Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of her (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

Downsides:

1. Makes it easier to access drugs (look what happens when the government "regulates" and "legalises" alcohol and tobacco)

Because ecstasy is so ridiculously difficult to obtain now.

Normalises drug taking behaviours, leading to greater chances of taking hard drugs

In normal circles, there isn't really any stigma attached to normal moderate use now, as there shouldn't be. There is less stigma attached to ecstasy use than to marijuana use in my observation. Everyone has friends using it and it's no big deal. Current enforcement is widely seen as a joke among young people.

It is normal and widespread and you're living in a fantasy if you think further government regulation will do anything to change this, because it certainly hasn't made one iota of difference in the whole history of prohibition.

Prohibition sucks. It ruins the lives of people indulging in a bit of personally harmless and victimless fun, and it's a proven failure at doing anything about safe usage rates.

Also the gateway hypothesis is bullshit. If anything, ecstasy being legal would mean you would never have contact with those illegal distributors, meaning most people are never even be offered anything harder. It would destroy, not create markets. Most drug users are educated consumers, cynically evaluating the relative benefits of alternative products and they won't switch to using smack, just because smack is the only drug now being pushed by illegal vendors

Destroys lives

How does it ruin lives? Rigourous scientific evidence please.

Will divert dealers' attention from currently lucrative industries to other dangerous activities, i.e. people will look for other ways to make quick and easy money

I'd say it would destroy rather than create markets.

Edit: While I see your utilitarian logic in advocating for legalization, my view is that taking and supplying drugs is inherently wrong such that the end doesn't justify the means.

You haven't justified why the means are bad imo.

As an example, I'm sure most people would be horrified at the idea of killing a healthy person and distributing their organs in order to save 10 lives (although the likes of Singer might argue otherwise).

Singer defines personhood diferently from how you would. Certainly Singer would only ever argue anything like that about a person upon whom it would be a far stretch to say they were a healthy, fully functional human being capable of enjoying anything like a normal life.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

Downsides:

1. Makes it easier to access drugs (look what happens when the government "regulates" and "legalises" alcohol and tobacco)
2. Normalises drug taking behaviours, leading to greater chances of taking hard drugs

I don't know what rock you have been living under but it is already really easy to obtain and no one I know considers taking it to be that big a deal... and don't underestimate the intelligence of people who take drugs. Everyone I know who takes pills is strongly against harder drugs because they know how bad they are.

 

[Russdog]

ur all just a bunch of pingaheadz

 

[Trefoil]

thos pills have dem comedowns which make no giggle

Eccy is pretty shit, imho. It's like taking my dexies on a bad day - sends me to sleep.

Gimme weed any day.

 

[Graney]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

I was trying to buy some weed last night but it was after midnight so i had to wait 10 minutes. He only sold me a stick because he reckons it looked like I'd had too much.

 

[Russdog]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

I was trying to buy some weed last night but it was after midnight so i had to wait 10 minutes. He only sold me a stick because he reckons it looked like I'd had too much.

roflmao

 

[inasero]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

Because ecstasy is so ridiculously difficult to obtain now.

Maybe in the social circles we frequent but heavens knows we don't need to make it any easier for curious teenagers to access.

In normal [my emphasis] circles, there isn't really any stigma attached to normal moderate use now, as there shouldn't be. There is less stigma attached to ecstasy use than to marijuana use in my observation. Everyone has friends using it and it's no big deal. Current enforcement is [/u]widely[/u] seen as a joke among young people.

Please kindly provide evidence to support your claims. I don't know how "normal" your circles are but most people I know (and I daresay the general population) would frown on illegal drug taking behaviour, and for good reason. NOBODY that I know of uses Ecstasy. Plus, you can't argue the case of marijuana to somehow justify ecstasy use as they're both illegal and stuff up lives.

It is normal and widespread and you're living in a fantasy if you think further government regulation will do anything to change this, because it certainly hasn't made one iota of difference in the whole history of prohibition.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one advocating for government legalisation and regulation of ecstasy?

legalise and regulate the production of ecstasy and this would never happen

If you're talking about "regulation" in the sense of restriction, then I don't know the stats and maybe you're right in saying it won't make the slightest difference, but does that then mean we should do away with the rules? It would be a dangerous society indeed if we legislated on the basis of popular opinion rather than what we know to be right.

Prohibition sucks. It ruins the lives of people indulging in a bit of personally harmless and victimless fun, and it's a proven failure at doing anything about safe usage rates.

In the Netherlands as you know, they legalised cannabis and just look at the association with the incidence of psychotic illnesses. Drugs are bad. Drugs ruin lives. There's a good reason they remain illegal. I don't want to sound like I'm judging others from my moral high horse, and I can only say this because I've personally seen (all too often) the effect that it has on peoples' lives (and if you're honest with yourself I'm sure you'll agree). The answer is to invest more money in prevention and awareness to send the message that it is not acceptable to take illegal drugs. Zero tolerance.

Also the gateway hypothesis is bullshit. If anything, ecstasy being legal would mean you would never have contact with those illegal distributors, meaning most people are never even be offered anything harder. It would destroy, not create markets. Most drug users are educated consumers, cynically evaluating the relative benefits of alternative products and they won't switch to using smack, just because smack is the only drug now being pushed by illegal vendors

The gateway hypothesis doesn't distinguish between the reasons users transition to 'harder' drugs. Many people will make the transition for reasons other than being offered drugs by their dealers, such as peer pressure and curiosity. It would be far preferable to legislate so that people don't find themselves in that situation to begin with.

How does it ruin lives? Rigourous scientific evidence please.

You've got to be kidding me, next you'll be asking me to provide 'rigorous scientific evidence' for the association between smoking and lung cancer? Please.

I'd say it would destroy rather than create markets.

Yes it will destroy illegal drug production and distribution rackets, hence forcing criminals into other lucrative industries.

You haven't justified why the means are bad imo.

I've shown you why I believe the end result is undesirable (regardless of government regulation), which is justification for why I don't support the means.

Singer defines personhood diferently from how you would. Certainly Singer would only ever argue anything like that about a person upon whom it would be a far stretch to say they were a healthy, fully functional human being capable of enjoying anything like a normal life.

Singer actually says it would be justified to take organs from newborns with congenital abnormalities as they are not conscious and therefore not human. However that's not the issue at stake as I was using it to illustrate a point.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

Edit: While I see your utilitarian logic in advocating for legalization, my view is that taking and supplying drugs is inherently wrong such that the end doesn't justify the means.

The fuck? So saving lives (eg, so noone OD's on PMA thinking it was ecstasy) is less important than your own ideology and belief?

Maybe in the social circles we frequent but heavens knows we don't need to make it any easier for curious teenagers to access.

True that.

Please kindly provide evidence to support your claims. I don't know how "normal" your circles are but most people I know (and I daresay the general population) would frown on illegal drug taking behaviour, and for good reason. NOBODY that I know of uses Ecstasy. Plus, you can't argue the case of marijuana to somehow justify ecstasy use as they're both illegal and stuff up lives.

Marijuana doesn't stuff up lives. If it has it would have been an outlier. A big outlier. Be sensible mang. Ecstasy stuffing up lives? I've never heard of it, but I'd say it's the same as marijuana, in that it's mostly pretty damn safe. So say the stats anyway.

There's a lot of legal stuff that's a lot more harmful than either of these drugs, and there's little talk about banning them. I'd like to think that we can enjoy our lives with risks here and there knowing the risks rather than sanitising everything everywhere and live without risk, but with no joy, you know? Do you agree that we ought to be able to engage in activities with risk that increase our personal pleasure, so long as we know the risks involved? Where do you draw the line? (I'm genuinely interested to know)

As for ecstasy use, I know a couple of use it semi-regularly. Ask everyone here and I'm sure they'd say the same.

If you're talking about "regulation" in the sense of restriction, then I don't know the stats and maybe you're right in saying it won't make the slightest difference, but does that then mean we should do away with the rules? It would be a dangerous society indeed if we legislated on the basis of popular opinion rather than what we know to be right.

ok cool but what's your opinion on distributing "clean" mdma like alcohol or cigarettes are distributed (or in a pharmacy, iuno)?

In the Netherlands as you know, they legalised cannabis and just look at the association with the incidence of psychotic illnesses. Drugs are bad. Drugs ruin lives. There's a good reason they remain illegal. I don't want to sound like I'm judging others from my moral high horse, and I can only say this because I've personally seen (all too often) the effect that it has on peoples' lives (and if you're honest with yourself I'm sure you'll agree). The answer is to invest more money in prevention and awareness to send the message that it is not acceptable to take illegal drugs. Zero tolerance.

heroin destroys lives
methamphetamine destroys lives

ecstasy and marijuana do not, en masse, destroy lives. be reasonable. zero tolerance if the circumstances warrant it. blanket bans on all drugs is absurd. judge each drug individually

You've got to be kidding me, next you'll be asking me to provide 'rigorous scientific evidence' for the association between smoking and lung cancer? Please.

The books I've read (eh, there was a good one with tables and stats that I mentioned in the 'legalise all drugs' thread, if you want to read it) state that ecstasy really is pretty damn safe, if it's mdma. you can od, yeah, but that's not a large risk. like, it's pretty much not gonna happen.

summary of ben nebuchanezzar's views: regulate drugs case by case. ecstasy is pretty harmless. have it legalised and distributed in a controlled environment at a fixed price.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

NOBODY that I know of uses Ecstasy.

I can think of 25 people that I know take it.

 

[incentivation]

Yes... MDMA is less harmful, both short and long term than alcohol. The reason these drugs are illegal is because of the effect of these substances on the individual.

MDMA, Cocaine, GHB, Ketamine, Cannabis, LSD etc all have the potential to have a detrimental impact upon the pysychological and physical well being of the individual. This idea that the regulation is merely because of the interests of the government is absurd.

The most harmful drug in society is alcohol, This is not directly due to the actual impact of the substance itself, but because of the prevalence of use. Alcohol is the perfect example of how regulating the sale is possible, however regulating intake is not. The latter is the concern particularly with respect to the above substances.

Provide me with a scientific paper declaring the above substances to be less harmful than alcohol, in proportionate doses and with respect to short and long term use, not some meaningless graph.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Go team go! Everyone get in! :rofl:

MDMA, Cocaine, GHB, Ketamine, Cannabis, LSD etc all have the potential to have a detrimental impact upon the pysychological and physical well being of the individual. This idea that the regulation is merely because of the interests of the government is absurd.

are you talking about long term or short term impacts?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

heroin is pretty sweet though

 

[incentivation]

*facepalm*

How much science have you actually done?

Let me google that for you

EDIT: Money Shot

I don't profess to be a scientist. That study means nothing to me, particularly as I can't access it. Nonetheless my argument is not wholly scientific..

My main point was about regulation. You can regulate sale, however you cannot control addiction and misuse. The Kings Cross injecting room is testament to this.

We already have too many legal substances which are conducive to both. Society does not need more substances which have the propensity to be misused, abused and cause further unnecessary strain upon social order and health systems.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

You can regulate sale, however you cannot control addiction and misuse.

You can control the nasties in the ingredients that kill people though. ^_^

 

[incentivation]

You can control the nasties in the ingredients that kill people though. ^_^

Whilst there are additional nasties, the active ingredient is where the main harm lies. These drugs, alcohol and tobacco included, are all harmful even in their purest form.

 

[katie tully]

you're all gay, seriously fucking fuck off and just appreciate this story for what it was.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

do you think that humans aren't entitled to take risks for personal pleasure and so on with their own lives so long as it doesn't impact on others (why i don't support legalising methamphetamine, for instance)?

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

you're all gay, seriously fucking fuck off and just appreciate this story for what it was.

The drug debate here takes a back seat only to the Israel/Palestine conflict!

 

[Graney]

Re: Drugs kill daughter, parents blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of he

Whilst there are additional nasties, the active ingredient is where the main harm lies.

Thanks Bronwyn Bishop, but MDMA is a hell of a lot safer than PMA

 

[Russdog]

this argument's sort of all over the place. ecstasy will never be legalized. and shouldn't be. it's a fucking gay drug.