Thread: Let us beat a dead horse(drugs stuff)

A few weeks ago in the UK, a scientist enlisted by the government as an adviser on drugs policy likened the use of ecstacy to horse riding, in terms of the harm brought about from it. Jackie Smith ordered him to apologize and decided to ignore his advice and reccomendation that ecstacy be reduced from a class A drug to a class B.

How fucking dare she. He has came to this opinion via scientific research, supported by objective evidence and facts. Yet she refuses to look at it because it doesn't fit with her views on drugs, and indeed the views of the country.

E hit the news big time in the UK during the nineties when a young woman called Leah Betts (I think it was) took the drug and eventually died. There was mass paranoia and a total moral panic within the media, which reported on and showed E to be a very dangerous drug. And most citizens of the UK tend to share this view, as they based their opinions on information given from the government and media.

However it turns out that ecstacy is actually a rather safe drug. The girl who's death sparked the outrage didn't die due to the drug alone, it was her water intake that eventually led to her death, as I am sure some of you will know, consuming large quantities of water over a short time is potentially fatal. It is likely the drug causing her to feel dehydrated and her subsequent water binge that killed her, but neither alone.

This however was never reported en mass. Around 30 people die each year in the UK in relation to ecstacy use. 30. Take some time to take that in. Very few people who take it actually die. The fact of the matter is, the government message on this drug and indeed others is grossly misinformed and hence the UK populations views on the issue are often misguided and factually ignorant.

The whole "are drugs bad?" debate has been had on here, so I want to switch the focus slightly. Should governments rely soley on scientific evidence to form drugs policy? And should the media use scientific evidence as the basis for reporting on drugs?

I believe the answer is yes. Many will have been shocked at what the advisor said regarding ecstacy, however his opinion was born out of research and facts, you simply cannot write off such opinions for the sole reason that it is supported by actual evidence. Surely it is the responsibility of the state when informing the public to the dangers of X and Y that the information is based on solid scientific evidence. Instead we have had a long history of disinformation, or highly selective information regarding drugs.

I don't want this to descend into a pro drug v anti drug debacle, the focus of this thread is on the reporting of drug information and the integrity of that information. When I heard that bitch write off that scientists opinions I was disgusted. I don't take the drug and likely never will, that isn't the issue though, she thinks her opnion (which almost certainly isn't based on any objective evidence) somehow supercedes opinions born out of research and facts and I think that this is irresponsible for an elected officlal.

Drugs are something most politicians don't want people to use, so they disinform or only paint a part of the picture. However people still use them. Surely some of you must agree that if people are still going to insist on using drugs, they should be informed upon the whole picture, not disinformation, fear mongering and distraction. I believe a failure to do this is irresponsible. This isn't the 50's. Government attitudes need to be able to change and adapt to new ways of thinking and if new opinions which disagree with current opinions can be demonstrated to have some factual, scientific bases then they must be considered with the same regard as others.

I have always left myself open to the possibility of trying E and that is because of how safe it is. I haven't taken it yet and if I did I would want it to be molly and not E. People would be surprised how safe most drugs when taken in moderation.

I was always under the impression that E in moderation wasn't terrible for you, as long as you took the time to recharge your seratonin. But it was how you acted and perceived your body that could lead to you fucking up and hurting yourself while you were on it.
I could be wrong?

Originally Posted by Drunkmike

The thing is, you neve know exactly whats in your E pill. Heroin, meth, crack, and a variety of industrial cleaning products are just a few of the common ingredients found in some pills. Where there is uncertainty there is danger.

You're kidding right? Who the fuck would put heroin or coke in an E pill?

Aside from the fact you can just use a testing kit if you're so inclined.

Originally Posted by Crysack

You're kidding right? Who the fuck would put heroin or coke in an E pill?

Aside from the fact you can just use a testing kit if you're so inclined.

You're kidding right? People cut e with heroin and meth all the time. Not coke, because that shit is expensive. Also no one uses a testing kit, you absolutely do not know for sure what you are getting in your pills the vast majority of the time.

-rep for being a fucking dumbass.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

You're kidding right? People cut e with heroin and meth all the time. Not coke, because that shit is expensive. Also no one uses a testing kit, you absolutely do not know for sure what you are getting in your pills the vast majority of the time.

-rep for being a fucking dumbass.

lies

my friend and I used a testing kit quite regularly on all the e that we grabbed

although it doesn't tell you everything that's in the pill, just what the main ingredient is

also i don't know about heroin, but i wouldn't put it past them. I've had plenty of pills that were mixed with meth, and the general consensus on the filler is that it's probably ajax

Originally Posted by coqauvin

lies

The only thing I said that could possibly be argued is that most people don't use a testing kit(which apparently you did). Just because you used one though doesn't mean most people do and from my experience most people don't use one. It is cut with heroin and meth though(meth being the most common).

ok, people who are just looking to get rid of it don't test it. fools who will buy random pills at events/off the streets don't test it

i didn't fall into either category, and neither did my friend.

also i am sure e has been cut with coke before - you are bound to find people who make it who want to experiment with new things

Originally Posted by coqauvin

ok, people who are just looking to get rid of it don't test it. fools who will buy random pills at events/off the streets don't test it

i didn't fall into either category, and neither did my friend.

also i am sure e has been cut with coke before - you are bound to find people who make it who want to experiment with new things

The only people who test pills are people who are either buying in bulk to see how good their product is or people who care about what they are consuming. With something like E testing it is the smart thing to do.

Do you mean people have done coke with e? Because well yea many people have. However, a distributor never cuts e with coke, its too expensive and isn't worth putting into e.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

The only people who test pills are people who are either buying in bulk to see how good their product is or people who care about what they are consuming. With something like E testing it is the smart thing to do.

Do you mean people have done coke with e? Because well yea many people have. However, a distributor never cuts e with coke, its too expensive and isn't worth putting into e.

You know a lot about controlled substances.

I am pretty sure that they would likely do it anyways. I mean I am grounding my argument on the point that it is something relatively plausible, if not optimal or particularly likely, but I'm sure it's been done before. I would assume it's had no great effect, otherwise it would be more prevalent.

I've seen e that was mdma and caffeine, but i'm sure at least 50% of that pill was probably still ajax. Coke is pricier, but i wouldn't rule it out.

Originally Posted by Killuminati

The only drugs I do on any kind of regular basis are weed and alcohol. I have dabbled in other kinds of drugs like shrooms, dmt, dxm, oxy and just recently I tried a heroin/ketamine mix. I would try mdma and acid as well but I think that will be the extent of my drug experimentation. Drug use is all about moderation.

Out of curiosity, what drugs would you never consider and why?

Originally Posted by Sion

Out of curiosity, what drugs would you never consider and why?

Let me answer 1 for him: Datura

Originally Posted by Sion

Out of curiosity, what drugs would you never consider and why?

Originally Posted by ozzy

Let me answer 1 for him: Datura

Lol yes that is one of them. It is pretty easy to figure out why I won't do datura, the main reason being that most people who try it end up in the hospital. Other than that I would never want to be fucked up on datura because it is fucking crazy.

As for regular drugs that I won't do, I won't do coke because I think it is just a fucking stupid drug to do. The high lasts like 15 minutes and is followed by a shitty come down, it is always cut to shit no matter how good you think it is, it's expensive and pretty addictive. I won't do crack either because it's even more addicting and I see way too many crackheads walking around. Meth I won't do because I won't shoot anything and I don't want to snort or smoke meth. Also it's addicting and I'm not a fan of stimulants let alone the mother of all stimulants.

Those as well as a whole variety of prescription drugs that I won't do just because I don't like them or that kind of high. I have tripped on shrooms a couple of times but I don't really want to do them anymore. I will do them one more time with my friends just to be a good sport but probably not again. Acid I haven't tried but I want to, but again I can't see myself doing that more than a couple times. Opiates are the only thing I really have to be careful with. After I tried perc 5's I ended up having a roxi connect and they got me into opiates. Those are the only drugs I have to really limit myself with because I like them way too much. I went on a 5 or 6 day binge over the summer and felt some withdrawal the day after. After that I didn't let myself take them more than 2 days in a row and I usually have a couple month break between doing any.

Well there's our difference. I consider myself more of a stimulant person. I love Adderall more than pot, but I never try to seek it out because I know it would be too easy for me to get addicted to it. Then again I haven't tried any opiates.

The E around here is dirty. And I do not know a single person who has ever bought a testing kit. I honestly cant beleive people are saying its a safe drug. I am a drug guy, and I know that E is one of those things that you dont really know what you are getting. I stick to weed and pharmaceuticals.

Originally Posted by gismo

Yet she refuses to look at it because it doesn't fit with her views on drugs, and indeed the views of the country.

democracy hooray

Originally Posted by Crysack

I said nothing about meth. As for heroin, around here you'd have to be a complete moron to cut E with heroin given the extortionate prices it's sold for.

In fact, I can't recall a pill report EVER mentioning heroin in an E pill. I don't know much about heroin, however I would assume that heroin in such a small dose, taken orally, would have no noticeable effect. I'm sure there are a few pills around with H in them, but I would suggest that such an occurrence would be reasonably rare.

Like I said it's more commonly cut with meth but it is also cut with heroin because a lot of people like the effects. Haha and you think a small dose of heroin won't have an effect? I bought .1 grams of heroin mixed with ketamine for $10 bucks and that fucked me up pretty good. I have a tolerance to opiates too, one of my roomates puked everywhere after doing that. Crysack you referenced price for heroin around you. Did you ever think that the prices might be different different places? Heroin can get pretty damn cheap depending on where you are.

Anonymous D, MDMA is safe and as long as E isn't cut with something nasty it is safe. The fact that it is dirty on the street just shows what prohibition does to drugs. Look at alcohol in prohibition, people did some dangerous shit and people died doing it. If drugs were regulated that wouldn't be a problem. Point being it's not the E that does that it's the other shit people put in there. So yea you do have to be careful buying E now (which is why I would get pure MDMA and not E), but the drug itself is fine.

I once beat a dead horse... Didn't get alot else done that day.

Here's the deal: form your own beliefs about drugs. If, based on what you conclude, you choose to use them, then use them. If you choose not to, don't. Fucking pointless argument.

if only we all possessed such simplistic clarity!

Smoke weed everyday.

I don't understand...Kal El you do not smoke pot and you are still stupid. What's the deal with that? And please don't tell me you got hit by a bus for the hundredth time.

So Kal El further proves that he is an idiot, then randomly changes the subject to the fact that he has to cry like a little bitch because someone wants to debate a bill being passed. Ok.

Originally Posted by Cryptic

Here's the deal: form your own beliefs about drugs. If, based on what you conclude, you choose to use them, then use them. If you choose not to, don't. Fucking pointless argument.

I agree with you but who is arguing that? To quote the op

Originally Posted by gismo

The whole "are drugs bad?" debate has been had on here, so I want to switch the focus slightly. Should governments rely soley on scientific evidence to form drugs policy? And should the media use scientific evidence as the basis for reporting on drugs?

This scientist did tests on the effects of E and found it to be relatively harmless. His unbiased scientific opinion showed that. The response he got though is what is the issue.

Originally Posted by gismo

Jackie Smith ordered him to apologize and decided to ignore his advice and reccomendation that ecstacy be reduced from a class A drug to a class B.