Printable View
.Quote:
The chart below compares the number of deaths
attributable to selected substances in a typical year:
Tobacco...............................340,000 - 395,000
Alcohol (excluding crime/accidents).............125,000+
Drug Overdose (prescription)............24,000 - 27,000
Drug Overdose (illegal)...................3,800 - 5,200
Marijuana......................................... ....0
*Source: U.S. Government Bureau of Mortality Statistics, 1987
Christian morals + New drug
(relatively new in the grand scheme of things)
Cuz maraijuana is bad....mkay...
Seriously though, its illegal cuz they need a reason to tax the shit out of us. Nothing gives Govt the right to tax/print money like a war on something...
Watch Reefer Madness. You will find the answers you seek within.
Few people know that this is actual one of the major barriers to legalization, since it hard to ratify a treaty.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i think it is because they know they cant tax it properly because people will just grow it as opposed to buy it
I think if it was govt. controlled people would grow it just as often as they brew their own beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by isohatedis
Most drugs, particularly marijuana, were criminalized primarily for the purpose of profitization of the justice system by everything from privatized prisons to payrolls for cops on the beat. Secondary purpose was as a political weapon based in the Southern Strategy and its ethnic oppression as well as general fearmongering and propaganda
The people responsible for this in the first place knew 100% that marijuana was not problematic in the slightest (they tested it for that purpose, after all), but they didn't care because their corrupt power and financial incentives were too high. Today, most US citizens believe the propaganda of our militant, vilified and racially oppressive society is for good purpose. But reality couldn't be further from the truth. While everybody gets upset when somebody utters a racial slur, very few understand that our justice system is deliberately set up to oppress minorities and the poor, and the main way they do it is via drug policy.
US may be the biggest castle in the kingdom, but that castle has an enormous dungeon. It is truly very disturbing how much our society rides on the pain of the weak and unfortunate, and most of us are not only oblivious to it, but immediately justify it when confronted. The day we decriminalize all the things that shouldn't be crimes is the day the white middle class loses a whole lot of jobs and the white rich class loses some of their plutocratic status
Because William Randolph Hearst didn't want shit printed on hemp back in the day.
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons you don't even flinch, all our taxes paying for your words against the new non-richQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but where are there high numbers of privatized prisons?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I know, google it... so I am...
In Ohio (my state) we have two... and the non-privatized prisons are running at an 8 million dollar deficit each year... so I guess as a side note, I'm wondering if other states have privatized prison systems that are profitable?
thats overly simplified.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
there are huge incentives for the reigning class to exploit minorities (but for other reasons), that whole "they´re using drug and gun policies to keep the black / poor / whomever down" didnt even make sense when Trey´s dad stated it in boyz from the hood.
On a grand scale society doesn´t like to see people being punished (exceptions are cases of extreme violence) and is actually willing to pay for a reduction of observed punishments. When in the 1960s and 70es the use of marijuana rose significantly and subsequently the number of people being charged with drug abuse skyrocketed, you could observe how society postulated softer drug laws. (of course part of it being caused by a growth of marijuana consuments among the observing society)
I do however agree with a cannabis ban making no sense and thats why I found some more numbers for you
BBC News - Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt
It sure as hell isn't illegal because of any empirical data, statistics, or science that even suggests it's more harmful overall to an individual or society than the myriad of legal drugs.
lol politics.
ITS A GATEWAY DRUG YOU IMMORAL HIPPIES
lol gateway drug
anyone who has to start at marijuana does so because they can't afford the real drugs
Not a big fan of how they judge a drug's harm in that article:Quote:
Originally Posted by XTR1000
Quote:
"Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used.
"Crack cocaine is more addictive than alcohol but because alcohol is so widely used there are hundreds of thousands of people who crave alcohol every day, and those people will go to extraordinary lengths to get it."
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by bigred
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?!?!?! NOT SMOKE POT, THAT'S WHAT!
i'll have to try some
"I give you the plants and herbs to use."Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
or something like that.
HE'D SMOKE. HE WORE BIRKENSTOCKS. FIGURE IT OUT.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
as I ript this bonghit, I contemplated bigred's trolling and how it's pretty much a public service to any thread for the amount of bumpage it produces :)
dAven is new to FTR?
bleh, i think i'm out of mine. fedex me some?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Pfft gateway drug. Alcohol was my gateway drug, I got pissed well before I ever got stoned.
Keeping it illegal makes it a gateway drug...
"Got any weed for me Bert?"
"Yeah, got some coke too, you want some?"
"Well, since it's nearly Christmas..."
"It's June"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
^ This!
that part of the article tilted me sosososo hard.
also, how is meth rated as being so significantly NON harmful to others? lol. just because it's smoke doesn't pollute? just because it's not widely used? i'm pretty sure crank-users are some of the most prone to violent crime
lsd was mine. before i ever had a cigarette or a beer i was trippin balls. god i loved acid.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Loved? Past tense? I still drop acid from time to time, like once a year or so. I love the stuff, it's far and away the best of them all. Can't do it daily though like the weed, I do like sanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Nice post. In the beginning of the War on Drugs, most police departments weren't interested in making drugs a priority because they had plenty of more serious problems with violent crime to deal with. In order to convince the police to participate they had to bribe people at all levels of law enforcement. For example,Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
-The Pentagon provides the military equipment that SWAT teams use to local police departments under the condition that it be used against drug criminals. The original purpose of SWAT teams was to deal with emergencies like Columbine-type situations but now they're totally standard in executing drug warrants. This youtube clip got a lot of bad press but the only thing unusual about it is that it was filmed.
YouTube - Columbia Mo SWAT Raid 2/11/2010. Cops Shoot Pets With Children Present
-Police departments are allowed to keep any cash and property they seize when investigating drug crimes, even if the owner of the property is never charged, and the burden of proof is on him to prove that he is innocent of any crime (which means poor people who can't afford a lawyer are SOL). For example, if you let me use your car, and I get caught using it for a drug run, they can seize your car.
As for the part about racial oppression and the Southern Strategy, I don't know if I buy that racial oppression was the intent of the drug war. I think what happens is that police departments have their arrest quotas that they like to show off to show how tough on crime they are, and the easiest way to meet those quotas is to arrest a ton of people in poor, minority areas. If they used the same tactics frequently against more well-off Americans they'd find themselves subject to lawsuits, protests, and politicians would get elected that would end the War on Drugs. But the effect is definitely racial oppression, if not the intent.
That was before the War on Drugs really got going in the 1980s. In the early 80s about 1 in 80 Americans were in jail, now it's up to 1 in 30 (link). This is mainly because of more and more harsh enforcement of drug laws, and mandatory sentencing minimums that can get you locked up for 10 years for possession of a drug that would get you 6 months or even just probation in most of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by XTR1000
Also, it's good for business having people locked up, if you're in the business of private prisons. I wonder if any American politicians own shares in any of these private prisons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Ok, had to LOL at this one. Did he have much choice? Not like there were addidas back then...
But he probably would have smoked... how else could you think you were the son of god and not be like... well... ok, maybe that is just my dirty mind.
Sure, there was choice. There were those strappy deals that went up the leg that the Romans and Greeks wore. IIRC, they were Nikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty3038
Someone please tell me they get that so I don't feel all Dennis Miller on MNF, mmkay?
Dick Cheney does, I remember him getting in trouble when some prisoners were abused at private prisons he invested in but nothing came of that investigation. Whether individual politicians invest in private prisons isn't nearly as important as the fact that prison guard unions contribute so much money to politicians that support the war on drugs. They were a huge force against Prop 19 in California because if we stopped needlessly throwing drug users in jail then a lot of them would lose their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah, past tense. The wife and I had a bad experience (well, she did and I had to deal with it) and quit about 10 years ago or so. In my experience, and that of people I know, continued use doesn't tend to be compatible with getting old if you want to be able to maintain any sense of normalcy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's very true. I'm nearly 32, I can't cane it like I used to. I pretty much drop one a year now when I'm at a festival, if that fucks me up well it's a risk I was willing to take to have some fun once every now and then. I've never had a bad experience on the stuff, I think if I did or someone I cared a lot about, yeah I'd knock it on the head. I suspect a bad trip is your brain telling you it can't handle it any longer. For now, well I'm still just about young enough to get away with it now and then, I doubt I'll still be dropping it in my 40's though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
The thing is that the GOP's chief strategic principle since around the late seventies has been racism. Since it began, it's broadened out into other aspects of bigotry like xenophobia and homophobia. Even though the intent is not precisely provable, I think it's naive to think that the coincidences don't match up with the fundamental strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Why is it in fast-forward mode?Quote:
Originally Posted by daven
Should be in slow motion, imo.
YouTube - Ollie Williams on Drugs
Later in that same episode
In this study they tried to quantify the actual current effects of these substances to the UK society, not their potential effects in a vacuum. A study about that, which they got sacked for, was made by them already in 2009:Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
Top 20 most harmful drugs, according to Professor David Nutt - Times Online
Wow Ecstacy is at 18.? That's pretty interesting, I always thought it was a very harmful drug.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Ecstasy isn't very harmful at all unless used in really high quantities (like dropping 6-8 high MDMA pills within 36 hours of each other) or very frequently. In both cases it can cause neurological damage to the serotonin release/recapture system and in extreme cases, the receptors can die/stop functioning altogether. This ends up in chronic depression because of a lack of serotonin.
