People are too dumb to take simple decisions like Brexit, do you think they should be doing chemistry experiments in their heads?
and likening buying drugs to pedophilia is retarded on so many levels. the vast majority of drugs are manufactured in places like the netherlands or poland, in the same way as mainstream pharmaceuticals (a sizeable portion of them are indeed illicitly sold pharma products). you keep harping on about the tragedy of the narco-trade in south america, as if you’re part of some ‘concerned consumer’ tragedy. but then elsewhere you’ll brag about your high meat consumption, presumably drive a non-electric car, presumably use tech dug out of the ground by child slave labour in africa, assembled by suicidal workers in china with no rights ... i presume your clothes aren’t all hand-made by unionised and well-paid australian blokes ... the whole thing goes on and on with this thinking. most of the things you own and purchase either imply a death-sentence to the planet, ecologically, or a pretty high score on the human misery index. so spare me your pietistic, moralising bullshit.
the vast majority of drug sales on markets like that are for MDMA and such -- the article says as much, and these places don't want to attract the attention given by dealings with big bad cartels or lethal drugs. it’s a pretty good model. purchase already tested drugs which are safer and better for you than alcohol, get a good price and service with a smile from a nice man in an audi wearing a suit and tie. top notch. do recommend.
Last edited by uziq (2019-11-06 01:33:51)
And as we've discussed, MDMA is a looooong way from being the harmless sherbet you say it is - hence its illegal.
ironically most drugs were banned in large sprees of 'moral panics', e.g. the wide crackdown on 'acid house' and rave scene in the 1990s, people gathering in fields outside the M25 orbital. the sort of tabloid-hyped scaremongering that you are still espousing, decades later.
recent research even suggests that the widely cited 'comedown' from MDMA isn't as first thought.
i'm going to send you some pills in the post, dilbert. keep an eye out for a package smelling of rich myrrh. i think you'll prefer the afterglow of MDMA to a hangover.
Last edited by uziq (2019-11-06 02:07:19)
We've done this before, apart from one crackpot at Imperial with the flakiest of data behind him the medical community is not arguing for decriminalisation - which doesn't make it legal, just that users are directed towards treatment instead of prison.
uziq wrote:the medical and scientific community giving legal advice and saying that a whole host of drugs should be decriminalised
harvard and john hopkins have sizeable research groups for the same purpose, who have already made a lot of progress with the FDA in having things approved for clinical trials, where before they were banned outright.
'users are directed towards treatment, not prison'. what are you talking about? the drugs are being explored as MEDICINE. you are seemingly confusing the 'criminalisation of addicts' debate with something very different. bless you.
more broadly, many academics have written on decriminalisation case studies, as in portugal, and many policy reports have argued for its benefits. i've linked countless organisational reports and PDFs here before on this topic. but yes, 'one lone crackpot at imperial'. who happened to be the senior appointed scientific advisor to the government for several years.
Last edited by uziq (2019-11-06 02:48:40)
Its like you've got early onset Alzheimers or something.
And the Portugal approach doesn't mean the whole country parties as hard as they like, drug use is still seen as something to be discouraged.
So not really sure what your point is.In July 2001, a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance. This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers. Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.
Individuals found in possession of small quantities of drugs are issued summons. The drugs are confiscated, and the suspect is interviewed by a “Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction” (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – CDT). These commissions are made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney. The dissuasion commission have powers comparable to an arbitration committee, but restricted to cases involving drug use or possession of small amounts of drugs. There is one CDT in each of Portugal’s 18 districts.
The committees have a broad range of sanctions available to them when ruling on the drug use offence. These include:
- Fines, ranging from €25 to €150. These figures are based on the Portuguese minimum wage of about €485 (Banco de Portugal, 2001) and translate into hours of work lost.
- Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone's possessions.
- Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific clubbing venues).
- Ban on associating with specific other persons.
- Foreign travel ban.
- Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
- Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
- Confiscation of personal possessions.
- Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.
If the person is addicted to drugs, they may be admitted to a drug rehabilitation facility or be given community service, if the dissuasion committee finds that this better serves the purpose of keeping the offender out of trouble. The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment. The committee has the explicit power to suspend sanctions conditional upon voluntary entry into treatment. If the offender is not addicted to drugs, or unwilling to submit to treatment or community service, he or she may be given a fine.
Would you like to have a social worker, psychiatrist and attorney assigned by the govt to manage you and your affairs?
No clubbing, foreign travel, associating with your friends and your DJ eqpt could be confiscated.
Maybe a spell of rehabilitation in a govt institution until you're clean? Or until the govt decides you can leave.
Sounds more Stalinist than going to court for a trial doesn't it?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-11-06 14:13:34)
Is Dilbert really scientifically-minded, or is it only when it suits him. After all this time I still can't believe I hear "because it's illegal" as the ultimate trump card vs. drugs as if they were tantamount to skinning your neighbor and sewing them into a party toga. And how complicated must that fallback be now for people with the growing amount of places where certain drugs are becoming legalized.
Dilbert, sophisticated connoisseur of the drug known to man since the dawn of time. "Don't do mdma because it's illegal and experiments with your brain. Pardon me while I admire this fine ale."
Nope, never said that either.
uziq wrote:of course he knows he’s being thick. he really thinks that taking MDMA gives you alzheimer’s instantly but drinking booze does no damage to your brain.
They're illegal because they're excessively harmful."because it's illegal"
I don't believe this is a good thing at all, and in most places they aren't being legalised, they're being decriminalised which as we've seen in Portugal is not the same thing at all.certain drugs are becoming legalized
this story will make you very happy, dilbert.
2 israeli women were caught smuggling drugs into the UK. they lied when asked if they were carrying packages for anyone else. turns out it was a bonanza quantity of khat, a class B drug (that's also the basic ingredient for mephedrone and all those fun cathinone research chemicals i fried my brain on in the heady days of 2010). some local jewish community figures turned up and secured their safe return to israel with nothing but a finger wag.
you should see how many people are serving long-term custodial prison sentences in the UK coming from places like africa or south america with drugs! normally used as mules out of poverty and sheer desperation. lucky jewish ladies.
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-01 04:35:08)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adass_Isr … se_scandal
Now Netanyahu has promoted the person instrumental in obstructing her extradition to a cabinet role
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-30/ … d/11833042
What a nice bunch, truly doing god's work on earth.
I do feel sorry for drug mules, risking liberty or death so uncaring morons can stuff powder up their noses.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-01 05:05:49)
one of the economist’s most read articles of 2019.
make u think
I'm doubtful Babycham is in the same class as crack cocaine or injected heroin, are we really saying people who enjoy the odd bitter should be moved onto opioids?
And we're still in the relatively early days of other drugs, early onset alzheimers from cocaine and MDMA should be kicking in about now. That should be a technicolour shitstorm.
Anyway, I think I've identified the issue here.
Do we have to rehearse this guy's flawed research methods and agenda-driven conclusions again?
Oh look, he has a financial interest in marginalising drinkers and pushing them onto something he can make a fortune out of
Can't wait for the IPO.Alcarelle
Starting in around 2014, Nutt said he intends to bring to market a recreational drug which has the same effect as alcohol (ethanol) in humans (impacting the GABA receptor) but does less physical harm; a safer replacement. He calls it "Alcarelle", but does not disclose the exact chemical(s). Early tests used a benzodiazepine derivative, with later adaptations targeting improved efficacy and reduced abuse potential.
In 2018 Nutt's company Alcarelle applied for patents for a series of new compounds, branded as Alcarelle, that more closely mimic the effects of alcohol. As of October 2019, none of these compounds were available to consumers, their long-term health impacts were not known and there has been no published research about them.
C- Weak arguments, average grammar, poorly researched, evidence cited doesn't support your conclusions, try harder next time.
Very disappointed that the 26 former Presidents on the Global Commission on Drug Policy uncritically swallowed this guff. Just shows you can't rely on politicians to read or analyse their briefs. Lets put them on 'ignore'.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-01 23:16:18)
you do realise an elementary part of submitting any research for peer-review is an ethical declaration of interests, right? wow i'm really sure your 5 minutes on wikipedia have turned up some malfeasance that weren't apparent to the editors of the fucking Lancet.
i suppose it can't at all be a case of a man who has spent his life in drug use and harm research, and has seen the widespread negative impacts of alcohol, and has tried to develop something to mitigate said harm. no, he must be trying to 'push' alcohol users onto his new snake-oil cure! in other news, scientific researchers taking out patents on new experimental designs they have come up with are corrupted by money!!!
the main part of the article, about the recent global report, has nothing to do with Nutt's much-cited figure, fyi. it's there for illustrative purposes. nutt's paper is frankly old news, from 2010. this is a report released by a separate, independent group this year.
Dilderp wrote:They're illegal because they're excessively harmful.
looks like you're categorically wrong. it's fine, we can move on.
The Economist wrote:The commission blames the UN’s drug classification system, which sorts some 300 psychoactive substances into “schedules” according to their harms and benefits. Some, such as morphine, have medical uses. Others, such as psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms), are used mostly recreationally. Drugs without any apparent medical utility are automatically placed in the most dangerous category—and subjected to the strictest criminal penalties—regardless of the risk they pose.
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-01 23:21:30)
Yes, designer drugs have been outlawed, by parliament, bad luck.
Untried untested drugs are by default put in the highest category to prevent backyard chemists subverting the prior prescriptive ban system and experimenting on the public. Is this a bad thing?
Like I said, if you want to read up on Nutt's flawed methodology and obviously agenda-driven bias then feel free to go through my previous posts.
"Blah blah blah Portugal blah blah blah"
Feel free to move there, hand over all your affairs to a psychologist and a magistrate and you can take all the drugs you like, and they'll release you back into the community at their leisure.
most of these drugs which are banned because they are largely used recreationally, and not as medicine, have longer clinical histories than entire classes of medicine that people take for granted now -- SSRIs, for example. MDMA was synthesised in 1912 by Merck and proposed for medical use in psychotherapy way back in the 1950s and 60s. big time pharmaceutical companies have long histories with all of these 'untested' drugs. MDMA was outlawed when it caught on as a recreational substance in the 1970s -- same story as LSD and mushrooms.
so for you to say that they are 'untested' is categorically false. for you to say that 'they are illegal because they are excessively harmful' is categorically false.
nice doin' business with ya!
Last edited by uziq (2020-01-01 23:33:38)
So MDMA and mushrooms are 'automatically' in the 'most dangerous' category ?
Looks to me like they've been carefully assessed, checked and rechecked by parliament over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_con … _Drugs_Act
And looks like this Nutt guy has a history of malfeasance.
"He served on the Committee on Safety of Medicines where he participated in an enquiry into the use of SSRI anti-depressants in 2003. His participation was criticised as, owing to his financial interest in GlaxoSmithKline, he had to withdraw from discussions of the drug paroxetine."
Seems like he's not really an academic, he has an agenda and is seeking to make a profit out of recreational drugs, not really the go to person for impartial information.
Anyway, good luck with your hobby, maybe it will be legal some day and poor peasants won't need to risk death and imprisonment so you can get your fix.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-02 04:23:05)