Teenagers experimenting with illegal substances.

Tym

Here's a few Links-
One
Two

That link says cannabis is more harmful to others than cocaine and is more harmful to others that GHB (a date rape drug)

I also wouldn't trust anything from an organization that proves it's legitimacy by declaring they do not receive government funding. It's a pretty annoying way of saying "any doctor that disagrees with me is obviously government funded."

Channel Zero

ScumLord wrote: »

Where's your prove to the contrary.

Yea like i said, it's always the "where's the proof?" type deal on here.

I don't think anyone promoted the use of drugs we're just defending the use of drugs and attacking senseless laws.

Utter utter rubbish. You yourself have promoted and glamourised the use of drugs today.

you just came on the end of a discussion and started associating the pro drug side with being disgusting.

No. I'm expressing distaste for the pro-drug side that prattle on constantly about it's benefits while blithely ignoring it's dangers.

"But what dangers??" you ask.

The way you use cannabis can have a big impact on any negative side effects, that has to be explained when people trot arguments about the negative effects associated with smoking cannabis.

And what is the correct way to smoke cannabis and reduce these negative side effects oh Scum Lord?
:rolleyes:

Channel Zero

gaffer91 wrote: »

You seem to believe drugs, and drug taking is inherently bad, and drugs are always destructive- this is a comic book view.

Nope.

Do tell me where my views are "faulty" though.

"most illegal drugs are not particularly harmful or addictive"

Or, as I suspect, do most of your information on drugs come from organisations like Drug Free America, Above the Influence ads and Reefer madness?

Whatever.

Your attitude on drugs comes across very clearly in your posts- you detest them, even cannabis, with little or no justification.

Nope. I'm just here to express my views on people who glamourise drugs and make hopelessly ill-informed statements as per your one highlighted above.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

That link says cannabis is more harmful to others than cocaine and is more harmful to others that GHB (a date rape drug)

I also wouldn't trust anything from an organization that proves it's legitimacy by declaring they do not receive government funding. It's a pretty annoying way of saying "any doctor that disagrees with me is obviously government funded."

I'm not sure of the methodology behind the study, but I'd assume that that would be related to 2nd hand smoke. What I do know is that the Lancet is arguably the most respected medical journal in the world. It is interesting to note the effects of alcohol, a drug which is correctly accepted at being better off legal.

Tym, I recall you wading in on several occasions in different threads on drugs- is there really any point trying to change your mind on this issue? I would say that you have a fixed conservative position which you will not change no matter what evidence is presented to you.

gaffer91

Channel Zero wrote: »

Nope.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Whatever.

Fantastic responses. I'll take the 'whatever' as a "No, I am not particularly well read on drugs".

Channel Zero wrote: »

Nope.

"most illegal drugs are not particularly harmful or addictive"

They aren't. Cocaine and heroin are fairly harmful but drugs like Cannabis, LSD and MDMA aren't that bad in the long term. Addiction levels for drugs besides heroin are generally around the 10% mark or below.

Tym

Tym, I recall you wading in on several occasions in different threads on drugs- is there really any point trying to change your mind on this issue? I would say that you have a fixed conservative position which you will not change no matter what evidence is presented to you.

Huh, I like the use of wading.

I'd rather keep it on the subject than discussing past occurrences, but fair enough.

Sure, I may have a conservative viewpoint on drugs, but i'm not a conservative in pretty much anything else. And why is legalizing something that takes freedom off of people a liberal attitude? By legalizing drugs you are legalizing something that does take freedom, even if it's "10 percent" (which i'd love to see the source for).

I could argue that you have a fixed pro-drug position that no amount of evidence will change.

Channel Zero

gaffer91 wrote: »

Fantastic responses. I'll take the 'whatever' as a "No, I am not particularly well read on drugs".

Build your idiotic strawmen if you like. Just don't expect me to respond to them with anything other than one word replies.

They aren't. Cocaine and heroin are fairly harmful but drugs like Cannabis, LSD and MDMA aren't that bad in the long term. Addiction levels for drugs besides heroin are generally around the 10% mark or below.

Nice try but no cigar for trying to weasel out of your ill-informed nonsense. You obviously have no clue, no clue what you're talking about. Your posts are the very one's i'm talking about actually. Clueless and hopeless drivel of the highest order. I'm out of here.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

Sure, I may have a conservative viewpoint on drugs, but i'm not a conservative in pretty much anything else. And why is legalizing something that takes freedom off of people a liberal attitude? By legalizing drugs you are legalizing something that does take freedom, even if it's "10 percent" (which i'd love to see the source for).

I don't see how allowing people to choose what mind altering substances to take or not is "taking away freedom". I understand you are talking about addicts but they are a tiny percentage of users, and the benefits to the majority must come first. The decision to consume the drug in the first place was also theirs and no one elses.

As for the 10% figure, I saw it in a study which I will link later if I can find it. But given that the frequently cited alcohol addiction rate is about 10% with cocaine being only slightly more addictive, it would stand to reason that most illegal drugs are less than that, besides heroin.

Tym wrote: »

I could argue that you have a fixed pro-drug position that no amount of evidence will change.

No if someone comes out with a good argument I will change my mind. Don't forget that I, and all other people in favour of drug legalisation, were bombarded with anti drug propaganda from an early age and pumped with "facts" on the dangers of drug use. It was because we have open minds that we were able to look at the real facts and disregard this nonsense and hold the opinions we hold

Channel Zero wrote: »

Nice try but no cigar for trying to weasel out of your ill-informed nonsense. You obviously have no clue, no clue what you're talking about. Your posts are the very one's i'm talking about actually. Clueless and hopeless drivel of the highest order. I'm out of here.

I'm not trying to weasel out. I'm standing by it. I would suggest it is you who does not have a clue what you are talking about, given how most of your posts consist of aggressive, incoherent ranting.

ScumLord

Channel Zero wrote: »

Yea like i said, it's always the "where's the proof?" type deal on here.

Of course it is, otherwise it's just a creative writing exercise where we can make up any old nonsense.

Utter utter rubbish. You yourself have promoted and glamourised the use of drugs today.

I gave my experience if you think it's glamorous I don't know what I can do about that.

No. I'm expressing distaste for the pro-drug side that prattle on constantly about it's benefits while blithely ignoring it's dangers.

We always go over the possible dangers your just clearly not reading the thread before commenting.

And what is the correct way to smoke cannabis and reduce these negative side effects oh Scum Lord?
:rolleyes:

Read the thread, it's not even that far back.

crazy cabbage

Channel Zero wrote: »

No. "All them teenagers drinking" don't disgust me.

Good for you. Some of them really annoy me though. I do see where you are coming from though. You are worried about people misuseing drugs. The first step in combitating this in my view is to start educating people.

I know when i fist came in contact with 'weed' I was very suprised that it had very little effect on me and was shocked that it was from a plant and smelt like a herb. Yes i was very stupid. I was always told that all drugs are bad. When you say that you are saying that all drugs are the same. I found that weed wasn't that bad and started to do alot of research into it. have watched about 10 documentrys at this stage on the cannabis plant.
I got thinking then that maby if people were so wrong about cannabis that maby many hard drugs like craic arn't that bad. Thank good i had the sence to do some research before hand.
The point of this story is to show that it is comments like 'People who make out that drugs are cool and hip and great....disgust me.' that put all drugs on the same level are dangerous. There is a bit of a gateway effect with drugs but it is caused by people calling all drugs the same. I was nearly draged down this road but educated myslef. Not everyone had the sence to educated themseles before taking something so the first step has got to be education.

Channel Zero wrote: »

You treat them respect. Thats good. You also seem to take a respectful approach to educating people about how great they are. Good for you!

Thank you for the complement but i dont tell anyone how great anything is. I will never push any drug on anyone. That will lead them to bad experiences. No drug should ever be pushed on anyone. That can not be stressed enough.
However do i personly think that there is a few drugs that are great? Yea sure. but that is in my own opinion and will not tell anyone else that (except here becouse it came up) But again i dont push. I try and educate people. If i ever said that drugs are great i appologise.

So you don't think DMT is cool, but you think it's "a great drug". I see...

Yes, in my opinion. Again 'great' is the wrong word to use in a pubic fourm though.
I see a big difference between 'cool' and great. to me 'cool' suggest a party drug. 'Cool' bring up images of druken kids at a disco and the like. i dont like cool. However 'great' (again proberly the wrong word) suggest something else.
Prehaps it will help if i explain what dmt is and resons for my interest. Then maby you will better understand..

DMT is a hallucinogen that is naturly made in the human brain during REM sleep. It is what causes dreams. It is also produced when one is born and dies as well as when one medatadates. It is inside almost every living thing.
Now this drug has been used for thousands of years in spirtual practeses. The oldest religion which is schaumanism (i think) used this in spirtual practes in the form of ayahuasca.
When one takes ayahuasca the 'trip' lasts for about 8 hours during which you are nailed to the floor (so to speak). It is very common for people who take it to puke and sh1t themselves in the first few mins.
I could go on but i think that is enought detail to get my point across. I will not talk about the 'trip' here. There is a majour 'spirtual' (to use the term loosly) aspect (anyone who i have heard of who took ayahuasca said it changed there lives for the better but would never touch it again with 100 foot pole.) To me this is a potintially 'great' drug but to call it cool when it makes people puck and sh1t themselves isn't right. Lets just say this is not a party drug (to say the least). Do you see now why i dont think it is 'cool' but do think there is something to it if used properly under trained shaumans?
Again i will repeat. I am not advertising this drug. One should not take it unless one has researched it completly and is 100% sure they wish to have the experience.

I thought what i said was quite constructive actually. Just expressing my opinion, which you obviously didn't like judging by your snarky reply. That's fair enough, but i'm entitled to post on this thread same as anyone. Congrats on the 1.1

I appologese if my comment seemed dismissive. I didn't mean to be. It is just that by branding all drugs with the one brush one causes a gateway effect that i almost fell into. I know you didn't mean it but that is what happens when one labels all drugs the same and all bad.

And thanks for the congrats. Cant wait to go back to college. And Sorry again if my comment seemed snarky. Didn't mean it

mikom

Channel Zero wrote: »

The people i'm referring to are the one's who come on here again and again bleating on about how wonderful drugs are. Glamourising them basically.
The one's who downplay the dangers. The one's who explain in great detail how to mix, prepare and consume etc said drugs. That disgusts me.

mikom wrote: »

I think you'll find that is against the boards charter.
Were you dreaming these posts?
Any examples?

Channel Zero wrote: »

You're the one that seems to be dreaming.

Still waiting for an adequate reply to this.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Yea like i said, it's always the "where's the proof?" type deal on here.

Have you tried using this response in court.
It seems so reasoned ......... so it should work.

Channel Zero wrote: »

And what is the correct way to smoke cannabis and reduce these negative side effects oh Scum Lord?
:rolleyes:

Not smoke it.
There are other ways ............I could mention them but I'd be afraid I would glamorise it too much for you.
Then you might have reason to complain.

Channel Zero

mikom wrote: »

Still waiting for an adequate reply to this.




Have you tried using this response in court.
It seems so reasoned ......... so it should work.



Not smoke it.
There are other ways ............I could mention them but I'd be afraid I would glamorise it too much for you.
Then you might have reason to complain.

You seem to be another one of those knobs that constantly contribute to these type of threads.

mikom

Channel Zero wrote: »

You seem to be another one of those knobs that constantly contribute to these type of threads.

Did you just call me a knob?

Your debating skills seem to be surpassed by your disgust for others.

scamalert

what a joke of a thread OP :cool: you mentioned yourself experimenting with variety of drugs,so what would stop someone from experimenting with coke or heroin eventually ? if someone wants a joint.go ahead and grow one plant and enjoy it,even in your back garden no one would give a big %uck about one plant somewhere in the corner,even the guards wouldn't bring you to court for that.But problem is that after you grow one,eventually it isn't enough and you need more,maybe insomnia or other reasons start to appear,so whats starts as a joint once in couple months becomes daily routine.Personally i never smoked/used anything illega substancesl,as can of beer doesn't do any harm and is enough to chill out with friends.

crazy cabbage

Did you just call me a knob?

Your debating skills seem to be surpassed by your disgust for others.

You seem to be another one of those knobs that constantly contribute to these type of threads.

In fairness people you could try and be a bit nicer. I hate it when people bicker over silly little things without debating anything. the last few pages are full of bickering without debating the topic. Can this please stop?

mikom wrote: »

Not smoke it.
There are other ways ............I could mention them but I'd be afraid I would glamorise it too much for you.
Then you might have reason to complain.

Will ignore most of this. Channel zero. What mikom means is there is other ways of taking 'weed' without most of the negative effects. There is eadables (favoured by older people who take for medical reasons) and vaporising. I have Vaporised weed before and if i do decide to take 'weed' again this will be how i take it.

Vaporizers work by using a gentle heat instead of flame to allow you to inhale marijuana’s active ingredients, THC and CBN. When heated to the temperature range of 180-200° C (356° – 392° F), the marijuana will actually release THC and CBN without burning the plant (which is hard on your lungs). This vapor appears as a thin mist which is ready to be smoked breathed in. This mist is much more potent than smoke. It tastes better too. Smoking the marijuana with a flame can generate temperatures of over 1200 degrees!

It isn't that hard to debate and educate without bickering!!!

mikom

scamalert wrote: »

Personally i never smoked/used anything illega substancesl,

as can of beer doesn't do any harm and is enough to chill out with friends.

Ahem....

scamalert wrote: »

Ok bit info bout me,im 26 soon ,and given up on pubs about few months ago before that it would be once or twice a month,and before that,

it would be every weekend drinking until barely could speak and nightclub at the end of the night to finish of going home to puke my guts out,and feel like $hit for the rest two days.

None so militant as the reformer....

ScumLord

crazy cabbage wrote: »

In fairness people you could try and be a bit nicer. I hate it when people bicker over silly little things without debating anything. the last few pages are full of bickering without debating the topic. Can this please stop?

I've no problem debating but when someone waltzes into a debate and starts flinging around insults straight off the bat, ignores the entire thread and starts arguing all the points already discussed with complete ignorance I'm not going to show them to much respect.

mcmacness

I have tried drugs before and realised they were not for me, I smoked weed and hash from around sixteen to 21, before getting fed up of it. I've tried cocaine and ectasy. Ectasy was given to me by friends the first time and then after that it was given to me by a friend who was supplied it by his parents. At the time I thought it was so cool that they had that relationship with him and their logic was based on what yours is- that they had tried it first and knew it was a safe batch so therefore it was ok.

Same deal with cocaine, while I didn't find it very odd at the time that his mother was sitting in a room with us snorting cocaine, I do now. I'm not totally anti drugs but I'm only 24 now and I would never supply my kids with drugs, regardless of the reasoning around it. I would lose alot of respect for my mother if she willingly gave my sister drugs because she wanted to try them. Now she tolerates my brother smoking weed but he's 21 and there's not alot she can do, but coke or ectasy is a different thing altogether.

crazy cabbage

ScumLord wrote: »

I've no problem debating but when someone waltzes into a debate and starts flinging around insults straight off the bat, ignores the entire thread and starts arguing all the points already discussed with complete ignorance I'm not going to show them to much respect.

Fair enough but in channels favour while vaporizors were mentioned i dont think they were explained properly.
Also i will be the first to admit that i dont read 18 pages of replys before commenting. I know everyone should but it doesn't happen. It is easier in my view just to answer the question or whatever asked a second time than throw around insults. I agree though. It is annoying.

Is there any other questions that anyone has about anything?

Ps. Thanks ScumLord for explaining what a zeitgeist city is in the other tread. Sound like the solution to alot of our current problems. Cheers for that