If you take breaks of at least 4-6 weeks between rolls, however, leaving time for your serotonin stores to build up between uses and the receptors to chill out after getting excited, you'll be fine, its likely you'll never feel any negative side effects.
Man, I love ecstasy, what a great drug.
In its purest form ecstasy is not harmful, but when it's cut up with god knows what by god knows who it can be. I think most ecstasy pills you buy on the street are mixed with speed or other amphetamines, and can be mixed with a bunch of other stuff and you'd be lucky if the pill is 50% mdma. This is one of the reasons I wouldn't try it.
That is why it's advisable to test pills before you take them, or you can look on pillreports to see if anyone has tested them already. Granted pillreports isnt as safe as testing yourself, but at least its a step in harm reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
Probably gonna be trying ketamine this weekend. Sucks that its 6th, oh well.
6th?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I had ket once it was pretty crazy! lol. I'd never buy it, not even sure Id do it again if I had the opportunity,
Crazy in what way? I can't do any of these things but would love to hear about the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
I did about 100-200mg, cant remember. Basically after a few minutes, 5 or so, I couldnt really move. I had lost the ability to control my legs and probably the rest of my body, but walking was super hard. I had to cling on to the wall to go lie down on a bed. It wa slike being super drunk and not being able to walk properly, but without the mind fuzziness that alcohol induces.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Anyway, once I was no longer on my feet I closed my eyes and all these crazy visuals started. I was in a rainforest and some tiger or something was after me. lol Can't really remember the visuals as it was a year or more ago. But I just remember they were pretty intense and felt pretty life like. I drifted back into the real world every now and my mate was in pretty much the same state. I'm pretty sure neither of us could walk or really muster any power to speak.
Not sure how long I was fucked for, but after I was ok, as in back to reality I fell asleep anyway.
Crazy like your legs go wobbly and you feel like you're walking on jelly. I once saw my mate snort a very large line of the stuff, the line was intended to be broken up into six to go round, but he just grabbed a note and did the lot. Crazy fucker. He then went and had a lie down in the small downstairs toilet for 4 hours. We kept checking on him to make sure he was breathing. When he came back to the party, he said he had been having a beautiful lie down in a large field in the countryside, it was warm and sunny with butterflies and everything.
I'm not a big fan of ket, it's dirty. It's a bit like acid, though not as strong, and it only last for half an hour or so (unless you do enough for six people or half a horse), and it tends to go up the nose. I don't like snorting drugs, it hurts. Coke isn't so bad because of it's numbing properties, but ket lacks this property. Persoanlly, I prefer acid.
I'm told that its similar to robotripping (dxm), which I've done a few times and very much enjoyed.
makes me laugh when ppl say this. What the diff between snorting that and coke?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
whats the diff between taking ket and lsd?
what makes it 'dirty'?
exceeding label-specified maximum dosages, dextromethorphan acts as a dissociative hallucinogen. Its mechanism of action is via multiple effects, including actions as a nonselective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, a sigma-1 receptor agonist, and the action of its major metabolite dextrorphan as an NMDA receptor antagonist, producing effects similar to those of the controlled substances ketamine and phencyclidine (PCP).Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
A dirty drug for me is a drug you put up your nose, or inject. I guess it's just a phrase that doesn't mean anything literally, another person might consider smoking weed to be dirty, but injecting smack to be clean.
Or a dirty drug could also be an "ecstacy" pill filled with fucking ket and smack. Club pills are fucking filthy.
lol, I would estimate that about 0% of club pills contains smack and probably almost close to 0% contain ket. While agree that club pills are within the last few years 'of low quality' in regard to their mdma quantity, they certainly do not contain either of these drugs on any frequent levelQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
a) because the effects of these drugs are not similar to mdma
b) the price is not cheaper than mdma, certainly the case for smack.
People should test their pills before taking them or look on extasydata or pillreports or something similar.
Pills these days tend to contain BZP-esque 'research chemicals' or sometimes speed.
oh and while we are on the subject, lets talk about the purity of 'street cocaine' lol, how is that not 'dirty too?
It's been a while since I was on the club scene, but I guarantee you that there were pills doing the rounds in Birmingham clubs around the turn of the millenium that were laced with smack and ket, I can't speak for other places, and I don't know about the present time. It's the prime reason I stopped taking pills and started taking MDMA powder with me to gigs.
People should test their pills, but this is not easy to do while it is illegal.
Oh, and street cocaine is dirty, I don't deny that. I rarely take it these days, it's only if I'm offered a line, which is not very often at all since I don't hang out in these circles any longer. And it's nothing compared to what it was. I know a fair few people who've just given up on cocaine because it's so dirty.
And even pure, it's dirty, because it goes up the nose... it's only the fact it numbs after a few seconds that makes it tolerable.
On ecstasy data only 1 pill since 1999 has been found to contain heroin and then it was only at 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Admittedly 77 pills were found to contain levels of ketamine, so I will concede that ketamine content is far more likely than I first thought.
I will still however say that it was extremely unlikely that any pills contained heroin.
I would still test MDMA powder as it probably still contains impurites and may not even be MDMA. There are many MDMA analogues that could be supplied such as MDA, MDEA etc that while have similar effects arent actually MDMA.
Testing is easy, I dunno why you are saying it isnt. Buy a pill/powered, or even ask for a small sample to test. Take it home, do the test and either buy more if it tests ok or keep clear if it doesnt.
Test kits can easily be bought online and any half decent dealer will be ok with you testing the stuff. He should have done this himself if he isnt sketchy. Good quality produce will demand a higher price and more repeat custom, so it's a win win for them.
I find your use of dirty rather odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Street cocaine is impure, please use impure rather than 'dirty'.
If it is pure, it is not dirty, it is clean.
You don't like snorting drugs because it hurts ur little sensitive nose. This does not make snorting 'dirty', it's just your preference. You'd rather bomb drugs, which is fine.
Taking one kind of drug is not better than another in anyway. You may prefer ones effects and the route of administration, but injecting/snorting/bombing/plugging are just the same, so lets not call one dirty and another one fine.
Yes I already acknowledged that "dirty" doesn't really have a literal meaning, it's just a phrase. It's not dirty because it hurts my nose, it's dirty because of the means of taking it. But then I realise smoking is hardly clean. Whatever, it's just a word I used, it doesn't matter. Dirty and impure can certainly mean the same thing, so having one preference over another in this respect seems inane. And dirty doesn't mean I won't do it, it just means I wince at the thought.
"Taking one kind of drug is not better than another in anyway."
This is debatable. I smoke weed pretty much all day, which I'm not going to pretend is good for me, but it's better than smoking crack all day.
As for MDMA powder, yeah it can still have impurities. I'm lucky, I vaguely know a "chemist" who takes a great deal of pride in his work, and so can often get it direct from the source. Believe me, it's pure. It has on more than one occasion made me cry when coming up, just pure euphoria.
I didn't mean better or worse health wise. You seem to refer to one drug as dirty or one ROA as dirty. So i guess your one of those morons who puts smoking weed on a 'higher plain' than other controlled drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh weed isn't bad, it's not really a drug, its natural. I'm a better person than those dirty crack users.
Smoking crack daily obviously isn't good, neither is doing any drug recreationally on a daily basis. Alcohol, tobacco, cocaine whatever.
To me there is no difference between a daily crack user and a daily weed user. They are neither better or worse people for using a specific drug or a specific ROA. They are both daily controlled drug users.
"To me there is no difference between a daily crack user and a daily weed user. They are neither better or worse people for using a specific drug or a specific ROA. They are both daily controlled drug users."
Yeah this is fair. I don't think anybody is bad or good for taking any drug. I misunderstood your point.
"So i guess your one of those morons who puts smoking weed on a 'higher plain' than other controlled drugs"
I happen to smoke weed daily because I have an addicitve personality, and I like being stoned. I made a decision long ago that if I am to take any drug out of habit, it should be weed, and not alcohol, since the latter is more destructive, from my observations, in the long term. Weed is the lesser of many evils, but it's still an evil. I know that, I would hope that all habitual cannabis smokers know it.
Why are people incapable of making their point without the use of inflammatry language like "moron"? It doesn't bother me what you want to call me, but it just seems that you're on the attack instead of having a civilised debate about drugs. Wind your neck in.
take some of that 'straight from the source MDMA' then u might chill out brah.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was wondering this too. I like your response.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What about his one of those morons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
thanks for the correction. I obv mean 'you're'. The internet is a srs bsns.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
daily weed smokers: no different from daily crack smokers.
The obvious conclusion is to legalize crack, man.
Interesting viewpoint. How do you think things would change if crack was legal? Would you start smoking it? Can you not get it now if you wanted?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
Man you're a gem. Go on the attack and then tell the other person to chill. You should be a politician for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
Yeah pretty much the only reason I don't start up a healthy crack addiction is the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Sounds like he was able to muster some energy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzzard
But you think other would because they're not as smart as you?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer