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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 gwahir

democracy hooray

Just because the majority hold a view doesn't make that view right, you know this and I am surprised to see you make a comment like that. The point is that scientific research, factual evidence is ignored for misguided, populist opinion, and that I feel the government should have a duty to conduct itself in a better manner and that it, along with society has to move with the times.

We let science takes us on so many journey's of progress, yet somethings we won't, for somehow our own uninformed and sometimes ignorant opinion carries more weight than actual facts. It isn't that I don't know why she ignored him, that is plain for all to see, that doesn't make it right and I think it is fair game for debate.

There has been such a push to remove this attitude from so many aspects of our lifes and I really do think it is time to go to the final frontier so to speak, that being vice and this is a prime example of a government not willing to do so, not even willing to entertain the debate, and there is much to be had. And all the while people are still scoring drugs, getting wasted, going to prison because they got high on illegal substances, this is the 21st century, why can we not be adults and look at the facts and use them to form opinions, instead of outdated propoganda designed to misinform and misdirect.

Originally Posted by gismo

Just because the majority hold a view doesn't make that view right, you know this and I am surprised to see you make a comment like that.

i was being ironic.

Originally Posted by gwahir

i was being ironic.

Should have added something to make it more obvious

As for its harm to society, has there even been any research into this? It is always going to be difficult though to justify banning it because of feared harm to society when alcohol is legal. However with alcohol we tolerate it and instead encourage responsible consumption. Is there any reason to assume we cannot do this with any other substances?

Even stil, that strictly isn't the point. The point is that the government chose to ignore scientific fact. The scientist claimed that E didn't merit its class A status, most of the fear about E was brought around by media fear mongering and alot of public opinion on the drug is misinformed. He didn't ask the government to say it was ok to use it, or indeed encourage it, he asked them to recognise the reality of the situation, that E isn't as serious a drug as they has presumed and that it should therefore be downgraded.

I don't feel this would have been political suicide, or the only option open to the government. Sure, there would have been critics, however the government would have had the huge advantage of being right, having factual evidence to back up their claims, all it would have taken was some spin to make sure it didn't get taken out of context as a promotion of drugs, but rather government thinking and moving with the times and with the facts.

Armed with the facts they could easily win any debate, since alot of the opposition is based on misinformation and populist fear, or a very selective view point in which people do not apply their worries to other substances, namely alcohol. IT would have been a good chance to confront people with facts and make people think, whilst many might not like it, it remains the same to me that it is better that people be informed. If you are going to restrict freedom, villify and turn people into criminals, you need a better reason than misinformed populist fear mongering. You need facts.

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.

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.

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 feel this bears repeating: sentiments like these are boring, stupid, useless and stupid. They have less than no argumentative value and anyone who uses them is an arrogant cunt who thinks their pathetic unsubtle clarity is better than everyone else's considered, passionate debate.

Furthermore, every sentence in that post (there are four) contains an assumption which you are taking completely for granted.

Originally Posted by gwahir

I feel this bears repeating: sentiments like these are boring, stupid, useless and stupid. They have less than no argumentative value and anyone who uses them is an arrogant cunt who thinks their pathetic unsubtle clarity is better than everyone else's considered, passionate debate.

Furthermore, every sentence in that post (there are four) contains an assumption which you are taking completely for granted.

The OP?

Originally Posted by benzss

The OP?

the one i quoted

Originally Posted by gwahir

the one i quoted

So was your post ironic or something?

Yours was worse than his

Originally Posted by gwahir

I feel this bears repeating: sentiments like these are boring, stupid, useless and stupid. They have less than no argumentative value and anyone who uses them is an arrogant cunt who thinks their pathetic unsubtle clarity is better than everyone else's considered, passionate debate.

Furthermore, every sentence in that post (there are four) contains an assumption which you are taking completely for granted.

That post was worse then the one you were quoting.
if you meant it to be that way, then i apologise for missing the joke, but it seems serious to me, which is the sad part.

North America and Europe are rife with drug propaganda that people take at face value. The real reasons that many drugs are illegal are mind boggling, when you consider the legality of tobacco, alcohol and the predominance of Big Pharmaceutical.

I found a very interesting video series on the internet that I found highly informative about drugs and society. It blew my mind.

Check it out here: