Alcohol, Tobacco - New study suggest worse then pot, ecstasy

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/ ... bacco.html

Thus, the hypocrisy cycle continues. More fuel for the fire.

Ecstasy has more or less spontaneously killed people who've taken a single dose, and it has a stronger propensity for brain damage than most other drugs, also it's very psychologically addictive. I don't like articles like this because it doesn't acknowledge that a large part of the reason some illicit drugs don't seem dangerous is because their use is not as widespread as legal drugs.

someone told me ecstasy make you horny as hell but you cant get a stiffy, whats the point in that? id go crazy if that happend to me

Not true.
In my experience; you can get an erection, but it takes longer to come ( way longer) and when you do there is not much feeling of orgasm. So it gets a bit boring.

I'm sure Revenant would have something to say...
I wonder if he has found a forum for people with Asperger's Syndrome.

i bet more people smoke pot than smoke tobacco.


and with X: you don't die instantly from it..there are two ways you can die....dehydration at the club or from an eventual heart attack. you should only do x a couple times in a month...more than that kills receptors in the brain and permanently scars the heart.

it's actually perfectly logical and safe so long as you actually follow the directions that aren't printed because it's not a legal drug.


if you don't follow the directions on legal drugs....can you die? yeah, thought so.

Then what would you prefer? That we NOT list the drugs in 'least dangerous to MOST dangerous' and continue to ignore everything? People look to law, especially in this case, for an answer. They should get it. I can see why people would take this has 'its not black and white' but then again, suggesting alcohol is safe via labeling it "legal" while lesser drugs are seen as 'dangerous' is worse then anything I can think of. Its horribly misguided information.

Though, I also understand that this report does not list different types of 'ecstasy.' Some are laced with other things. I think the idea was to generalize each and list them so the world has a better standard to look to. Its not to be viewed as "well, I drink now so anything below it is "doable" but I expect people to actually TAKE the lesser drugs, now that the info is out, because they've been misinformed this whole time. This trend will only exist in our generation as its new to us. Future generations, the standard is already set. Its like seatbelt laws, everyone who was there when it became law probably bitched about it but us, who were born after, just do it.

I think the purpose of this study was to reclass 'drugs' which was BADLY needed. Its going to blow peoples minds to understand that the alcohol they chug back is worse then other things they label as 'dangerous.'

Well, it's just one study, and it seems rather subjective. For example, this quote:

...makes it seem like the study was initiated to promote a political agenda. In a scientific study, they had the ambition to draw political conclusions. They gaged the 'danger' of the drug in part by how many people are addicted to it and how many hospitalizations it leads to, rather than the ratio of safe drug users to problem drug users, which would have obviously made a different in the results. The argument here is that since some dangerous drugs are legal we might as well also legalize some slightly less dangerous drugs, with the net result being that the overall dangerosity level is increased. Not a good platform.

From, the Independent (of all places),

(source)

only someone who had never smoked could post such blatent lies and believe it.


"I believe in the written word
if it's on paper it's true
it's all gospel as far as I'm concerned
if somebody wrote it
it's good enough for me

why be so suspicious of the ones
who tried to keep you informed?
they give you the things you need
that's why I believe"

Whats wrong with them pointing out the hypocrisy of society that allows SOME (alcohol) drugs to be "legal" while incriminating those who use 'lesser drugs which are illegal?' I've seen people go to jail for years because they smoked pot but I can drink alcohol with my family. Its closed minded to view it this way.

Do you not think the current system is 100% prejudice? Libertarians would think so. Hell, anyone who understands the definition of a drug should think so. As well, you state the 'overall dangerosity level is increased,' what does this mean? That more problems will start in society if we legalize them? Can people not buy these drugs, now? Legal drugs are abused MORE then legal ones, this has just been studied and proven recently. Any increase in drug use is simply normal and expected after legalization (and isnt restricted to drugs. If apples were illegal then made legal, apple consumption would increase). If you have something illegal then all of a sudden say 'legal,' then YES, more people will use them. Its common sense to understand that fact. If you legalized jay walking, people will do it. Its call 'choice' and I think anyone wanting to prevent that would best be describe as someone who forces others to live their life like their own.

People BORN into that society, with full legalization, will not have gone through with this change. Seat belts, for example. The life they know 'just is.'



Addiction will help dictate how big the problem is going to be. If humanity started, instead of caffeine, taking heroine, the addiction would be worse and the resulting outcome would be worse. I dont see anything wrong with having "addiction" as part of the research as that is a common problem associated with drugs. Some drugs are simply not only more destructive, but also addicting

Noooooooooooooooo s**t.

