Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ecstasy
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2
gingergenius
For those of you who don't know, Ecstasy is a drug most commonly taken as a pill, which gives users an extreme sense of euphoria, an accentuation of the senses, a feeling of togetherness and generally makes the user incredibly happy. It is a Class A drug, along with Heroin, Cocaine etc.

In the 1970s and early 80s, Ecstasy (MDMA) was legal across the USA. It had been developed as a drug to help people with post traumatic stress disorder revisit their trauma in a more positive light. At the time just before ecstasy was made illegal, it was hugely popular with young dancers, especially in the Dallas area. At the time you could buy the pill and be sure that it was 100% ecstasy.

Then, the US government got involved. They saw that this was a drug which was used by millions of Americans. "Of course", they said, "all drugs are bad". The Reagan administration launched a 'Just Say No' campaign. This was based on the idea that you should live your life as 'God' wanted you to. A government sponsored scientific study came up with the conclusion that one dose of the drug could cause permanent brain damage and parkinson's disease.

In the period following the ban, Ecstasy became less popular in the USA due to lack of availability. It was in Europe that it took off. However, the Ecstasy in Europe was criminalised. With criminal gangs in control, they were keen to make as much profit as possible. So Ecstasy pills became diluted, depurified and therefore more volatile. In the UK, Ecstasy became a huge part of an underground rave scene and usage continued to increase. At the same time, the New Scientist, an independent British journal, published a study into the effects of Ecstasy contradicting the American government-sponsored science. Old, middle aged ex-users agreed with this, with there being apparently no effect on them or their friends no matter how many times they used the drug.

So, we have a drug which is unlike any other. The effects of the drug are wholly positive - unlike with alcohol or weed or anything else there is no chance of a user regretting their experience. I'd say 99% of people who've taken Ecstasy will say it was one of the best feelings of their life. Unlike Heroin and Cocaine, Ecstasy is not physically addictive. Unlike alcohol, it's effects do not encourage anti-social behaviour; in fact they are quite the opposite. There is no conclusive scientific evidence suggesting that Ecstasy has any serious long-term affect on the brain, particularly compared to any ordinary prescription drug. The criminalisation of Ecstasy 1) increases the likelihood of a pill containing other dangerous substances, and 2) is repressive without reason.

Why is it not legal?
Hardcore Ottoman
Source?
psychÝ
The is little conclusive evidence that most illegal drugs have a long term effect because no long term studies have been done, doesn't mean it is the case.
gingergenius
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 21 2008, 10:08 PM) [snapback]1417697[/snapback]
Source?



Part 1 of a documentary by Peter Jennings

@ Psycho, there's a lot of evidence. For starters the fact that everyone knows the life-ruining qualities of heroin, coke, meth, alcohol etc. Anyway the issue here is how a drug no more harmless than any ordinary prescription drug was suddenly made illegal to the same level that heroin is, and the subsequent myths that float around, encouraged by the media, about how bad Ecstasy is. Most parents probably wouldn't care too much if they found their child smoked a bit of weed from time to time. Ecstasy? They'd flip out. This is completely down to the Reagan government.
Mekstizzle
I've always wanted to try that. I dunno, sounds dangerous though. Not that I'm particularly succeptable to anything. I've been casually smoking ciggarettes for fuck knows how long and I'm still not addicted, and weed too, and I keep getting more and more resistant to alcohol (hurts my wallet sad.gif)

The fact that it's grouped in as fucking class A makes me think twice. No way will I be doing fucked up shit like Heroine or Crack...
Naphthyloxy
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 21 2008, 07:53 PM) [snapback]1417859[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 21 2008, 10:08 PM) [snapback]1417697[/snapback]
Source?



Part 1 of a documentary by Peter Jennings

@ Psycho, there's a lot of evidence. For starters the fact that everyone knows the life-ruining qualities of heroin, coke, meth, alcohol etc. Anyway the issue here is how a drug no more harmless than any ordinary prescription drug was suddenly made illegal to the same level that heroin is, and the subsequent myths that float around, encouraged by the media, about how bad Ecstasy is. Most parents probably wouldn't care too much if they found their child smoked a bit of weed from time to time. Ecstasy? They'd flip out. This is completely down to the Reagan government.


It has been dated farther into general history than that of the Reagan years. Psychedelics are poison... Poison in the sense of altering ones own perception of reality or what has been classified as so. The only reason that the accessibility has gone down over the past years is, of course due to the Regan years most recently and the increase of society and social idiosyncrasy. Cultures that use it for religious purpose do it for just that reason. Instead of doing the drug to reach a relaxed state of mind all because of the shittiness of society and lack of communication thereof, they do it for guidance, cleansing, manhood, and reassurance of faith in their community, tribe, et cetera. Obviously, if you are around it more, you will not be concerned with a specific mood before consumption(foreign tribes), but for those that try it for the first time, especially when manufacture, there is always a higher chance of a "bad trip" and poisoning, unless you know the right people and or already know that no matter which psychedelic you use, it will scientifically be poisoning you. drool.gif

If this is a concering issue than the fact that everthing is a drug should be questioned to the extent in which we are speaking.

Mekingtons, trust me, "class A" is just something to strike fear. Alcohol is a poison and yet it hurts your wallet? Anything can kill you if used all of the time, whether it be literally or metaphorically.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
^ I like how "reality" has to be classified as so these days wink.gif
Skinny†
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 06:59 AM) [snapback]1417690[/snapback]
Why is it not legal?


The adds against ecstacy on TV show a guy who fucked up his teeth by taking ecstacy. What they don't tell you is that that was most likely caused by ecstacy being made in unsafe conditions for the manufacture of pills or the makers of the pills put in (unsafe) cheaper ingredience when making the pills.

If they decreased the effects to give it a less powerful high it could be made legal. There wouldn't be any real problem with tax that I can think of.
Ophis-
When a drug doesn't have any facts that it will not have a long term effect, its usally because it doesn't have any evidance to suggest it does not have a long term effect also.. and tbh, I'd rather pretend it DID have an effect then take it loads and find out afterwards.

E's arn't my fav drug in the world... I can't Mix for shit when i've taken them, i need to concentrate. I can rave without.
Kryton
Saw an Oprah special ages ago about people who take loads of E's every week and they had a scan of a chicks brain who had been doing like 20-40 E's a week for a year. She had holes in her brain the size of golf balls. ohmy.gif
Stopped me from takin E's right then.
Plus the comedown the next day is always a bitch
gingergenius
QUOTE(Kryton @ Apr 22 2008, 12:00 PM) [snapback]1418150[/snapback]
Saw an Oprah special ages ago about people who take loads of E's every week and they had a scan of a chicks brain who had been doing like 20-40 E's a week for a year. She had holes in her brain the size of golf balls. ohmy.gif
Stopped me from takin E's right then.
Plus the comedown the next day is always a bitch


well duh. That's drug abuse. But that would happen if you took a raw amount of a prescription pill as well.

Normal ravers take a few pills on a night out and only the most hardcore go every weekend. That is considerably less than 20-40; a stupid reason to stop doing them..
Bain
All I know is most people who told me they have tried it hated it, and it dehydrates you till you are in horrible shape, and that it is not worth the risk.

Im not saying my stance on its legalization, but I heard its shitty.
Naphthyloxy
QUOTE(Devil Dog @ Apr 22 2008, 12:20 PM) [snapback]1418321[/snapback]
All I know is most people who told me they have tried it hated it, and it dehydrates you till you are in horrible shape, and that it is not worth the risk.

Im not saying my stance on its legalization, but I heard its shitty.


They probably had an awful time because they did not hydrate themselves.
gingergenius
QUOTE(Devil Dog @ Apr 22 2008, 05:20 PM) [snapback]1418321[/snapback]
All I know is most people who told me they have tried it hated it, and it dehydrates you till you are in horrible shape, and that it is not worth the risk.

Im not saying my stance on its legalization, but I heard its shitty.


fairdos, I've never met anyone who hasn't liked it. Only my best friend did it once and decided never to again, not cos he didn't like it but cos he doesn't want to do drugs... but we're going Ibiza this summer so maybe he'll reconsider.. I've done it about 20 times and loved it every time.

