|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
the man
still masked
Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 6,685
Loc: C A N A D A
Last seen: 4 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: PDU]
#2019201 - 10/17/03 09:41 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
every month or at least bday. look at your life and if your not doing or beign who u truelly wnat to be. thats when u have to change.
-------------------- And Moses Said "Let my mushrooms grow!"
|
Infrared
sleeping
Registered: 07/15/02
Posts: 12,988
Loc: Chicago, USA
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: the man]
#2019394 - 10/17/03 11:08 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
????
-------------------- When chemistry is outlawed.. Only outlaws have chemistry
|
orizon
shroomin bliss
Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 876
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: Infrared]
#2019694 - 10/18/03 01:30 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There is no doubt that needles is a big line to step over.....however I was wondering if snorting drugs is forbidden line as well?....for this is the point of drug use I am at. I am having a blast doing them...(its not like I do drugs I dont enjoy) I just dont want to get caught up in a mix that is dangerous to my overall well being. I also noticed somebody put Oxy's in the same category as meth. Well I like percocet and since I recently discovered that Percocet is just oxy and tylenol, Ive decided to just play around with oxy's for the sake of my liver. Meth-coke and heroin are the substances I am aware of that have directly destroyed many peoples lives.
-Orizon
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: orizon]
#2019697 - 10/18/03 01:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
On April 3 1924, a group of American congressmen held an official hearing to consider the future of heroin. They took sworn evidence from experts, including the US surgeon general, Rupert Blue, who appeared in person to tell their committee that heroin was poisonous and caused insanity and that it was particularly likely to kill since its toxic dose was only slightly greater than its therapeutic dose. They heard, too, from specialist doctors, such as Alexander Lambert of New York's Bellevue hospital, who explained that "the herd instinct is obliterated by heroin, and the herd instincts are the ones which control the moral sense ... Heroin makes much quicker the muscular reaction and therefore is used by criminals to inflate them, because they are not only more daring, but their muscular reflexes are quicker." Senior police, a prison governor and health officials all added their voices. Dr S Dana Hubbard, of the New York City health department, captured the heart of the evidence: "Heroin addicts spring from sin and crime ... Society in general must protect itself from the influence of evil, and there is no greater peril than heroin." The congressmen had heard much of this before and now they acted decisively. They resolved to stop the manufacture and use of heroin for any purpose in the United States and to launch a worldwide campaign of prohibition to try to prevent its manufacture or use anywhere in the world. Within two months, their proposal had been passed into law with the unanimous backing of both houses of the US Congress. The war against drugs was born. To understand this war and to understand the problems of heroin in particular, you need to grasp one core fact. In the words of Professor Arnold Trebach, the veteran specialist in the study of illicit drugs: "Virtually every 'fact' testified to under oath by the medical and criminological experts in 1924 ... was unsupported by any sound evidence." Indeed, nearly all of it is now directly and entirely contradicted by plentiful research from all over the world. The first casualty of this war was truth and yet, 77 years later, the war continues, more vigorous than ever, arguably the longest-running conflict on earth. Take heroin as a single example. And it's a tough example. In medical terms, it is simply an opiate, technically known as diamorphine, which metabolises into morphine once it enters its user's body. But, in terms of the war against drugs, it is the most frightening of all enemies. Remember all that those congressmen were told about "the great peril". Remember the Thatcher government's multimillion pound campaign under the slogan "Heroin screws you up". Think of Tony Blair at the 1999 Labour party conference fulminating about the "drug menace" or of William Hague last year calling for "a stronger, firmer, harder attack on drugs than we have ever seen before". And now look at the evidence. Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant." Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation. Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage. We cannot find any medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users. Nor can we find any trace of our government or the American government or any other ever presenting or referring to any credible version of any such research. On the contrary, all of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all. In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." Peanut butter, cream and sugar, for example, are all far more likely to damage the health of their users. Now, move on to the allegation that heroin kills its users. The evidence is clear: you can fatally overdose on heroin. But the evidence is equally clear, that - contrary to the claims of politicians - it is not particularly easy to do so. Opiates tend to suppress breathing, and doctors who prescribe them for pain relief take advantage of this to help patients with lung problems. But the surprising truth is that, in order to use opiates to suppress breathing to the point of death, you have to exceed the normal dose to an extreme degree. Heroin is unusually safe, because - contrary to what those US congressmen were told in 1924 - the gap between a therapeutic dose and a fatal dose is unusually wide. Listen, for example, to Dr Teresa Tate, who has prescribed heroin and morphine for 25 years, first as a cancer doctor and now as medical adviser to Marie Curie Cancer Care. We asked her to compare heroin with paracetamol, legally available without prescription. She told us: "I think that most doctors would tell you that paracetamol is actually quite a dangerous drug when used in overdose; it has a fixed upper limit for its total dose in 24 hours and if you exceed that, perhaps doubling it, you can certainly put yourself at great risk of liver failure and of death, whereas with diamorphine, should you double the dose that you normally were taking, I think the consequence would be to be sleepy for a while and quite possibly not much more than that and certainly no permanent damage as a result." Contrary to the loudly expressed view of so many politicians, this specialist of 25 years' experience told us that when heroin is properly used by doctors, it is "a very safe drug". Heroin can be highly addictive - which is a very good reason not to start taking it. In extreme doses, it can kill. But the truth which has been trampled under the cavalry of the drug warriors is that, properly prescribed, pure heroin is a benign drug. The late Professor Norman Zinberg, who for years led the study of drug addiction at Harvard Medical School, saw the lies beneath the rhetoric: "To buttress our current programme, official agencies, led originally by the old Federal Bureau of Narcotics, have constructed myth after myth. When pushers in schoolyards, 'drug progression', drugs turning brains to jelly, and other tales of horror are not supported by facts, they postulate and publicise others: 'drugs affect chromosomes'; 'drugs are a contagious disease'. Officials go on manufacturing myths such as the chromosome scare long after they are disproved on the self-righteous assumption that if they have scared one kid off using drugs, it was worth the lie." Take away the lies and the real danger becomes clear - not the drugs, but the black market which has been created directly by the policy of prohibition. If ever there is a war crimes trial to punish the generals who have gloried in this slaughter of the innocent, the culprits should be made to carve out in stone: "There is no drug known to man which becomes safer when its production and distribution are handed over to criminals." Heroin, so benign in the hands of doctors, becomes highly dangerous when it is cut by black-market dealers - with paracetamol, drain cleaner, sand, sugar, starch, powdered milk, talcum powder, coffee, brick dust, cement dust, gravy powder, face powder or curry powder. None of these adulterants was ever intended to be injected into human veins. Some of them, such as drain cleaner, are simply toxic and poison their users. Others - sand or brick dust - are carried into tiny capillaries and digital blood vessels where they form clots, cutting off the supply of blood to fingers or toes. Very rapidly, venous gangrene sets in, the tissue starts to die, the fingers or toes go black and then have only one destiny: amputation. Needless suffering - inflicted not by heroin, but by its black-market adulterants. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,506507,00.html
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
twistedweather
ka-blammo
Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 448
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: Xlea321]
#2019850 - 10/18/03 03:24 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
crossing the line....depends on the individual mabye fear plays a factor (ex. needles), or a certain stigma that is attached to a drug , or a personal encounter with an individual that has allowed a drug to degrade their chosen style of living and health (putting themselves and others around them in danger)
for me i have adopted the " I will try anything once" under safe, clean , and responsible conditions
-------------------- Take a music bath once or twice a week for a few seasons, and you will find that it is to the soul what the water bath is to the body. Oliver Wendell Holmes
|
caolite
Ambient Drone
Registered: 09/28/03
Posts: 276
Loc: Second star on the right.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: twistedweather]
#2019864 - 10/18/03 03:42 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I have used heroin before many times. I had never used enough to get physical withdrawals and I even injected it once (or had someone else for me rather) I personally didn't like the way the injecting felt in comparison to snorting it.
Injection is not a more dangerous way to use a drug, if one does it properly and takes care of their veins then it can actually be one of the least harmful. And if I remember correctly, opiates don't really damamge your body nearly as much as people think or the media portrays.
Injecting drugs happenes in hospitals and clinics all over the world, people also inject dpt, ketamine, and other substances (granted K is IM). The line to draw is one that will be forever subjective. If you use drugs, and are willing to accept that they are usually only dangerous when the user is not armed with the knowledge or the mindstate to handle them or use them responsibly, like driving a car or flying a plane.
I look at the stigma of needles as being similar to that of planes. There are so many people afraid of flying but would not think twice about hopping in a car, even though flying in a plane is actually safer if people would just think about it.
Snorting binders and such from pressed E pills could build up chalks and such in your lungs which isn't very healthy, smoke of any kind can irritate and damage your throat and lungs. People just have to research and figure out the best ways for them to use a substance safely and responsibly. The danger is within the individual not the drug.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: caolite]
#2020090 - 10/18/03 06:31 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
All man-made recreational drugs are POISON
Stick with the ones God made and you will never go wrong
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
Voodoo
Stranger
Registered: 12/30/02
Posts: 428
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: niteowl]
#2020326 - 10/18/03 11:11 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: Stick with the ones God made and you will never go wrong
Then that would include Heroin.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: the free thinker]
#2020358 - 10/18/03 11:28 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> So basically what you're saying is that a user of heroin shouldn't be at all alarmed at their use? What I am saying is let each person decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to take. > Now, if one can remain unaddicted to highly addicting drugs while using, more power to them. Highly addictive drugs, like nicotine and alcohol? Or just the illegal kind like coke, meth, heroin, etc? > I draw the line at needles. I have not, nor will I, inject drugs with a needle. Same here. It is great to have such a choice. > All man-made recreational drugs are POISON Sure, whatever. > Stick with the ones God made and you will never go wrong Yep... datura is about as safe as it gets, right?... can't go wrong with a God made plant, no sir. (Datura is dangerous, be careful!)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
the free thinker
salesman
Registered: 12/17/02
Posts: 1,877
Loc: twin cities
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: Seuss]
#2020418 - 10/18/03 12:03 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Man fuck Seuss I'm done with this thread - do all the hard drugs you want. They have that name for a reason dumbass. Nicotine and alcohol aren't hard drugs.
--------------------
|
DiMiTriSouljah
No left turn unstoned
Registered: 07/02/03
Posts: 1,122
Loc: ked in a Skin Pinata
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: the free thinker]
#2020430 - 10/18/03 12:10 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, they have that name for a reason, it's called a buzz word. Created by the people trying to regulate it, and now you're being their good little puppet and regurgitating their information to people who obviously know much more about the subject than you do. Well, I should let you get back to your knees, I'm sure Ashcroft's dick is getting cold.
-------------------- In the end, my friend, we will all be together again.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: the free thinker]
#2020511 - 10/18/03 12:58 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> do all the hard drugs you want
Thats the spirit I am looking for. Let me worry about myself, please.
> Nicotine and alcohol aren't hard drugs.
Of course they are! Nicotine is more adictive than heroin. Alcohol is very easy to overdose on, and long term use destroys your liver. More people die from nicotine and alcohol every year than all the other 'hard' drugs combined. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't bad for you.
You certainly don't do your user name justice. You remind me of the government... it is fine to be a free thinker as long as you think like we want you to think. I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that somebody would label themselves as open-minded and yet take such a close-minded, police-like view towards drug use.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Infrared
sleeping
Registered: 07/15/02
Posts: 12,988
Loc: Chicago, USA
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: the free thinker]
#2020524 - 10/18/03 01:02 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
go back and actually re-read what alex wrote, mmkay. "hard drug" is such a subjective pile of bullshit word used by the government to scare off kids. and you know nicotine is extremly poisonis, licking a fresh tobbaco leaf will probably kill you. and i bet more people die from alcohol each year than from heroin.
-------------------- When chemistry is outlawed.. Only outlaws have chemistry
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,679
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 16 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: Infrared]
#2020661 - 10/18/03 02:01 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
licking a fresh tobbaco leaf will probably kill you....
huh? really? interesting....
-------------------- how's your WOW? Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
orizon
shroomin bliss
Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 876
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: wrestler_az]
#2020811 - 10/18/03 03:13 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
That is true....alcohol does kill alot more people than any other drug. Its funny how people think that just because alcohol is the only legal drug left in America...that its the only one that's OK to take. I wouldnt classify it in the same category as heroin, buts its still a big killer. I know that the cocaine plant be itself is very very toxic and kills in the matter of minutes if ever taken pure. Thats why its diluted with som much other shit....baby powder etc... SO in my eyes, "stick with mother earth's made drugs" doesnt hold much ground.
|
MisterKite
Stranger
Registered: 12/24/02
Posts: 655
Loc: Montreal, QC
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: orizon] 1
#2020833 - 10/18/03 03:29 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"hard" drugs(meth, coke, and heroin in particular) are so taboo because they've destroyed so many people's lives. People have stolen from their family, lost all their friends, been dishoned, lost their job, lost their kids, lost everything for those substances in particular. That's not to say they can't be used responsibly, but it is MUCH more difficult to do so than any of the "soft" drugs. People should definetly have taboo for the hard drugs, it has FUCKED many many people over. I think advocating their use is a very immoral and poor decision. But whatever you do, Seuss, is fine, it's your choice. However, not everyone is as strong as you, and you shouldn't tell people to do those drugs.
As for alcohol and nicotine. Alcohol is NOT as addictive as meth, coke or heroin. That's just not plausible. It may kill more people than anyone of those, but that's because it's so widely available and is accepted among America's most dominant social classes. I hate hearing people say "One drop of pure nicotine will kill you" or things of the sort because it is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about a drop of pure nicotine, we're talking abotu a tobacco cigarette which will kill over a period of MANY, MANY years. So if you say "licking a tobacco leaf could kill you" that's an interesting fact, but it has little to do with what we're talking about.
-------------------- "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: MisterKite]
#2020847 - 10/18/03 03:36 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If licking a tobacco leaf could kill. then people who chew tobacco would die instantly.
Drugs like heroine, cocaine or hash have all been purified by man, making them MORE dangerous. If a person was to boil the leaves of the coca plant and drink the tea, then that would be much less dangerous that using the purified man-made cocaine. The same can be said about poppy plants, used to make heroine.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
orizon
shroomin bliss
Registered: 08/22/03
Posts: 876
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: niteowl]
#2020938 - 10/18/03 04:24 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Of course it is a givin that since alcohol is so readily available that it will kill more lives that less availalbe illegal drugs. But I personally dont think shrooms or mariguana are any more dangerous if not less dangerous than alcohol. Violence and deaths from drunk driving both erupt from alcohol as opposed to the peaceful users of Pot. And I dont know if this applies to anyone else but I can NOT drive a car when plastered..However I can easily when stoned. (maybe a little slower, but atleast Im not swerving all over the place). I mean alcohol was illegalized in the 50's and since all the mobster activity and Hooligans....the gov't just gave in. I certainyl dont endorse this notion, but if pot supporters were as aggresive as the Bootleggers back in the 50's then it would probally eventually become legal. But thats just not our style.
|
MisterKite
Stranger
Registered: 12/24/02
Posts: 655
Loc: Montreal, QC
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: orizon]
#2020997 - 10/18/03 04:44 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Orizon, prohibiton was during the 30's.
And I feel shrooms and marijuana are infinitely more safe than alcohol. But coke, heroin and meth are not, which is what I was referring to in my post.
-------------------- "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."
|
caolite
Ambient Drone
Registered: 09/28/03
Posts: 276
Loc: Second star on the right.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Where to draw the line---in the world of drugs? [Re: niteowl]
#2021033 - 10/18/03 05:13 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: If licking a tobacco leaf could kill. then people who chew tobacco would die instantly. Drugs like heroine, cocaine or hash have all been purified by man, making them MORE dangerous. If a person was to boil the leaves of the coca plant and drink the tea, then that would be much less dangerous that using the purified man-made cocaine. The same can be said about poppy plants, used to make heroine.
So instead of shooting up some heroin I should try to extract some opiates from a plant since it is "natural" and inject it because it has not been refined? OMG what planet are you from, all drugs are natural, they come from natural sources. Second of all, with "man made" drugs there tends to be a certain level of expectation of quality. Sure it can be cut, but when someone does a home extraction their end product can tend to range in purites due to the experience/method used. Lets just say that I won't be doing out and extracting dmt and shooting it up, I would rather have your "more dangerous" lab grade..." I am sorry if I am coming across as a bit short, but I am tied of people saying things to the extent of: "I trust shrooms more than LSD, because it is a natural drug." How can you call one chemical natural and another not? They all come from nature, its not like man just magically makes substances never before in existence appear before our eyes. LSD comes from natural sources, basically most drugs do. Everything is natural because it all comes from our world, so trusting something you pick and eat as opposed to a measured out amount of something seems a bit more risky to me..... And since when does a more pure chemical = more dangerous to use?? I always thought it was the impurities which caused the most danger. When will people see that a chemical is a chemical, and its bullshit to think just because it is within the plant or taken out that one of the other is more safe to use. And how can anyone say alchohol is not a "hard drug". Seriously, alchohol must ruin or cost the government as much as any other hard drug or heroin. How many alcoholics ruin homes, get in drunk driving accidents, beat their kids, steal, etc. It is no less addictive. Any yea you can use nicotine as an example because what some of you seem to be saying is "a drug is ok even if it is more addictive so long as it only costs you tons of money and kills you slower." How do things like cancer not make tabbacco dangerous. Hvae you ever seen someone with lukemia or their throat cancer.... don't more people die from alchohol or cigarettes each year than all illegal drugs combined? How does that not make whichever one it is not a hard drug?
|
|