And anyone who blames pot on their ruined life is just looking for something to blame. They probably love to do it but you dont hear anything ABOUT these people, you just know they all smoked pot. They may all enjoy chicken but we dont pin their life problems on that, do we?

as for Psychosis, why can they not conclude that everyone who smokes pot will become Psycho? Oh thats right, because its not true. Some people who eat chicken can choke, are allergic to it, etc. We dont then state all chicken will make you choke or that you will be covered in hives. No, we suggest some people may be allergic to it and some may choke.

Talk to someone who wants drugs banned, they only see black and white. Someone coughs, everyone who smokes pot automatically has cancer

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't build up a campaign to legalize drug x based off of the claim that it's safer than the legal drug y, without people just assuming you're in it because you use alot of drug x. People - almost exclusively people who smoke weed - say that weed doesn't have any potential to addict. That's BS. You know it as well as anybody else. I'm a libertarian, so I don't have to explain my perspective on the legalization of drugs in general.

No I dont think its addicting, but I know what 'addiction' means. I know its connection to the mind and I take it for what it is: "inability to control ones actions" which is something I dont "suffer" from. I think of it as "lazy mind" syndrome or "lets blame my life on this" syndrome. Meanwhile, lets ignore who 'bought the s**t' or 'plugged it into their mouths.' Lets NOT discuss this on an individual case because "power in numbers" helps support the dangers of pot. Its best we just smear everyone together and keep everything "general."


People who smoke weed ignore the health consequences because they aren't as bad as everyone thinks. They are nothing compared to riding a motorcycle. Ever rode one of those? I have AND crashed and I can tell you the damage done to me (while minor) or the bike is much more dangerous then weed. Weed is merely a bloody 'fart in the wind' when talking about health issues.

Quite frankly, I think society is a bunch of p*****s when it comes to this. People are more content to remain ignorant and pathetic then actually just go on with life. You don't smoke it or do any other drugs, for that matter, then who cares? As long as they don't drive (which everyone assumes you automatically do after smoking), who cares? WHO cares?

If you're libertarian, I assume your stance is full legalization.

I suppose that is why I am not a libertarian. I am a pragmatist. Ultimately, my question is this: Will legalizing something hurt this society more or help it? If I thought that one could actually ban cigarettes, or alcohol and make it stick then honestly I would do it (the constitution certain would certain allow it in most cases). I consider Prohibition to be a noble failure. Alcohol cases brain damage and is responsible for crime and who knows how many people's deaths, both their own and people not connected to themselves. When prohibition was enacted they didn't really seriously attempt to enforce it (there was actually a loophole in the amendment that allowed for possession of alcohol but not sale, similar to the issue of minors smoking), still despite the fact that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption, it's stated goal (the reduction of crime) utterly failed. Today, the idea that the people would fact prohibition of alcohol is ludicrous, and even an attempt at this point is unpractical.

Tobacco usage has plummeted largely due to prohibitive taxes (government studies show that government ads are ineffective). "The War on Drugs" has been widely derided as a failure because it is "winnable." However, the "war" is winnable in the same way that "the war on murder" or the "war on armed robbery" is winnable. No reasoned person would expect to eliminate murder, or robberies completely a society, nor should a person expect to eliminate drug use.

The fact is, there is nothing hypocritical about maintaining Marijuana should not be legalized while alchohol and cigerettes remain legal. In fact, what this position demonstrates is the complicated nature of life. Marijuana is not the same identical substance as alcohol or cigarettes nor do they have the same identical popular appeals in our modern society. Imagine if tomorrow, legislation was passed mandating ten year prison sentences for simple possession for Marijuana. This is a draconian measure for sure, and likely the reaction of the public would be rejection. However can it be seriously believed that it would be as much rejection as in the alcohol or tobacco?

Many people (not near majority in the United States, about half of the population of Canada, a healthy majority of Western Europe) oppose the death penalty. However, if many of these people were asked if the late Saddam Hussein or the perhaps still living Osama Bin Laden should be executed they would say yes. Hypocrisy? Not at all. A difference of circumstance. In one case you oppose the execution of someone of took the life of one, in the other you support it for someone who took the life of many.

This is a more stark example of why one can hold marijuana can be illegal while not calling for the banning of other substances without magically becoming a hypocrite. This is because hypocrisy is not based on the violating another's tenants, but violating one's own.

Yeah, for everything. Which is why I can't support the "weed is the scapegoat of all drugs!" thing. It's counter productive to the whole arguement. Either you're all in, or all out. At least half of the kids I grew up with smoked, and I live in a city where it's so prevalent that they've legalized it on a county level (the city is the county), and I know it's not a harmless drug.