If you drink too much water then what happens to me is you chuck it up... basically it's a really really watery puke, doesn't make your breath smell after and doesn't make you feel ill. It's basically like a hiccup where a lot of water spews out.

If you drink too little then obviously you can get dehydrated. But you have to be stupid to do this, it's like not drinking during exercise. All you need is 2 or 3 glasses of water throughout the night which is fine.

One side affect I get particularly strong is gurning. My jaw clenches together so it looks like I'm chewing gum. This ain't great for your teeth, but for me it's all part and parcel of getting rushing.

Another is pilly willy. Your dick shrinks and goes blue until the effects wear off. Ecstasy's not the best drug to do if you plan on moving to chicks that night.

And also, your face puffs up a bit. And your pupils go fucking huge.

Other than this, there's not much wrong and though that all may seem a lot, none of it's particularly uncomfortable, it's all well worth it. I've talked to people about clubs and I've talked to them about dance music. It may sound sad but you can't properly appreciate some music unless you rave to it on pills. And all these people who've been to this club that club and another club, I know that I've experienced it ten times better because I've been rushing. That's the thing about ecstasy - it doesn't create a new feeling for you like being drunk, which some people like more than others. It simply takes your own happiness and increases it to the highest possible level, which means pretty much everyone loves it.
GTA~BOSS
i have seen people have strokes because they forgot or just didn't know that X"s makes your body dehydrate and people or to fucked up to realize they need to drink something besides beer because once again beer does not hydrate you and they overheat passout and before anyone realize they goin into a stroke. 2 have you ever even took X cause you will notice the next mornin your real zoned out that beacuse there is a huge gappin hole in your brain from the chemicals in the drug so yea long term use is BAD FOR YOU REAL BAD before you know it you will be a walkin zombie and it is very additive fpor the fact that its one of the best feelings your ever have
EDITED: i love EX i just don't think it will be a good ideal to legalize it just for the love of god legalize maryjane she done nothin wrong tobacco kills millions in a year maryjane never killed anyone
psychÝ
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 12:53 AM) [snapback]1417859[/snapback]
Alcohol etc.
Lol, tell that to the whole student community.

QUOTE
Anyway the issue here is how a drug no more harmless than any ordinary prescription drug was suddenly made illegal to the same level that heroin is
You don't see people getting smacked up on them every time they go out that is why
eabout

QUOTE
Most parents probably wouldn't care too much if they found their child smoked a bit of weed from time to time. Ecstasy?

That really sums it up doesn't it, probably, you don't have any facts or figures at all.

So where is this source?
Ex-PS Fanboy
i like this topic because i can say methalenedioxymethamphetamine
Naphthyloxy
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1418434[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 12:53 AM) [snapback]1417859[/snapback]
Alcohol etc.
Lol, tell that to the whole student community.

QUOTE
Anyway the issue here is how a drug no more harmless than any ordinary prescription drug was suddenly made illegal to the same level that heroin is
You don't see people getting smacked up on them every time they go out that is why
eabout

QUOTE
Most parents probably wouldn't care too much if they found their child smoked a bit of weed from time to time. Ecstasy?

That really sums it up doesn't it, probably, you don't have any facts or figures at all.

So where is this source?



Post #4 on this page.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 08:00 PM) [snapback]1418434[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 12:53 AM) [snapback]1417859[/snapback]
Alcohol etc.
Lol, tell that to the whole student community.

QUOTE
Anyway the issue here is how a drug no more harmless than any ordinary prescription drug was suddenly made illegal to the same level that heroin is
You don't see people getting smacked up on them every time they go out that is why
eabout

QUOTE
Most parents probably wouldn't care too much if they found their child smoked a bit of weed from time to time. Ecstasy?

That really sums it up doesn't it, probably, you don't have any facts or figures at all.

So where is this source?


read the fucking thread, I posted a source.

What exactly is so wrong with people getting fucked up on Ecstasy when they take it? They don't have to work at that time. It doesn't make them violent. And it doesn't kill them. Why should something be banned just because it takes people out of their normal state of mind?

GTA BOSS, I wonder if you've ever done it. The comedown's not that bad at all, it's mainly just tiredness cos you've been up all night. I onceplayed a rugby match the day after, still had massive pupils, still gurning, and it was horrible. But I managed and at the end of the day it didn't 'burn a hole in my brain'.

Before anyone comes with anymore misconceptions, look back through the thread and watch the documentary i posted.

psychÝ
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America, and it quotes numerous scientific reports. It's like their equivalent to Panorama.

In the global warming debate, the only scientists who deny it are those employed by large corporations. The entire anti-Ecstasy lobby bases its science on a US government sponsored study. A number of other studies have said the contrary.

psychÝ
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.
ctlfreak
its not legal because its fun.


actually x can cause problem with the brain if you over do it. but thats the key dont over do it. any substance can be bad in large doses, even asprin. I personally think that its bullshit that drugs are illegal. if you look at it from a free society POV then its nothing more than the government trying to be controlling. marijuana was made illegal as a way to curb blacks and mexicans. google around and you will find info on how the white people in the day claimed it gave mexicans superhuman powers, and blacks turned into murderous and sexual deviants when smoking pot. its crazy. alcohol and tobacco kill so many people every day its not even funny but something as harmless as pot is bad for you because someone back in the day said so. its insane.

i think they should legalize everything. if your stupid enough to od then you deserve to die. but my body is just that my body, if i chose to fuck it up i should have that right.

ive done almost every drug there is, my life is not ruined. I havent been in any trouble, i dont drive on anything and I dont do shit everyday. these days its pot and pills, dont even drink anymore. The thing that gets me about any drug is its always people that have never done drugs telling you its so bad and horrible, yet the responsible users tend to live well adjusted lives. Like i said earlier if you over do anything its bad, that is especially true for drugs, to much can kill you but just enough and you can have a hella good time.

oddly enough alot of times when the government commissions an independent study, the people come back with no real negatives so the gov discounts it and manipulates the facts. there was a study a while back in the 70s i think about pot causing death in monkeys, turns out the guy didnt want to take the time to do the study right and basically pumped so much pot smoke into the monkeys at once that he suffocated them. then claimed that they died from a weed overdose. you cant trust alot of what the media says. you need to look at how the study was carried out and the conditions of it. science seems to go out the window when talking about drugs. mainly because the gov wants to say its wrong.

x, pot, and many other drugs are illegal because the gov thinks they cant tax it plain and simple. they know that there is the knowledge and abilty to make it at home so its easier to just banish it. if they thought they could make money it would likely be legalized agian.

truth be told we spend so much on the war on drugs that its not even worth it. that money could go towards so many better things like, schools, free health care, aid programs for the poor, ect. instead we use it to burn crops, raid houses, take peoples belongings, incarcerate and house criminals, and tons of other things. look into it the numbers are staggering. just another reason i have a disliking for the land of the supposedly free.

ps if you havent done it, E,X whatever you call it. its fun as hell. just be careful drink lots of water, and go get some vicks inhalers (have people blow it in your eyes and mouth, or the vapor rub and a dr mask, rub the vicks in there and put the mask on, its heaven. god i miss those days. shits to expensive now.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.
psychÝ
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.


It discusses the study that said one dose of ecstasy could fuck you up for life. It discusses the recent German study which said they weren't that damaging at all. It discusses the New Scientist study which says that conclusions still have to be made. It talks to experts on Ecstasy, it speaks to users who aren't fucked up and it speaks to users who've clearly done too much and are fucked up. I fail to see how it could be more balanced.

And anyway freak got it spot on when he said that it's always the people who've never done drugs who try to ban them.

Fact is, Meth, Cocaine and Heroin and all the drugs that derive from them have been proven, beyond doubt, to be highly addictive and to have a hugely detrimental effect on both mental and physical health. Which is why they are Class A illegal. Ecstasy has not been proven to be addictive, has not been proven to have a hugely detrimental effect on mental and physical health, yet is also a Class A.

To me, Ecstasy is, at most, on the same level as cannabis, nicotine and alcohol. Which I think should all be legal because they are nowhere near as dangerous as the above. What's more I've yet to see a single reason why Ecstasy is considered a class A.
Ulster_Niko
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1419406[/snapback]
To me, Ecstasy is, at most, on the same level as cannabis, nicotine and alcohol. Which I think should all be legal because they are nowhere near as dangerous as the above. What's more I've yet to see a single reason why Ecstasy is considered a class A.


The thing is, people can go out and have a couple of pints and a few cigarettes without getting totally fucked.

One ecstasy tablet fucks you up, it can't be taken in moderation.
psychÝ
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1419406[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.


It discusses the study that said one dose of ecstasy could fuck you up for life. It discusses the recent German study which said they weren't that damaging at all. It discusses the New Scientist study which says that conclusions still have to be made. It talks to experts on Ecstasy, it speaks to users who aren't fucked up and it speaks to users who've clearly done too much and are fucked up. I fail to see how it could be more balanced.

Where are the links to these so called studies, why would I want someone's bias view on a study when I can read them for myself?
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 04:39 PM) [snapback]1419493[/snapback]
Where are the links to these so called studies, why would I want someone's bias view on a study when I can read them for myself?


jesus fucking christ i can't imagine you'd actually want to read these through Ricaurte study, the basis for Ecstasy's perception as a dangerous drug. It was retracted
psychÝ
If the paper was retracted then why are you showing it to me, that just means it obviously had discrepancies in it.

How can you say it is an unbiased documentary if the only study saying that E is dangerous was retracted.
Skinny†
QUOTE(Kryton @ Apr 22 2008, 09:00 PM) [snapback]1418150[/snapback]
Saw an Oprah special ages ago about people who take loads of E's every week and they had a scan of a chicks brain who had been doing like 20-40 E's a week for a year. She had holes in her brain the size of golf balls. ohmy.gif
Stopped me from takin E's right then.

...anyone can tell you you're not meant to do 20-40 pills a week for a year of anything. Even somthing like panadol could cause serious negative effects on your brain if you took 20-40 tablets of it a week for a year. It's just common sense.

Hardcore Ottoman
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.
psychÝ
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 23 2008, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1419802[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.

People make scientific papers for a reason, I don't want some bias journalist view, who doesn't really know what the fuck he is talking about.
Naphthyloxy
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 24 2008, 12:56 PM) [snapback]1420477[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ Apr 23 2008, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1419802[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 23 2008, 08:15 AM) [snapback]1419304[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 23 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]1419284[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1418672[/snapback]
QUOTE(gingergenius @ Apr 22 2008, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1418664[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 22 2008, 10:49 PM) [snapback]1418640[/snapback]
Eh that isn't a source that is a TV program I want a scientific study, TV normally just spreads bollocks.


That documentary was made by Peter Jennings, one of the most well-respected independent journalists in America,

Key point put in bold there, I don't give a shit what they think, they are all bias to an agenda, they don't understand the science and just want people to watch there program, no one wants to see a program that tells you E is bad, because everyone has already heard it.

I still don't see any reports or papers.


key point is where I said the documentary discusses numerous scientific studies. If you don't want to watch the documentary then fine, but it does rather undermine the argument you make just to dismiss it out of hand.

ctlfreak has it about right.

No, it doesn't discusses multiple scientific studies, it takes the studies that agree with it and then gets so guys who agree with them and then spins there interview to agree with their point even more.

That is what anyone does when they formulate an argument. You still have to actually read and listen to it. Simply dismissing it is weak form in counter-argument.

People make scientific papers for a reason, I don't want some bias journalist view, who doesn't really know what the fuck he is talking about.



People make scientific papers for a reason and that reason is theory, belief, and wanting to reveal the unknown to feel better about chaos (harmonious-discord). Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory, or they are right for that matter. If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you. Listen to Leng Tch'e as well(short and sweet and to the point far better than what I am doing now). As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about, unless I feel that internet forum fun approaching me in the next ocuple of posts. Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them. Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.
MrPMonkey
I recently watched a documentary on 'Britains 20 most dangerous drugs' (I think that was the name of the documentary if you want to check it up). The documentary was screened on the BBC and the test on individual drugs were carried out by independant scientists. There was an outcry among the scientists - all of them, yes all of them, involved in the making of the documentary couldn't understand why Ecstasy was a Class A drug. Some called for it to be legalised and most called for it to be downgraded to a Class C.

I myself, although not a regular taker, have experimented with many drugs including ecstasy and have to agree that it should be reclassified. Clasifications are put in place 'supposadly' to determine how dangerous the drug is to the body, how harmful the drug is on society and how addictive a drug is. As long as you're not consuming an excessive amount of ecstasy I dont see any harm in it for yourself and others.

Another reason why maybe it is illegal is because governments can't think of a way to tax it and governments are often naive and too stubborn to re-think laws.


Everything in moderation! wink.gif


P.S. I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.
Skinny†
QUOTE(MrPMonkey @ Apr 25 2008, 04:33 AM) [snapback]1420549[/snapback]
Class A drug. Some called for it to be legalised and most called for it to be downgraded to a Class C.

I wouldn't let the classification of a drug change my opinion on it simply because the only drugs that come to mind that really belong there are heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetimine (ice). Yet (not crack) cocaine and ecstacy seem to be included.

Fun fact: Crack cocaine and cocaine are not the same thing. Crack is a more cheaply made version of coke wich can usualy only be found in the most run down areas.
Not a Stain On Me
To be honest, skittles are my favorite. 1st time I took one was 4 yrs ago, and that day was the 2nd best day I've had my whole life (1st is my son being born). I work 40 hrs/wk and I roll maybe every couple of months. Never had a bad trip and never gotten sick. I drink orange juice while rollin, and usually a pack of gum to combat my teeth clentching. I don't even have a "come down". I'm usually rollin at 1/4 intensity the day after. I wouldn't recommend legalizing X, cuz theres always a dumb ass out there that will eventually fuck it up for everyone else anyways, and it'll become illegal again.
Caliguy
Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?

Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now. "The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion. Uhh, that was corny, but there's a lot of truth in that. Do the illegal things you want to do in your own private time. I do it and I'm not asking to be allowed to do it anywhere I want to.
gingergenius
QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 08:09 AM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.

What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?

Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now. "The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion. Uhh, that was corny, but there's a lot of truth in that. Do the illegal things you want to do in your own private time. I do it and I'm not asking to be allowed to do it anywhere I want to.


That works all good until you're on your way to a club ready do have a good time and your night gets ruined because there's sniffer dogs waiting at the tube station. Making something unreasonably illegal means that people doing it will get in trouble for it. And don't tell me that they should have known better, I think the law should be an agreement between the state and the people over what's acceptable.
Skinny†
QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Who the hell really cares that ecstasy be legalized? "It's harmless in small doses" Big deal. I could eat a teeny bit of rat poison and probably be ok. Whatever, that's not the point I'm trying to make.


You could, a rat couldn't.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?


It's not. Neither is the smount people drink now.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
Sure.. smoke, that's fine; most of us do it already. But why would the government promote it? I think things are fine the way they are now.


Well, if it was legal it would be cheaper and I wouldn't get arrested for possesion.

QUOTE(Caliguy @ Apr 26 2008, 05:09 PM) [snapback]1422205[/snapback]
"The government makes weed illegal to keep alcohol sales up!" Bullshit. It's illegal because it's shady and it isn't something you would casually do at a family reunion.


Can you say 'MKULTRA', Caliguy?
psychÝ
QUOTE
Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory
When did I say it wasn't I was saying that I don't want a journalists view on a theory they don't understand the concepts behind
QUOTE
or they are right for that matter.
Generally they are or are right as possible with the current information and techniques avaliable as they go through a peer review process.
QUOTE
If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you.
Why are you even talking about logic, it has nothing to do with it, let me sum it up in simple terms for you, I don't want to hear a journalist who doesn't know wtf he is talking about and is just reading someone else's work, especially when I can just read what the person who has done the work and actually knows what the fuck they are on about has to say.

QUOTE
As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about.
Eh.........maybe you should generalise everyone into your category.
QUOTE
Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them.
See you obviously don't know what you are talking about as this is completely irrelivent, that is despite the fact that to have a scientific study which is what we are talking about, to be able to talk about it you have to have done the actions to get the results.
QUOTE
Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.

Once again how is that even relevant me trying the drug is not going to tell me if it has long term effects.

QUOTE
I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.
Where as I agree that ecstasy isn't as harmful as other class A drugs it isn't hard to hid other compounds with in a tablet.

The problems with rating like that is there is a load of information on nicotime and alcohol and little on ecstasy so the rating isn't really valid in anyway, for example they know how much alcohol is sold and fine gentlemans, but they don't have reliable figures on ecstasy, then of course if you went to hospital after taking ecstasy you would get admitted with dehydration, go wasted you will get admitted with alcohol poisoning, or something similar.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.

QUOTE
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability, greater safety for users, greater awareness of clinics so they can quit.

QUOTE
Sure.. smoke, that's fine;
No it isn't it is far worse than many illegal drugs.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 26 2008, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
Just because they are doing it for a reason does not mean it still is not a theory
When did I say it wasn't I was saying that I don't want a journalists view on a theory they don't understand the concepts behind
QUOTE
or they are right for that matter.
Generally they are or are right as possible with the current information and techniques avaliable as they go through a peer review process.
QUOTE
If logic is the mentality you are using for this discussion, than it would make more sense to question what your own logic is instead of fighting Ginger once his proposition is presented to you.
Why are you even talking about logic, it has nothing to do with it, let me sum it up in simple terms for you, I don't want to hear a journalist who doesn't know wtf he is talking about and is just reading someone else's work, especially when I can just read what the person who has done the work and actually knows what the fuck they are on about has to say.

QUOTE
As for someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about I think it safe to say that no one honestly knows what they are really talking about.
Eh.........maybe you should generalise everyone into your category.
QUOTE
Actions are obviously viewed higher in the world than speaking about them.
See you obviously don't know what you are talking about as this is completely irrelivent, that is despite the fact that to have a scientific study which is what we are talking about, to be able to talk about it you have to have done the actions to get the results.
QUOTE
Try the drug if you have not already and come back once you are down to finalize your thought.
Once again how is that even relevant me trying the drug is not going to tell me if it has long term effects.

QUOTE
I think ecstasy was about in 17th place, with nicotine 9th and alcohol 7th most dangerous drug in Britain.
Where as I agree that ecstasy isn't as harmful as other class A drugs it isn't hard to hid other compounds with in a tablet.

The problems with rating like that is there is a load of information on nicotime and alcohol and little on ecstasy so the rating isn't really valid in anyway, for example they know how much alcohol is sold and fine gentlemans, but they don't have reliable figures on ecstasy, then of course if you went to hospital after taking ecstasy you would get admitted with dehydration, go wasted you will get admitted with alcohol poisoning, or something similar.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.

QUOTE
What would the point or motive be if tomorrow things like pot and ecstasy were legalized? A bunch of even more kids start smoking even more weed... how is that beneficial to society?
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability, greater safety for users, greater awareness of clinics so they can quit.

QUOTE
Sure.. smoke, that's fine;
No it isn't it is far worse than many illegal drugs.

QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety. A criminal making ecstasy pills which aren't 100% MDMA is like an industrialist refusing to buy his workers safety equipment. It cuts costs. Now, industrialists have to, by law, make sure their employees are sufficiently protected. If Ecstasy were legal and went back to its former status then the pills would be scrutinised by all sorts of medical authorities to make sure they were fit for medical use.

You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.
psychÝ


QUOTE
1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.
The results were wrong and the paper was with drawn, when did I say I trusted it, I have yet to see see papers showing the godly powers of E.

QUOTE

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety.
Enjoy copying me do you maybe you should read a post before quoting it.

QUOTE
You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.

You seem to have just changed the words of my response and then claimed you thought of it, really doesn't work if the post is right above yours, maybe E doesn't do you so much good after all. rolleyes.gif

I fail to see how I am losing this argument you have failed to produce one valid scientific paper in favour or against ecstasy.
Skinny†
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?

QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,


ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.
psychÝ
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1422593[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?
In proportion to mass they will both be able to take similar amounts, you shouldn't make useless statements that in reality just make you look stupid, everyone knows a rat couldn't take the same amount as a human, it could drink the same amount of water as a human without dying, it is a irrelevant point, the mass of the organism has to be taken into account.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,
ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.

Why won't it reduce crime? I know why it will, or at least will in a certain area of the criminal spectra.
gingergenius
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 26 2008, 05:27 PM) [snapback]1422558[/snapback]
QUOTE
1) You won't trust a well respected journalist (look up Peter Jennings, his reputation is by no means controversial), while you would trust a scientist who produced a paper and then realised he'd based the results on the wrong drug. Fine.
The results were wrong and the paper was with drawn, when did I say I trusted it, I have yet to see see papers showing the godly powers of E.

QUOTE

2) Pills only contain other sorts of shit because they are illegal and profit is a paramount for criminals who don't have to comply with anything like health and safety.
Enjoy copying me do you maybe you should read a post before quoting it.

QUOTE
You seem to have lost this argument, and are now nitpicking what everyone else says and disagreeing with it for the sake of saving face.

You seem to have just changed the words of my response and then claimed you thought of it, really doesn't work if the post is right above yours, maybe E doesn't do you so much good after all. rolleyes.gif

I fail to see how I am losing this argument you have failed to produce one valid scientific paper in favour or against ecstasy.


So in order to lose an argument you need a scientific paper? How about looking at it from the time when Ecstasy was legal. Then, as now, there was no valid scientific paper that supported it's classification as a Class A drug. Yet it was made so. How about you show me a scientific paper saying it is as dangerous as it's supposed to be, and I'll accept that it should be illegal.

As for copying you, you've just gone and said "it isn't hard to hid (sic) other compounds with a tablet". You appeared to be saying that in order to say that despite Ecstasy on its own maybe not being harmful, it is impure which makes it harmful. I then said that the reason it's impure is because it's illegal. I fail to see where I've copied you...
Skinny†
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 03:20 AM) [snapback]1422602[/snapback]
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1422593[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 01:56 AM) [snapback]1422530[/snapback]
QUOTE
You could, a rat couldn't.
Actually, if a proportional amount was given it could.


Of coarse if a tiny amount was given a rat could survive, but not the same amount as a human wich was my whole point. You will just disagree with and try and contradict anyone to look smarter, won't you?
In proportion to mass they will both be able to take similar amounts, you shouldn't make useless statements that in reality just make you look stupid, everyone knows a rat couldn't take the same amount as a human, it could drink the same amount of water as a human without dying, it is a irrelevant point, the mass of the organism has to be taken into account.

Irrelevant how? He said it meant nothing that ex is harmless in small amounts because so is rat poison, but thats because rat poison is meant to kill rats not humans. I said we could but a rat couldn't survive that amount and the stuff is designed to kill rats.

QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 03:20 AM) [snapback]1422602[/snapback]
QUOTE
QUOTE
Tax revenue, better knowledge of usage, better awareness of groups using it, better targeting to stop people using it, reduction of crime due to increased availability,
ah, I forgot to meantion tax in my previous post, though I don't agree it will reduce crime.

Why won't it reduce crime? I know why it will, or at least will in a certain area of the criminal spectra.


Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.
Caliguy
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Apr 26 2008, 10:35 AM) [snapback]1422616[/snapback]
Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.


QFT.

I think there would be far more cons than pros if drugs like these were suddenly legalized.

BTW, psycho, when I said "sure, smoke", I was talking about marijuana.
psychÝ
QUOTE

Irrelevant how? He said it meant nothing that ex is harmless in small amounts because so is rat poison, but thats because rat poison is meant to kill rats not humans. I said we could but a rat couldn't survive that amount and the stuff is designed to kill rats.
What? Rat poison isn't designed to kill rats it will kill anything it is just used on rats.
QUOTE

Well, if ex is no longer illegal criminals will just move to other drugs/crimes and it won't make much diffrence at all.

It removes one drug from the list which means people have less chance of being exploited by crime, plus it will stop a source of income.
QUOTE
BTW, psycho, when I said "sure, smoke", I was talking about marijuana.
And that makes it better how?
.DoC.
"God gave every human freedom in every sense" As in he is not responsible on what we do and the path we take. So now governments playing God? Theyre to say what we can and cannot do? Isn't it GODS law to be free and live in freedom? They use God and the Bible to bring up points such as its not the way God intented our lives. Well he didn't intend it to be controlled by other people either, so let us do our "drugs" and drink our alcohol. SHIIIIIT!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.