BF2S Forums Iraq veteran another casualty of a different war

what does that have to do with anything? LSD is the only chemical in micrograms because of its insane potency. but that doesn't matter at all. the effect is the problem, not the medicinal dosage. how entirely arbitrary.

Shocking wrote:

I mean to the point of it having an actual effect, you need to down quite a bit of booze until you're drunk. LSD for example is dosed in micrograms, world of difference.

this is literally one of the most shockingly stupid arguments i have ever seen against drugs.

you have to consume a lot of drink because the active chemical (ethanol) is in such small dilute qualities. if i snort 5 grams of cocaine that has been cut by a dodgy dealer so that the actual cocaine content is 0.5% - does that make it okay? it's less potent, then, and therefore less of a menace! measurements have nothing to do with drug's danger whatsoever.

Shocking wrote:

Uzique wrote:

and please explain the "world of difference" between weed and psychedelics. the psychedelics (e.g. mushrooms, acid) are, hands down, the safest thing you can consume medically. they are so low on the pharmacological toxicity chart that a glass of coca cola would do more harm. how are they terrible? it's not the 1960's. people aren't taking acid 6 times a day and flipping out and going insane. these are completely harmless drugs that are stigmatized by societal stiffs like you because they're 'dangerous' and represent something unknown and wild. that is all. you sound like a high-school teacher.

I was thinking about people taking them unsupervised, not about the addictive effect.

you can drink yourself into a stupor and fall and die (many people have), or drown, or walk into traffic. should you always have a guardian for drinking?

the problem with the "war on drugs" is that you're trying to prohibit something that is as old as civilization itself; the only thing that changed is the predominant social mores and moral standards towards drugs, moving from acceptance (and even reverence) to christian sin and transgression. the impulse to take drugs and the tendency for certain sorts of personalities to enjoy "ectasy of the mind" (to quote kerouac) has always been there: from medicine men and shamans in tribal times through to your college stoner nowadays (i am not trying to glorify the latter with the spiritual mysticism of the former, however). you're trying to ban the unbannable. illegalising something will not remove the demand or the patterns of consumption, it just shifts controls to criminals and the underworld that has no concern other than generating immense amounts of money to further other criminal (gang/cartel) activity. the war on drugs is a waste of time and resources. shooting dealers doesn't exactly give the state a good face for it, either.

FEOS wrote:

The problem with the "war on drugs" is that it hasn't been fought as a war, and thus has been completely ineffective. If it had been fought as a true war, the cartels would've been taken out, the dealers would've been taken out, distribution networks would've been taken out, and demand would've been addressed. None of those things happened. We just printed up a few "Just say no" signs and performed some interdiction that amounted to fuckall in the grand scheme of things.

You take out one cartel, two others pop up. It'd be never-ending.

I think The Wire put it best... "this isn't a war, wars end."

people do hard drugs for exactly the same reason people do soft drugs: to experience a different state of mind. that's it. it's as simple as that. there is no looming 'negative' or dark side to hard drugs (for the most part, in recreational use). addiction is another thing but then again alcohol addiction destroys many many more lives so it's not a 'win' for soft drugs on that part. people that take MDMA on the weekends have great fun and are functional people. they're no further over a medical or psychological edge than the guy that went and had a few drinks and a tipsy dance at the club on the weekend. you're demonising hard drugs with your own misinformed and inexperienced prejudices, really. more people take hard drugs on a regular basis than you know, i expect; not nearly as many of them are fuck-ups.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 06:11:04)

Kampframmer wrote:

I've always found the term 'hard' and 'soft' with drugs to be a legal thing. Especially here.
Soft drugs are legal, hard drugs are not.

I think it's more about the effects. You can't overdose on weed. You can certainly overdose on meth, and long-term use of meth is far more destructive than long-term use of weed.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

You take out one cartel, two others pop up. It'd be never-ending.

I think The Wire put it best... "this isn't a war, wars end."

Meh, I doubt the drug cartels or trade would survive if people really tried to eliminate both. And once business gets too risky people will stop trying altogether.

Shocking wrote:

I've had more than enough contact with drugs (mainly addicts) tyvm, I was trying to draw a line inbetween the 'good' and the 'bad'. Not all the drugs have the same effect, ecstasy just makes people happy and social, that's all there is to it.

Then there's the drugs that are severely addictive with nasty side-effects and those that have very strong effects such as LSD. Not so safe.

LSD is completely 100% safe. there is nothing at all to evidence LSD having a single negative effect. please find me some literature on the subject to support your claims. where is LSD on this chart, exactly?



"psychedelics. not so safe".

Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-18 06:19:41)

Shocking wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

You take out one cartel, two others pop up. It'd be never-ending.

I think The Wire put it best... "this isn't a war, wars end."

Meh, I doubt the drug cartels or trade would survive if people really tried to eliminate both. And once business gets too risky people will stop trying altogether.

So we should spend how much to stop a bunch of plants and chemicals? We've spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan and homies are still blowing themselves up.

Uzique wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I've had more than enough contact with drugs (mainly addicts) tyvm, I was trying to draw a line inbetween the 'good' and the 'bad'. Not all the drugs have the same effect, ecstasy just makes people happy and social, that's all there is to it.

Then there's the drugs that are severely addictive with nasty side-effects and those that have very strong effects such as LSD. Not so safe.

LSD is completely 100% safe. there is nothing at all to evidence LSD having a single negative effect. please find me some literature on the subject to support your claims. where is LSD on this chart, exactly?

I said strong effects. We've already got drunk drivers lets not add hallucinating ones

Shocking wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I've had more than enough contact with drugs (mainly addicts) tyvm, I was trying to draw a line inbetween the 'good' and the 'bad'. Not all the drugs have the same effect, ecstasy just makes people happy and social, that's all there is to it.

Then there's the drugs that are severely addictive with nasty side-effects and those that have very strong effects such as LSD. Not so safe.

LSD is completely 100% safe. there is nothing at all to evidence LSD having a single negative effect. please find me some literature on the subject to support your claims. where is LSD on this chart, exactly?

I said strong effects. We've already got drunk drivers lets not add hallucinating ones

the thing is people on LSD don't want to drive; people drunk are stupid enough to. you're assuming the effects make people want to behave as drunk people do, only with additional impairments (i.e. like a moron). you don't want to and it's pretty silly to imply or suggest any link.