Alcohol AND drugs

ScumLord

Father Damo wrote: »

It is to appeal to people aged over a certain age who might drink vodka for brekkie but would rather chop their leg off than take a recreational drug as they regard any illegal drug as being for addicts and scumbags. People of a different generation, 50 plus.

I'd agree with that to a certain extent. I think saying "alcohol and drugs" is to highlight to certain people that drink is drugs too. If you just said drugs many would automatically exclude alcohol from the equation.

In all truth I know alot more successful businessmen with chronic drink problems than I know successful stoners.

Probably because the stoners can hide it better.

From personal experience I would regard daily cannabis use as more harmful than daily alcohol use.

That's one of the craziest things I've read. It's nonsense.

Sea Filly wrote: »

As addictive as heroin or cocaine in crack form? No. I agree with parts of your post and yes, alcohol is a drug, but come on now. Don't know about you, but I personally don't find alcohol addictive. Some people do but I think heroin and crack would be addictive to more people than is alcohol.

Plenty of alchos littering the streets. They look almost identical to crack and heroin addicts.

dttq

Sea Filly wrote: »

As addictive as heroin or cocaine in crack form? No. I agree with parts of your post and yes, alcohol is a drug, but come on now. Don't know about you, but I personally don't find alcohol addictive. Some people do but I think heroin and crack would be addictive to more people than is alcohol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

Thank you Prof. Nutt. And I say this as someone with a dependence on the drink I'm not proud to admit. I'm just ****ing sick of our stalwartly approach towards getting tough on other drugs, when we tolerate alcohol so readily. Alcohol is a drug and additive, ironically many of the pro-prohibition people for cannabis etc. support locking people up for enjoying the moments of pleasure cannabis etc. can produce, are not only readily tolerant and oblivious to alcohol, but even boast about alcohol and it's place in our society. If I am not mistaken, Grainne Kelly, at the forefront of "Europe against drugs" was on television at one stage boasting about how cheap vodka was in other regions of Europe in comparison to Europe. This sort of mentality sums of my point, that people, including the pro-prohbition crowd, who often demonise substances like cannabis, mdma etc. often less harmful than alcohol, are oblivious to the fact that such substances are less harmful, addictive and habit forming than our favourite drug - alcohol.

We currently have one of the most dangerous drugs legal and available as easily available in shops as sandwiches, sweets and breakfast cereals - and yet we criminalise men and women who indulge in other substances which are not alcohol, and often less dangerous. As seen here

http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/archives/458

Alcohol is way more dangerous than substances now illegal, yet readily tolerated, and even more annoyingly not considered a drug.

Real Life

aaronjumper wrote: »

Hmmmmmm no it's not. I've been drinking for years and while I have tried other things out of curiosity I went back to booze.
It's my drug of choice.

I think the reason people try to seperate the two is that booze has been legal for so long it's just considered the norm. I agree it's a drug but for all it's faults I don't think it's as bad as other drugs. All it does is amplify your current mood (yes I know there are chemicals in it that can bring you down) in my experience. If you drink when you're happy you will be happy, same as if you drink when you're angry or sad it will amplify those moods.

Back to the point though, it is not a gateway drug.

people are always saying marijuana is a gateway drug, i was just saying i think alcohol is as much a gateway drug as any. I stand by that.

dirtyden

Honest opinion wrote: »

I love these comments about about about the evils of alchol and how its the same as any other drug. To the poster that compared it to heroin all i can say is your ignorance realy shines through.

Ive always been curious why after hours is so pro-drug when id suspect many have'nt realy expeirenced much apart from cannabis use recreationaly or even just once or twice. I'm basing that assumption off the fact that there is much discussion about legalisation of drugs with little to no conversation on the affects the substances e.g the empathy from Mdma or geometric patterns from use of pyscheldelics like 2-cb Lsd/Lsa mesceline e.t.c

The reason im making this point is because for such a hot topic especialy on after hours you should realy research the effects of these drugs both negative and positive before championing there legalisation.

End rant/

Empathy, geometric patterns (are there any other kind of patterns).You are going to have to explain what you mean here, I must be a bit slow.

Empathy is not something I would associate with MDMA, feelings of Euphoria yes, but empathy is quite different.

Anyhow most of the posts were making some kind of commentary on the pluses and minuses of alcohol or other drugs in a more meaningful way than an obscure reference to geometric shapes and empathy.

Basically alcohol, MDMA, cannabis etc are all poisons with potential dangerous phyiscal and mental effects.

With dose control these effects can be quite limited or negligible so I would not be against legalisation of all soft drugs.

ScumLord

dirtyden wrote: »

Basically alcohol, MDMA, cannabis etc are all poisons with potential dangerous phyiscal and mental effects.

A bit of a generalised statement there. While alcohol is a toxic chemical that can kill you at high concentrations the same can't be said for cannabis. In real terms it's not toxic to the body at all. Not only that but cannabis may well protect your brain from the toxicity of alcohol.

dirtyden

ScumLord wrote: »

A bit of a generalised statement there. While alcohol is a toxic chemical that can kill you at high concentrations the same can't be said for cannabis. In real terms it's not toxic to the body at all. Not only that but cannabis may well protect your brain from the toxicity of alcohol.

Toxicity does not have to equal death but there is a dose of cannabis that will kill you (quite an unrealisitic dose). Skunk cannabis has been linked to deaths due to psychological effects. There seems to be a suggestion amongst many people that cannabis is harmless. It is not. Certainly no worse than booze, but not harmless.

mikom

dirtyden wrote: »

Toxicity does not have to equal death but there is a dose of cannabis that will kill you (quite an unrealisitic dose).

Much like water.

dirtyden wrote: »

Skunk cannabis has been linked to deaths due to psychological effects.

Skunk cannabis lol.
Pray tell what is Skunk cannabis?

ScumLord

dirtyden wrote: »

Toxicity does not have to equal death but there is a dose of cannabis that will kill you (quite an unrealisitic dose).

It's practically impossible to reach that dose, it can't be done smoking weed or ingesting it you'd have to make highly concentrated cannabis oil and then take gallons of it.

Skunk cannabis has been linked to deaths due to psychological effects.

Skunk cannabis is almost a myth. Skunk is one variety of the plant that's been around for decades and is by no means the strongest weed you can get. "skunk" as the media use the term is a complete fabrication.

There seems to be a suggestion amongst many people that cannabis is harmless. It is not. Certainly no worse than booze, but not harmless.

Nothings harmless, drink more than 5 litres of water in one sitting and it will kill you, even too much oxygen is toxic. It's so hard to use enough cannabis to do any actual damage that it might as well be considered harmless.

Temptamperu

dirtyden wrote: »

Toxicity does not have to equal death but there is a dose of cannabis that will kill you (quite an unrealisitic dose). Skunk cannabis has been linked to deaths due to psychological effects. There seems to be a suggestion amongst many people that cannabis is harmless. It is not. Certainly no worse than booze, but not harmless.

No it has not, stop making up facts. There has been never been a death associated with cannabis use or "skunk" The only time its linked is in tabloids which are full of government propaganda.
I remember a documentary saying the amount of cannabis that would kill you is so astronomical it would never happen.

Alcohol? yes there are a lot of cases of death, more and more every year.

dirtyden

mikom wrote: »

Much like water.




Skunk cannabis lol.
Pray tell what is Skunk cannabis?

Are you equating narcotic drugs to water? Pretty much invalidates any argument you might make.

The skunk is the really strong stuff i think, but i have probably made a pigs ear of the terminology.

mikom

dirtyden wrote: »

Are you equating narcotic drugs to water? Pretty much invalidates any argument you might make.

As have you in my eyes...... see below..

Cannabis is not a narcotic

see below again........

dirtyden wrote: »

The skunk is the really strong stuff i think

Skunk is the boogeyman and you lapped it up.

Real Life

dirtyden wrote: »

Are you equating narcotic drugs to water? Pretty much invalidates any argument you might make.

The skunk is the really strong stuff i think, but i have probably made a pigs ear of the terminology.

you've made a pigs ear of your whole argument id say.

dirtyden

Real Life wrote: »

you've made a pigs ear of your whole argument id say.

Sorry, I am stoned off my head.

mikom

dirtyden wrote: »

Sorry, I am stoned off my head.

Not with "Skunk" I hope...

Sauve

Skunk is super-strength cannabis that is bred to have a much higher concentration of THC due to the fact that it contains very little (if any) CBD.
CBD helps to block the effects of THC somewhat, so without that balance, you're left with an unnatural drug that's going to blow the head off you.

dirtyden

mikom wrote: »

As have you in my eyes...... see below..

Cannabis is not a narcotic

see below again........



Skunk is the boogeyman and you lapped it up.

I have based my opinions on some show on discovery. Why would they lie to me?

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

Skunk is super-strength cannabis that is bred to have a much higher concentration of THC due to the fact that it contains very little (if any) CBD.
CBD helps to block the effects of THC somewhat, so without that balance, you're left with an unnatural drug that's going to blow the head off you.

More untruths and misinformation.
The THC/CBD imbalance for the most part comes from an incorrect growing/harvesting regime

dirtyden

mikom wrote: »

More untruths and misinformation.
The THC/CBD imbalance for the most part comes from an incorrect growing/harvesting regime

Or a targeted growing/harvesting regime?

Sauve

mikom wrote: »

More untruths and misinformation.
The THC/CBD imbalance for the most part comes from an incorrect growing/harvesting regime

But isn't skunk bred and harvested this way deliberately to produce these imbalances?

ScumLord

Sauve wrote: »

But isn't skunk bred and harvested this way deliberately to produce these imbalances?

No, skunk is a breed of cannabis plant. Different breeds have different concentrations of THC and CBD. Like I said skunk has been around for decades, it's not that strong by todays standards.

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

But isn't skunk bred and harvested this way deliberately to produce these imbalances?

You are a fugitive from the law.
You are growing cannabis.
You have vegged it for a month and flowered it for two.
In it's current state it looks ready, especially to the poor ****ers on the street that will buy it.
It's very racey and imbalanced however and could do with another two weeks to bring on the more mellow CBD elements.

Question:

Your carbon filters are getting a bit shagged, and your bypassed ESB board may be causing some red flags somewhere, so the guards could come a knocking in those two weeks................. Would you harvest now or in two weeks time?

Sauve

ScumLord wrote: »

No, skunk is a breed of cannabis plant. Different breeds have different concentrations of THC and CBD. Like I said skunk has been around for decades, it's not that strong by todays standards.

Ok I obviously have it all wrong then. Back to the book learnin' for me
Incidentally, any idea of what the story is with the super-strength 'skunk' that is all over the UK at the minute? Is that actually skunk then?

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

Incidentally, any idea of what the story is with the super-strength 'skunk' that is all over the UK at the minute?

Ask the Daily Mail.

fasttalkerchat

Coffee and tea are drugs...
What's your point caller?

Sauve

mikom wrote: »

Ask the Daily Mail.

It was a genuine question, no need for the sarky answers.

ScumLord

Sauve wrote: »

Ok I obviously have it all wrong then. Back to the book learnin' for me
Incidentally, any idea of what the story is with the super-strength 'skunk' that is all over the UK at the minute? Is that actually skunk then?

It could be anything. There's no reliable way to say what's what. The media and police describe everything as super skunk because it gets the reaction they're looking for. Dealers call everything super skunk because it'll get the reaction they are looking for.

For the most part dealers have no clue what variety of weed they're selling, for the most part they're probably selling the weed with the highest yield. Which usually isn't a strong variety of weed as the strong varieties nearly always tend to have smaller yields making them rare and expensive. Growers looking for profit avoid those varieties because they're harder to sell and won't give the instant profit margins of big weak buds.

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

It was a genuine question, no need for the sarky answers.

I gave you plenty of informative ones as well.

See when you trot out the following as fact.....

Skunk is super-strength cannabis that is bred to have a much higher concentration of THC due to the fact that it contains very little (if any) CBD.
CBD helps to block the effects of THC somewhat, so without that balance, you're left with an unnatural drug that's going to blow the head off you.

The fact that you believed this, passed it on, and that it could have stayed up there as fact if unchallenged.
It irks me.

Sauve

mikom wrote: »

I gave you plenty of informative ones as well.

Apologies, just saw your previous post.

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

Apologies, just saw your previous post.

No need to apologize.
Gotta feed my food addiction now......getting narky.

Jeboa Safari

mikom wrote: »

Much like water.

This is what annoys me about stoners logic. There are several drugs I think should be made legal, but implying they're completely harmless and equating them to water is stupid. And then they wonder why their opinions are not taken seriously.

ScumLord

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This is what annoys me about stoners logic.

What annoys me is when someone jumps in at the end of a thread with a statement that's just been proved wrong in the posts right before their post. Read the thread for gods sake.

It's easier to kill yourself drinking water than it is to kill yourself with cannabis or even alcohol.

Strawberry Fields

All this stuff is hunky dory if you do it in moderation one joint or one booze up won't kill ya, it's when you constantly abuse the stuff like I did needing to be out of your mind that difficulties arise, after a while constant misuse has a detrimental effect on your mental health.

Sauve

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This is what annoys me about stoners logic. There are several drugs I think should be made legal, but implying they're completely harmless and equating them to water is stupid. And then they wonder why their opinions are not taken seriously.

That's not what he was saying at all. He was referring to earlier posts about how water and oxygen can also kill you in large enough doses.

@mikom- with regards to what you were saying about me trotting out into that is untrue, that wasn't my intention at all. I got that info from a reliable source (much as what you told me, I'm taking that as a reliable source), but I appreciate your input. The world is full of bull****, sometimes it's difficult to know when you're being told the truth.

mikom

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This is what annoys me about stoners logic. There are several drugs I think should be made legal, but implying they're completely harmless and equating them to water is stupid. And then they wonder why their opinions are not taken seriously.

You need to have a read of the thread and my broader post history Jeboa Safari.
You seem a bit misinformed.
I also would not class myself as a stoner, and if you met me in my day to day life I'd say you would be unaware I partake.

mikom

Sauve wrote: »

@mikom- with regards to what you were saying about me trotting out into that is untrue, that wasn't my intention at all. I got that info from a reliable source (much as what you told me, I'm taking that as a reliable source), but I appreciate your input. The world is full of bull****, sometimes it's difficult to know when you're being told the truth.

And this is what happens Sauve.
The government told me cannabis was evil.
I found out for myself if I use it in moderation that it is not.
What else are the powers that be bull****ting about.
Maybe i'll try some street heroin........ (joke)

Sauve

mikom wrote: »

And this is what happens Sauve.
The government told me cannabis was evil.
I found out for myself if I use it in moderation that it is not.
What else are the powers that be bull****ting about.
Maybe i'll try some street heroin........ (joke)

You bring the heroin, I'll bring the meth.
Partaaayyy.

No alcohol though, that shít will mess with us.

Jeboa Safari

mikom wrote: »

You need to have a read of the thread and my broader post history Jeboa Safari.
You seem a bit misinformed.
I also would not class myself as a stoner, and if you met me in my day to day life I'd say you would be unaware I partake.

Maybe I took it up wrong then, apologies.
I often see posts from smokers saying its totally harmless, and it seemed to be implied from Scumlords post that smoking everyday is harmless, which from what I can see, its not.

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Whether or not you personally ever become addicted to something is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it is an addictive substance.

Once again with feeling:

I KNOW ALCOHOL IS ADDICTIVE!!!!

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

Once again with feeling:

I KNOW ALCOHOL IS ADDICTIVE!!!!

Sea Filly wrote: »

I know that, but as I basically drink feck all, I know it won't ever get to that point, so for all intents and purposes I don't and won't find it addictive. :cool:

Then stop saying you don't find it addictive. You seem to be confusing what is often called "more-ish" (like a bar of chocolate or a pack of pringles) with "addictive".

PS The large letters aren't "with feeling" more like "having a tantrum".

dttq

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

This is what annoys me about stoners logic. There are several drugs I think should be made legal, but implying they're completely harmless and equating them to water is stupid. And then they wonder why their opinions are not taken seriously.

Excuse me, but this thread means a lot to mean, by what definition I consider to be a borderline alcoholic which I am not proud of. I consider alcohol to be the worst drug in my life and destroying my life thus,yet I have also death with "legal" substances which I have felt have been been far safer on my body, but have produced a much greater euphoria/ relief than what many other "illegal" substances have provided. Alcohol is deadly and additive. It upsets me that we downplay the influence alcohol has on us, yet support the prohibition of less harmful substances. The law is truly an arse at times tbh.

Again what makes me so angry if our tolerance of which I am and others are addictive upon of so much more readily tolerable than so called drugs often less dangerous than those which are illegal. Apologies it seems I'm talking poor speeh/ ****e at times, I can't help it

Apolgies for this ****e, but it can be hard typing without the right frame of mind.

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Then stop saying you don't find it addictive. You seem to be confusing what is often called "more-ish" (like a bar of chocolate or a pack of pringles) with "addictive".

I said I don't drink enough of the stuff for it to be addictive to me, this is not the same as saying it's not addictive. Learn subtlety.

dttq

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Coffee and tea are drugs...
What's your point caller?

No offence but tea and coffee, as tasty and enjoyably as they are provide **** all for the escapist frame of mind we humans so clearly desire. Enjoy the odd cuppa myself, but we are entering completely different territ6ry 0y fr4end

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

I said I don't drink enough of the stuff for it to be addictive to me, this is not the same as saying it's not addictive. Learn subtlety.

Alcohol is addictive to you as it is to the rest of the human population because it is an addictive substance.
Just because you (probably) won't ever do enough to develop a dependency does not mean it is not addictive to you.
If I take a minute amount of arsenic, don't get poisoned and will never take enough to get poisoned, can I say "so for all intents and purposes, arsenic is not poisonous to me". Get it???

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Alcohol is addictive to you as it is to the rest of the human population because it is an addictive substance.
Just because you (probably) won't ever do enough to develop a dependency does not mean it is not addictive to you.
If I take a minute amount of arsenic, don't get poisoned and will never take enough to get poisoned, can I say "arsenic is not poisonous to me". Get it???

I'm not actually convinced that alcohol is addictive to everyone. I know myself that my heavier drinking days actually had the opposite effect for me, and I slowly have drank less and less. Now, if you can cite peer-reviewed papers that show that alcohol is addictive to all then do so, I'm all eyes.

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

I'm not actually convinced that alcohol is addictive to everyone. I know myself that my heavier drinking days actually had the opposite effect for me, and I slowly have drank less and less. Now, if you can cite peer-reviewed papers that show that alcohol is addictive to all then do so, I'm all eyes.

I don't get involved in discussion with people who change their stance just to argue. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79855586&postcount=44

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I don't get involved in discussion with people who change their stance just to argue. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79855586&postcount=44

So we're done here?

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

I said I don't drink enough of the stuff for it to be addictive to me, this is not the same as saying it's not addictive. Learn subtlety.

Sea Filly wrote: »

OK, well I don't find alcohol in any way addictive, because I am probably nowhere near drinking the amount one would have to drink to develop a dependency.

Sea Filly wrote: »

Once again with feeling:

I KNOW ALCOHOL IS ADDICTIVE!!!!

All followed by this ....

Sea Filly wrote: »

I'm not actually convinced that alcohol is addictive to everyone. I know myself that my heavier drinking days actually had the opposite effect for me, and I slowly have drank less and less. .

.
.

Sea Filly wrote: »

So we're done here?

Bye. :rolleyes: