BF2S Forums Drug harm rankings

If you are a bag of Dorito's cannabis can be deadly.

level of harm to body or level of harm to others based on actions while 'high'?

Pubic wrote:

Surprise, surprise, alcohol and tobacco rank higher than cannabis.

I say outlaw alcohol. Most humans turn into a bunch of animals when intoxicated, and I think our society would be better off without it.

As far as tabacco is concerned, get rid of the addictive products(cigarettes), but stay the fuck away from my cigars.

Last edited by Volatile_Squirrel (2007-03-22 20:33:53)

Well my brother is a k head atm, but likely according to that it aint as bad as alcohol so aint too worried for him.

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Surprise, surprise, alcohol and tobacco rank higher than cannabis.

I say outlaw alcohol. Most humans turn into a bunch of animals when intoxicated, and I think our society would be better off without it.

As far as tabacco is concerned, get rid of the addictive products(cigarettes), but stay the fuck away from my cigars.

Your name is "Volatile"...

as to "most" that is completely wrong, it is few. Most people just have more fun when they are drunk as it lowers inhibitions. There are those few that get volatile...

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Yeah, after looking at this graph again, I'm gonna have to call bullshit. People can die from ecstasy from using it once. When was the last time someone died from their first pack of smokes?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f218/ … raphic.gif

Or from their first beer?

Squirrel, you are wrong apart from a standard shock allergic reaction X deaths are due to dehydration or over indulgence of water whilst under its effects. the drug itself does not kill. it is also the ineptitude of people surrounding a person on X that can affect the outcome of a user. if drug education was taught properly this would not happen.

the new ratings are taking several things into effect. namely for hallucinogens such a LSD and shrooms that addiction is almost impossible. after shrooms for instance are imbibed there is little to no point or urge to take them again. LSD itself has no effect once used roughly twice in a short period of time. a week is a good distance for "vunerability" to take affect again.

the physical affects are also unknown. as with many drugs on the market today little to no good science research is done. but it is suspected that seratonin is messed with. however to a larger affect than alcohol for instance? its debatable

however i would like to quote this article
http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/ … /_278.html
"This debunks the myth that LSD stays in your body forever. The main thing that keeps these rumors circulating the is fact that some people (though very few) experience "flashbacks" (generally within a few months after a hallucinogenic experience). It is generally accepted, however, that these flashbacks are not the result of LSD remaining in the system. Flashbacks are psychological phenomenon, and are in no way related to deposits of LSD in the body. LSD may cause what a person thinks is a flashback, which is really just state-dependent learning. Users sometimes can get themselves into a slightly shifted perspective when a stimulus is similar to one experienced while on LSD, or if one is familiar enough with the LSD state they can sometimes create this mild perspective shift themself. Also, LSD does not cause chromosome damage. Extensive research was done in 1972 by Norman I. Dishotsky, and with 68 studies and case reports, the conclusion was that “From our own work and from a review of literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosomes in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a teratogen or carcinogen in man.” Jay Stevens performed an experiment in which he surveyed five thousand individuals who had taken LSD twenty-five thousand times. His findings were that there were 1.8 psychotic episodes per thousand ingestions, 1.2 attempted suicides, and 0.4 completed suicides(WWW3). He stated, “Considering the enormous scope of the psychic responses it induces, LSD is an astonighingly safe drug.”"

much much safer than other illegal drugs and also legal drugs.

even heroin or meth users dont die "after one hit" to presume X does its daft and scientifically untrue. personally i encourage the new system although i doubt the government will listen to its own advisors. i have focused on hallucinogenics as this is were i believe the current system a uttler failure.

Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-03-22 21:10:22)

Toxicseagull wrote:

Squirrel, you are wrong apart from a standard shock allergic reaction X deaths are due to dehydration or over indulgence of water whilst under its effects. the drug itself does not kill. it is also the ineptitude of people surrounding a person on X that can affect the outcome of a user. if drug education was taught properly this would not happen.

Dude, all I was saying is that you can die much more easily from "X" than you can from a whole carton of cigarettes smoked all at once. Drugs require education, cigarettes don't.

One thing to note though, is that Alcohol and Tobacco are labeled with what they are, and products containing these are regulated in both their sale and their quality of manufacture.

I note for example that Ecstasy is listed on the lower end of the 'dangerous' scale. But the problem is that many people who think they are taking Ecstasy are actually taking something else or a mixture of things. In actual 'dangerousness', the illegal drugs can be more dangerous than they should be, just due to a lack of quality control. So if they were legal and regulated the same way that legal drugs are...

Edit: spelling

Last edited by cospengle (2007-03-22 21:27:21)

You are more likely to die from being struck by lightening (around 1 in 12million chance), win the lottery in the UK (1 in 14 million chance) than die from an allergic reaction from X (1 in 16 million chance).

khat = http://www.talktofrank.com/search.aspx?search=khat

Last edited by smuder201 (2007-03-22 21:29:55)

=MI5=CHRISTIAN wrote:

I'm sorry, but wtf is Khat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Surprise, surprise, alcohol and tobacco rank higher than cannabis.

I say outlaw alcohol. Most humans turn into a bunch of animals when intoxicated, and I think our society would be better off without it.

As far as tabacco is concerned, get rid of the addictive products(cigarettes), but stay the fuck away from my cigars.

A world without alcohol would be a world in anarchy...

it has been used to keep the non-rich of this world apathetic,docile and confused for hundreds of years, while soothing the guilt of the rich...

I believe that if they banned alcohol,ciggarttes and coffee, most people would gradually wake up and realize that a relatively small amount of people completely control this world and everyone in it, and have for some time.....and the powers that be will NEVER let that happen.....the psychodelic drugs of the 60's were "manufactured" to suppress a whole generation of young people that wanted answers......just like the "stronger" ones pushed at youth today....


Seems like we should just stop questioning them and pronounce them gods...