieties of high. Therefore, "similar", regardless of how you define it (unless you assign it no meaning whatsoever, leaving you just with "high"), is not correct in all circumstances, and therefore provides no support for your argument.
:cool:

You are quite right. It appears I shall have to revise my argument to this: illegal drugs and alcohol are substances which affect the CNS, either stimulating neural pathways or inhibiting them.

A user of such drugs may decide that they wish to only alter their CNS in one way, one which is legal, perhaps alcohol. Of course, some of the more curious people may still want for stimulants and not find nicotine to be enough. The original point still stands though. To say that the highs of illegal drugs are similar to that of alcohol is not "plain wrong", therefore. Since this is weakly qualified, I will point to one other thing.

The fact that they are similar is not the salient point here, but rather the fact that they may be enjoyed in similar ways in similar social situations, which would lead to somebody electing to choose alcohol but abstain from illegal drugs, if they thought in this vein.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

You are quite right. It appears I shall have to revise my argument to this: illegal drugs and alcohol are substances which affect the CNS, either stimulating neural pathways or inhibiting them.

A user of such drugs may decide that they wish to only alter their CNS in one way, one which is legal, perhaps alcohol. Of course, some of the more curious people may still want for stimulants and not find nicotine to be enough. The original point still stands though. To say that the highs of illegal drugs are similar to that of alcohol is not "plain wrong", therefore. Since this is weakly qualified, I will point to one other thing.

The fact that they are similar is not the salient point here, but rather the fact that they may be enjoyed in similar ways in similar social situations, which would lead to somebody electing to choose alcohol but abstain from illegal drugs, if they thought in this vein.

Perfectly reasonable. Note, however, that beyond my arguing over your use of the word similar, I have not disagreed with your argument at all, as I feel it is quite correct. I merely pointed out that as nobody else had previously mentioned illegality as a deterrent, one need not assume that any of the previous opponents of use of illegal drugs in this thread were motivated by that argument.

As regards your second paragraph and the implication (which I have gotten, though I may have misread) that the highs are similar because they all affect the CNS, I would note that presumably the fact that they affect the CNS is what makes them a "high", and therefore to call them a similar high requires some other similarity.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Perfectly reasonable. Note, however, that beyond my arguing over your use of the word similar, I have not disagreed with your argument at all, as I feel it is quite correct. I merely pointed out that as nobody else had previously mentioned illegality as a deterrent, one need not assume that any of the previous opponents of use of illegal drugs in this thread were motivated by that argument.

Indeed. Note that I explicitly pointed out in a previous post that I did not assume any of the opponents of the use of illegal drugs were motivated by that argument. In fact, it is my personal reason for sticking with alcohol.

I am glad that by point and counterpoint, we have helped each other reach consensus.

Carl Sagan

Piste wrote: »

Just wondering if you have a link to that study, it'd be interesting to see if they used purified versions of each of the drugs analysed as opposed to street equivalents, which would have been cut with all sorts.

I don't and I spent quite a while looking I've asked on a few forums though, so it might pop up.

EDIT: http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673610614626.pdf?id=4d037fefcb72946c:-33674608:12d5baefec0:-4ba31294324618560

Let me know if that link works.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed. Note that I explicitly pointed out in a previous post that I did not assume any of the opponents of the use of illegal drugs were motivated by that argument. In fact, it is my personal reason for sticking with alcohol.

I am glad that by point and counterpoint, we have helped each other reach consensus.

Fantastic.

Now kids, see how not being retarded and/or self righteous makes you look less irrational? :cool:

Oh, for a world of only maths students. *sigh* :P

KnifeWRENCH

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Now kids, see how not being retarded and/or self righteous makes you look less irrational? :cool:

*sigh* Just couldn't let it go, could you?

Labelling other users as being "self righteous" and "irrational" - not appreciated.

But labelling others as being "retarded" is just downright trollish.
Have a week off, and reconsider your attitude when you come back.

Oh, for a world of only maths students. *sigh* :P

I'm a maths student too, and not impressed with your style of debate/discussion.

Laisurg

I would support cannabis legalization 100% but class a drugs will never be legal anywhere.

Insect Overlord

Laisurg wrote: »

I would support cannabis legalization 100% but class a drugs will never be legal anywhere.

Actually, it's possible that modified forms of MDMA (ecstasy) and psilocybin (mushrooms) could potentially be used legally for psychotherapy treatments in the future. There was significant progress made in the study of their beneficial effects on sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and alcoholism until research was halted in the USA in 1970. See this basic article on Psychedelic Psychotherapy on Wikipedia.

unknown13

There is a programme on BBC 3 tonight at 9 called: How drugs work: Cannabis. I taught I would put it in here since this thread has becoming the most topical thread in the C&H in the past few days.

Carl Sagan

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Actually, it's possible that modified forms of MDMA (ecstasy) and psilocybin (mushrooms) could potentially be used legally for psychotherapy treatments in the future. There was significant progress made in the study of their beneficial effects on sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and alcoholism until research was halted in the USA in 1970. See this basic article on Psychedelic Psychotherapy on Wikipedia.

I've recently read about a group planning on doing this again. Hopefully they'll be successful.

unknown13 wrote: »

There is a programme on BBC 3 tonight at 9 called: How drugs work: Cannabis. I taught I would put it in here since this thread has becoming the most topical thread in the C&H in the past few days.

Thanks, I'll try find it online.

whadabouchasir

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I would note that presumably the fact that they affect the CNS is what makes them a "high", and therefore to call them a similar high requires some other similarity.

"High" is really just a made up definition for a state of mind when one is on illegal drugs.It's not a classification for a substance at all.Heroin for example isn't classified as a high,it's a synthetic opiod.Also just because a drug affects the CNS,this does not mean that it has any sort of the same effects as an illegal recreational drug or that it causes a "high",e.g levodopa used to treat parkinsons.

Drugs that have the same targets however produce the same,or simlar effects e.g amphetamines and cocaine are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and so produce similar effects.
So basically the effects that a drug has on the body depends on the target of that drug,among other things.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Oh, for a world of only maths students. *sigh* :P

Nah,Med students ftw:cool:

Smoking_Gun

whadabouchasir wrote: »

"High" is really just a made up definition for a state of mind when one is on illegal drugs.It's not a classification for a substance at all.Heroin for example isn't classified as a high,it's a synthetic opiod.Also just because a drug affects the CNS,this does not mean that it has any sort of the same effects as an illegal recreational drug or that it causes a "high",e.g levodopa used to treat parkinsons.

Drugs that have the same targets however produce the same,or simlar effects e.g amphetamines and cocaine are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and so produce similar effects.
So basically the effects that a drug has on the body depends on the target of that drug,among other things.

Nah,Med students ftw:cool:

I understand almost none of that, but I just wanted to intercede with one point. Surely people refer to "getting high" when they take heroin? And if they do, surely that's the usage that fits this situation, as opposed to the technical meaning of the term?

Piste

I think your interpretation of the word "high" is slightly different to the popular use of the term as applied to drugs. As whatabouchasir pointed out, different drugs have different effect, for example a CNS depressent like Alcohol doesn't give a "high", it's more relaxed than that. The word to describe the effects of all drugs is just "intoxication". Some drugs can give an initial high and then a relaxed state, like cannabis (there's a difference between being high and being baked like a Dela Smith sponge) and heroin (initial euphoric "rush" and then a feeling of intense calm). While "high" is more used to refer to the euphoric aspects of intoxication, the highs elicited by different drugs can be very varied in their effects i.e. the high from E is not the same as the high from weed.

whadabouchasir

Smoking_Gun wrote: »

Surely people refer to "getting high" when they take heroin? And if they do, surely that's the usage that fits this situation, as opposed to the technical meaning of the term?

If we take "high" to mean an altered mental state then yes heroin does make you high.But if we take "high" to mean increased stimulation and alertness then Heroin does not make you high since it is a depressant.It can cause drowsiness as well as decreasing the breathing rate and causing muscular weakness.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'd never refer to the effects of smoking weed as 'being high' because its not really a high when compared to other drugs.

Carl Sagan

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd never refer to the effects of smoking weed as 'being high' because its not really a high when compared to other drugs.

Being stoned is quite different from being high. In Amsterdam I pretty much exclusively smoked strains that got me high. In Ireland we seem to just have **** quality Indica strains that mostly cause that kind of lazy stoned feeling.

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

Pygmalion

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

I've heard after the first couple of time you take Ecstasy you start getting horrible "hangovers", much worse than with alcohol.

Never done any though, so I wouldn't know.

sock puppet

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

Comedowns are far, far worse than hangovers where pills/coke are concerned. You feel like absolute crap the next day if you overdo it. Depends on the drug. Some wouldn't really have any negative after-effects like weed or acid.

Pigwidgeon

Yeah several friends of mine have said the comedown or "scagging" is a hell of a lot worse than a hangover.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

You dont really get a skag the first time you take yokes but you will not be able to sleep. No matter how tired you feel you wont sleep for at least 24 hours after taking ecstasy.

Davidius

Deleted User wrote: »

That's debatable. When I try a new food I do not assume it to be unappealing, otherwise I would not try it. I think the point here is that, perhaps due to their illegality, illegal drugs may seem unappealing at first, due to prior reputation of being unappealing, in which case the rest of the argument still works as before.

I might be missing the difference between something being not appealing and unappealing. Something being appealing means that it shows some sort of attractive or interesting quality. In the case of the food I would assume the quality of unknown taste makes you curious about/interested in the food hence you probably find eating it at least a little bit appealing, you probably wouldn't eat it otherwise.

I don't see what's wrong with assuming something doesn't have those qualities until you observe otherwise.

amacachi

Pygmalion wrote: »

I've heard after the first couple of time you take Ecstasy you start getting horrible "hangovers", much worse than with alcohol.

Never done any though, so I wouldn't know.

I've heard that someone took it loads of times and never had a real scag off it.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You dont really get a skag the first time you take yokes but you will not be able to sleep. No matter how tired you feel you wont sleep for at least 24 hours after taking ecstasy.

I've also heard that some people don't get the energetic/insomnia.

Ecstacy is very different for a lot of people, it's important not to generalise IMO.

whop

Used to be a big fan of headshops. It was an awful shame to see them go, despite the obvious selling of untested chemicals which were obviously for human consumption. I enjoyed them nevertheless.

Is anyone up to date on the intricacies of the ban? I remember reading the update of the misuse of drugs act and it was a bit too organic chemistry-ish for my understanding.

Davidius

Davidius wrote: »

I might be missing the difference between something being not appealing and unappealing. Something being appealing means that it shows some sort of attractive or interesting quality. In the case of the food I would assume the quality of unknown taste makes you curious about/interested in the food hence you probably find eating it at least a little bit appealing, you probably wouldn't eat it otherwise.

I don't see what's wrong with assuming something doesn't have those qualities until you observe otherwise.

I thought of unappealing as being something that you regard as having some sort of repellent quality. We were talking about different things, it seems.