About that chart. I'm curious. Any idea how the classification has been done with physical harm? I'm interested in the criteria n' such.
straight pharmacological toxicity, normally. considering the neurotoxicity of the chemicals, the reuptake factor and any side-products created within the body during metabolism; also probably considering the half-life and effective 'lifespan' of the chemical harm, too.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Thanks. What's with the colours btw?
i guess it's a medical definition of 'classes', i.e. from least harmful class to most harmful class
obviously as you can see the legal definition of drug-classes does not operate so much upon a medical/scientific basis
obviously as you can see the legal definition of drug-classes does not operate so much upon a medical/scientific basis
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Physical harm is pretty hard to quantify absolutely, psychological harm, dunno, temporary and permanent reduction in IQ and reaction time?Uzique wrote:
and how exactly would you objectively chart such a thing... ridiculous notion.
the anecdotal evidence, however, greatly leans to suggest that THC is more psychologically harmful (especially long-term) than ecstasy
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
a permanent reduction in IQ and reaction? what the fuck are you talking about?
THC affects memory... but as for motor-skills... it's not a fucking stroke.
and the co-relation of 'IQ' to drug-use is retarded. IQ tests are retarded for most people that have never used a substance, anyway.
THC affects memory... but as for motor-skills... it's not a fucking stroke.
and the co-relation of 'IQ' to drug-use is retarded. IQ tests are retarded for most people that have never used a substance, anyway.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, IQ tests measure memory and speed of reasoning which are part of brain function, motor skills are a function of brain function - I imagine you'd agree alcohol affects motor skills without being a stroke.
Psychosis is pretty hard to measure but I'm pretty sure there are scales.
I'd like to know how 'physical harm' is defined before we go much further trying to define psychological harm.
Psychosis is pretty hard to measure but I'm pretty sure there are scales.
I'd like to know how 'physical harm' is defined before we go much further trying to define psychological harm.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-11-04 03:05:20)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
did you miss my above post or what.
psychosis is a mental state, there are no 'scales'. there are scales to things like 'depression' and 'anxiety', separating them into separate disorders of varying cause and severity. but a psychosis is a mental state with a set of medically defined symptoms. i think you're conflating and mixing up medical terms a little bit, there.
i'm not sure i'd agree that casual consumption of alcohol affects motor-skills or reaction times, or even in the long-term. perhaps when heavily abused - and still, alcohol is far more harmful to a person both physically and mentally than the other drugs we're talking about.
psychosis is a mental state, there are no 'scales'. there are scales to things like 'depression' and 'anxiety', separating them into separate disorders of varying cause and severity. but a psychosis is a mental state with a set of medically defined symptoms. i think you're conflating and mixing up medical terms a little bit, there.
i'm not sure i'd agree that casual consumption of alcohol affects motor-skills or reaction times, or even in the long-term. perhaps when heavily abused - and still, alcohol is far more harmful to a person both physically and mentally than the other drugs we're talking about.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Until we're clear about how 'physical harm' or 'psychological harm' are defined there's no way of comparing drugs relatively.alcohol is far more harmful to a person both physically and mentally than the other drugs we're talking about
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i've already said in about 2 posts now how physical harm is measured, pharmacologically and toxically.
also there is the therapeutic ratio, which puts alcohol way above the likes of THC and MDMA at 10:1
also there is the therapeutic ratio, which puts alcohol way above the likes of THC and MDMA at 10:1
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
If uzique's mental stability is anything to go by for downing an E, then i'm staying the fuck away from that shit.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
So what scales are used for pharmacological and toxicological harm? What is the measure for harm?
The positions on the chart will change drastically depending on the definitions.
I'd like to see the same chart for psychological or mental harm also, and a thorough definition of it, since thats half the problem with drugs.
I'm less concerned about whether someone dies in their bed from cancer than whether they'll hit push me under a bus because they think I'm a three-headed goblin from another dimension for example, or need institutional care for their whole life.
I don't really care too much about the therapeutic ratio either, not my problem if a junkie dies.
The positions on the chart will change drastically depending on the definitions.
I'd like to see the same chart for psychological or mental harm also, and a thorough definition of it, since thats half the problem with drugs.
I'm less concerned about whether someone dies in their bed from cancer than whether they'll hit push me under a bus because they think I'm a three-headed goblin from another dimension for example, or need institutional care for their whole life.
I don't really care too much about the therapeutic ratio either, not my problem if a junkie dies.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-11-04 03:30:54)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you don't need drugs you can just get drunk on the holy spirittazz. wrote:
If uzique's mental stability is anything to go by for downing an E, then i'm staying the fuck away from that shit.
also when i was a live-spark i wasn't taking mdma at all... that's speed that will do that to you. can't say i'd vouch for it, but still
better than swallowing someone else's line
dilbert your example of a guy "pushing you under a bus" is ridiculous. it sounds like something from a high-school 'DONT DO DRUGS' lesson. "oh don't take acid because you'll think you're a giant orange that can fly and you'll jump off a high building". these scare stories are spun from a very small number of individual cases, where it is obvious that the person had massive underlying mental health issues beforehand. the hundreds of thousands of people that take 'mind altering' substances every day are not out there raping, pillaging and wreaking havoc. it's just a few small cases of people that flip out - just as they can without the fucking drugs - and doing harm. politicians and the media love a good tragedy that involves drugs: easy scapegoat. why be such an idiot to subscribe to it? i can't say i've done any drug that has EVER got me to another reality, where im so twisted. and i've done strong acid several times, which is considered the most mind-altering substance. the most i've had is bemusing visual patterning and vivid sensations. it's all bullshit.
so forget the 'medical rational evidence' until you have deconstructed your own ridiculous stereotypes
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Someone has supposedly assessed and ranked the harm.
Why not just put forward the medical rational evidence now?
Why not just put forward the medical rational evidence now?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Can you even read your own chart, Uzi? I see the position of ecstasy, and note that it is further to the right than marijuana, which indicates it is more physically harmful than marijuana. I don't see any complicating factors, because while marijuana induces more dependence in its users (something I'd definitely believe given the smoking habits I've observed here), said dependence is purely psychological and hence not "chemically toxic".
Something like this?Dilbert_X wrote:
Someone has supposedly assessed and ranked the harm.
Why not just put forward the medical rational evidence now?
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio … iew=Binary
It's practically dead on with THC, you're just too fucking dumb to see it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Can you even read your own chart, Uzi? I see the position of ecstasy, and note that it is further to the right than marijuana, which indicates it is more physically harmful than marijuana. I don't see any complicating factors, because while marijuana induces more dependence in its users (something I'd definitely believe given the smoking habits I've observed here), said dependence is purely psychological and hence not "chemically toxic".
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Not that difficult to see, honestly.
Moreover, regardless, it is quite clear that MDMA is not significantly less chemically toxic than THC is, as Uzique asserts.
erm nuk are you incapable of reading basic graphs?
further across and further high up together = more dangerous
placing on the x and y axes at the same time, THC is more 'harmful' than MDMA
besides your argument was that MDMA 'rots your brain', as if it's some super toxic chemical... when in fact it's less dangerous, overall, then THC
further across and further high up together = more dangerous
placing on the x and y axes at the same time, THC is more 'harmful' than MDMA
besides your argument was that MDMA 'rots your brain', as if it's some super toxic chemical... when in fact it's less dangerous, overall, then THC
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
note how anabolic steriods are not harmful nor addicting.
they just shrink your balls and turn you into Robert Paulson
Not really, because dependence is not harm. The two things are independent of each other.Uzique wrote:
erm nuk are you incapable of reading basic graphs?
further across and further high up together = more dangerous
placing on the x and y axes at the same time, THC is more 'harmful' than MDMA
besides your argument was that MDMA 'rots your brain', as if it's some super toxic chemical... when in fact it's less dangerous, overall, then THC
Besides, most pills have more speed, K and other crap in them than they do MDMA.
^retarded postPoseidon wrote:
they just shrink your balls and turn you into Robert Paulson
are you really going to disagree that it does either?SonderKommando wrote:
^retarded postPoseidon wrote:
they just shrink your balls and turn you into Robert Paulson
who mentioned pills? MDMA is a crystal. you grind it up and snort it, or ingest it.Bertster7 wrote:
Not really, because dependence is not harm. The two things are independent of each other.Uzique wrote:
erm nuk are you incapable of reading basic graphs?
further across and further high up together = more dangerous
placing on the x and y axes at the same time, THC is more 'harmful' than MDMA
besides your argument was that MDMA 'rots your brain', as if it's some super toxic chemical... when in fact it's less dangerous, overall, then THC
Besides, most pills have more speed, K and other crap in them than they do MDMA.
if you're taking pills, then you're taking pills. have fun with that lottery.
dependence and harm are NOT independent. how can you regard it that way? if you become physically/psychologically dependent on a drug, then your frequency (and often the dose, too) increases exponentially. couple that with the harm that is does to your body in every instance, and the end result is MUCH more harmful. to separate drug-dependency and drug-harm is completely ridiculous, and just to suit your argument.
look, im not saying weed is harmful or dangerous on any objective scale; i was merely replying to a comment that implied MDMA taking was somehow far more toxic and physically/mentally damaging. the fact that they're fairly similar on a medical scale refutes that. what i find striking is the 'culture' of casual marijuana use, whereas MDMA is normally kept to perhaps a few uses every 2-3 months. the cumulative stats speak for themselves.
tl;dr: stoners cannot retort about mdma with any credibility
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/