Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+169|1823
a hugely compelling argument.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX
Whats your argument, people do illegal stuff so it should be legal?

People are too dumb to take simple decisions like Brexit, do you think they should be doing chemistry experiments in their heads?
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,749|5143|USA

What, experiments like alcohol and tobacco? What if you're where something's legal? Does it then cease to be a chemistry experiment in your head? Do you suppose that some of this nonsense is in fact moralist driven in regard to some drugs?
uziq
Member
+169|1823
the point of the article was that people aren’t ‘experimenting’ with their own heads. they know what they are taking. and, evidently unlike you, they are taking an educated choice about what to expose their bodies to. have fun continuing to deride the ‘careless’ experimentalists drinking that neurotoxic, cell-destroying poison. you moron.

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)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX
Right-on, except I'm vegetarian and nothing I do is illegal.

And as we've discussed, MDMA is a looooong way from being the harmless sherbet you say it is - hence its illegal.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1823
MDMA is not illegal because it's harmful. most drugs are not illegal because of their harm. that's been the entire POINT of, you know, the medical and scientific community giving legal advice and saying that a whole host of drugs should be decriminalised -- both for their research potential, and to focus the law on areas of public harm.

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.
https://twitter.com/DrSessa/status/1175720822704676864

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)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the medical and scientific community giving legal advice and saying that a whole host of drugs should be decriminalised
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.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+169|1823
there is an entire research group at bristol university for the same purpose.

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)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX
Once again, therapeutic use does not justify recreational use.

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.

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.

Regulation
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.
So not really sure what your point is.

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)

Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX
Anyway, summer is coming, time to switch from some of the heavier James Squire ales to some of the lighter Cooper's ones, although I should put a bit more effort into sourcing pilseners I think.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,749|5143|USA

Really it's like you understand on some level how absurd this all is. All that stuff against drugs, then back to wryly talking up booze.
uziq
Member
+169|1823
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.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,749|5143|USA

I know old-timer who likes to tell stories. One of his favorites is how he bragged to his neurologist about how he stopped drinking, and that he viewed it as a poison. Neurologist apparently supportive of this decision, says it may help check the growth of memory loss. He still drank on the sly, hard stuff especially, while boasting about how he's on the wagon and won't even touch beer. Nobody was fooled. This went on for over a year. Now he drinks beer openly again, but still drinks the hard stuff out of the bottle on the sly. Won't use shot glasses for whatever reason. Self-image issues? Harder to hide evidence? Who knows. Gets angry, and politically frustrated, and apparently generally hard to be around while under the influence. And nobody really wants to deal with it or intervene because then it becomes a long game guilt trip about how he's the villain or something.

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."
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,619|4477|eXtreme to the maX

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.
Nope, never said that either.

"because it's illegal"
They're illegal because they're excessively harmful.

certain drugs are becoming legalized
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.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,749|5143|USA

Alcohol is excessively harmful, and yet here you are curating brands while cherry picking other drugs to rail against. The disconnect stands out like a black eye.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard