The drugs thread

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Oh we're up and running again... For a few seconds I thought this was a successor to this thread.

Lawliet

Pygmalion wrote: »

To be fair, lots of drugs have a lot of research backing the claim that they're not particularly harmful, and lots of people die in alcohol-related deaths >.>.

As they say, if alcohol was discovered today it would be a class A drug

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

One thing that made no sense to me when the government were planning to close down head shops was the argument that the drugs on sale in them hadnt been tested. Surely the logical thing to do would be test and see if they were harmful enough to justify legislation? But of course the closing of head shops wasn't intended to save lives or protect anyones health, it was intended at winning votes from the ignorant people who led the rabble rousing in Roscommon/Ennis etc.

Namlub

I have a few friends who do weed a lot and it's not something that bothers me tbh, they're way less obnoxious and likely to get themselves into trouble after that than they are after alcohol...

Piste

Carl Sagan wrote: »

This might have been posted before and if so, sorry for the repost, but it's relevant to the thread and comes from one of the top medical journals, so it's reliable.

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.

EuropeanSon

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.

"Mean harm rating by independent experts" suggests to me that no real trials were carried out, rather that a bunch of experts were just asked to rate them, presumably out of 3.

bythewoods

EuropeanSon wrote: »

"Mean harm rating by independent experts" suggests to me that no real trials were carried out, rather that a bunch of experts were just asked to rate them, presumably out of 3.

The source is The Lancet though, which is a respectable journal, so I'm sure it's not just bollix though.

kev9100

Although I do drink quite a bit and I used to smoke, I'm not into drugs. Most of my friends are but its just not my thing. To be honest, I don't think theres too much wrong with drugs so long as you don't overdo it.

wayhey

bythewoods wrote: »

The source is The Lancet though, which is a respectable journal, so I'm sure it's not just bollix though.

Just finished reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.. The Lancet actually published a paper written by Andrew Wakefield which suggested that the MMR vaccine caused autism and bowel problems. Once the media got hold of it they really ran with it and the whole "MMR causes autism" scare started.

Apparently the study was based on just 6 kids. And Wakefield found the kids in a hospital unit specialising in bowel problems- so the result was always going to be positive. I know there was a big investigation by some British medical council into it but I literally finished the book last night I haven't followed it up. I'll throw in the Wikipedia article for anyone that wants to follow it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Anyway, The Lancet later retracted part of Wakefield's paper if I remember right- but moral of the story: don't trust some graph just because it appears in a "respected medical journal". The methods used to investigate are really important- methodology matters. It makes a massive difference who and how they asked the questions because it affects the results. I don't know enough about the statistics on drug use to make any claims but flicking through the posts I think that's what some people have done - and it's sort of dangerous in a teenage-focused forum I think...

bythewoods

wayhey wrote: »

Just finished reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.. The Lancet actually published a paper written by Andrew Wakefield which suggested that the MMR vaccine caused autism and bowel problems. Once the media got hold of it they really ran with it and the whole "MMR causes autism" scare started.

Apparently the study was based on just 6 kids. And Wakefield found the kids in a hospital unit specialising in bowel problems- so the result was always going to be positive. I know there was a big investigation by some British medical council into it but I literally finished the book last night I haven't followed it up. I'll throw in the Wikipedia article for anyone that wants to follow it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Anyway, The Lancet later retracted part of Wakefield's paper if I remember right- but moral of the story: don't trust some graph just because it appears in a "respected medical journal". The methods used to investigate are really important- methodology matters. It makes a massive difference who and how they asked the questions because it affects the results. I don't know enough about the statistics on drug use to make any claims but flicking through the posts I think that's what some people have done - and it's sort of dangerous in a teenage-focused forum I think...

...Yeah, I've read the book.
In general though, it makes a lot more sense to trust the Lancet who are quite respected, and who aren't biased, as opposed to some anti-drug website. Just sayin'.

Piste

It'd still be nice to see the study all the same, I'm not critiquing its integrity or anything, I just happen to be studying illegal drugs for my exams next week so the paper would be of particular interest.

Im just on the last chapter of Bad Science, it's really a great read.

sock puppet

Carl Sagan wrote: »

This might have been posted before and if so, sorry for the repost, but it's relevant to the thread and comes from one of the top medical journals, so it's reliable.

So does Class A guarantee that they is gonna be better quality?

EuropeanSon

sock puppet wrote: »

So does Class A guarantee that they is gonna be better quality?

Those are British drugs codes. A carries the highest penalties for possession/dealing, C the least, and unclassified is legal.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If one can see the appeal in the intoxication caused by, say, alcohol, then one can see the corresponding appeal in illegal drugs. Ergo, as such a positive exists, there must be something that negates this and makes it unappealing, hence my logic.

Alcohol and illegal drugs are different by definition; illegal drugs are not legal. One may decide that since they enjoy the high produced by alcohol, they will only use alcohol and not break the law for a similar high. Just small counterexample to your logic - I'm not suggesting the posters you were replying to had this in mind.

Davidius wrote: »

Seems to me that the reasonable assumed state of something is that it's unappealing until it shows appeal, i.e. it evokes curiosity or interest. Something needs a reason to be appealing, not show reason to be unappealing.

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.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Those are British drugs codes. A carries the highest penalties for possession/dealing, C the least, and unclassified is legal.

I can't tell if you realised sock_puppet was joking, and joked, playing to your serious reputation here, or if you just didn't realise.

jumpguy

...Anyway, I've some friends who smoke some weed but I'm not really friends with anyone that do anything more serious (but I do know them). I'm not too bothered by a bit of aul weed and would strongly favour it being legalised, heavily regulated and heavily taxed. The government would make a killing at the cost of dealers and the funding of criminal activities. I don't smoke weed myself, cause well, I don't smoke and find alcohol does the trick well enough anyway.

Anything more serious than weed I'm a bit sketchy about. We really shouldn't be pushing anything more into the realm where they can severely endanger public health. Although alcohol (according to the chart) is up there, no government can be expected to ban it - it's too late. Alcohol does enough damage as it is - do we need any more out there?

Yes, there's the argument that if people want the drug they'll acquire it by illegal means, funding illegal activities etc. But couldn't you say the same about money? People want money and could acquire it by illegal means, but does that mean we should just start handing money out to people? (Obviously money is sorta a bad example cause you can work and stuff, but I cba thinking up a better one).

I know many of my friends and myself included would generally stay away from drugs harder than weed. If something like, say, cocaine were to be legalised, that'd be like saying "cocaine is legal, go have fun!" When a substance is illegal, it definitely deters a huge amount of people from it. Which isn't a bad thing.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Alcohol and illegal drugs are different by definition; illegal drugs are not legal. One may decide that since they enjoy the high produced by alcohol, they will only use alcohol and not break the law for a similar high. Just small counterexample to your logic - I'm not suggesting the posters you were replying to had this in mind.

A valid point. However, nobody as yet has mentioned illegality as a reason not to take them, it my point stood at the time, as nobody had noted that they considered illegality a factor (or if they did I missed it). Also, the statement that they give a "similar high" is just plain wrong.

I can't tell if you realised sock_puppet was joking, and joked, playing to your serious reputation here, or if you just didn't realise.

Since it appears nobody here can credit me with the (presumed) obvious, I'll just leave that up to the individual to decide.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

A valid point. However, nobody as yet has mentioned illegality as a reason not to take them, it my point stood at the time, as nobody had noted that they considered illegality a factor (or if they did I missed it). Also, the statement that they give a "similar high" is just plain wrong.

Ah now, that's disappointing from you. Surely, you realise that since we haven't properly defined 'similar' in this instance, you cannot make that claim.

I'll make more precise the sense in which I use the word. Alcohol is a class of drug known as depressant, which is a class also allocated to other drugs, cannabis being a notable one.

Alcohol and cannabis do not give you the same high of course, which was your point; no more than caffeine and ecstasy would, both being stimulants. They are similar though, in that many people would claim that both drugs 'relax' them.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah now, that's disappointing from you. Surely, you realise that since we haven't properly defined 'similar' in this instance, you cannot make that claim.

I'll make more precise the sense in which I use the word. Alcohol is a class of drug known as depressant, which is a class also allocated to other drugs, cannabis being a notable one.

Alcohol and cannabis do not give you the same high of course, which was your point; no more than caffeine and ecstasy would, both being stimulants. They are similar though, in that many people would claim that both drugs 'relax' them.

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:

jumpguy

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

Is it really necessary to trawl through all illegal drugs to make comparisons and class them as relaxants and depressants and comment about their highs, really? Just so the quite logical argument is valid?

EuropeanSon

jumpguy wrote: »

Is it really necessary to trawl through all illegal drugs to make comparisons and class them as relaxants and depressants and comment about their highs, really? Just so the quite logical argument is valid?

Who suggested doing that? He could simply replace the word "similar" with the word "another" in his statement, much easier.:rolleyes:

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.