Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a gigantic difference between using FDA-approved chemicals in trace amounts in drugs and cooking ephedrine in Drano or brake fluid.
I'll say it again: If it was legal, it would be made in professional labs rather than clandestine basement operations
Most of the danger comes from the fact that it's illegal, not the actual substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
There are plenty of other drugs that lack a lot of the immediate side effects of MDMA.
Riddle me this: what drugs have the same effects as MDMA but without the side effects? I'd love to know, and so would the scientific community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
I linked a blog post that had an article by the Radiological Society of North America, which was the point of posting it. If you'd bothered to do any reading, you would have seen that it is the first thing mentioned and linked to.
Yes, and the Erowid link you posted contradicts that. What's on that Eurekalert site is a press release. It's not a valid scientific source from which to draw conclusions. Do you understand the difference between a huge peer reviewed paper full of statistics and citations and a short blurb? There is not enough data to conclusively say whether MDMA is completely safe, but we know it's not completely dangerous. We need more research, and the only obstacle is the War on Drugs
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
Also, 49 "posts" versus 1883 posts. Obviously a case of trolling.
Your post count does not reflect your ability to make rational arguments.
You don't read what I write, you respond with completely fallacious arguments
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
So you're argument is that because anything can kill you, it should all be legal? Good luck with that one.
No, no argument is that just because something may be harmful in some cases does not mean it's harmful in all cases. The study you linked to on Erowid stated that problems occur with prolonged use and/or high doses.
MDMA has tremendous medical benefits.
A good reason not to add drug use problems to the mix.
Not all drugs have the same risk profile. You can easily die from alcohol poisoning, but it's damn near impossible to die from marijuana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead
Drug prohibition is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 8, and the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution.
Since when do lawmakers care about the Constitution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupson1
the number of situations in which compulsory checks upon people would have to be carried out, for reasons of public safety would increase enormously
Why? Alcohol use is a threat to public safety and is sold and consumed in huge quantities, yet there are no mandatory breathalyzers on cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupson1
Pharmacies, banks, schools, hospitals all organizations dealing with the public might feel obliged to check regularly and randomly on drug consumption of their employees.
Many companies already test their employees and many schools already test their students (something I strongly disagree with). What would change?
Are you talking about banks drug testing their customers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupson1
The general use of such drugs would increase the standing of innumberable agencies public and private, to interfere in our lives, and freedom from interference far from having increased, would have drastically shrunk.
You don't think that all the policy propping up the War on Drugs and the DEA isn't intrusive already? I don't see a massive bureacracy patrolling people's use of tobacco and alcohol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soupson1
The proposel to legalize the distribution and consumption of drugs, touted as the solution to so many problems at once(Aids, crime overcrowed prisons, and even the attractivness of drugs to young people) should give rise to skepticism.Surely we have slid down enough slippery slopes in the past 30 years without looking for more such slopes to slide down.
Why should it be viewed with skepticism? A huge number of HIV infections come from sharing needles and equipment, because right now it's extremely difficult for drug users to buy needles legitimately.
Prisons are mostly full of nonviolent drug offenders. Murderers are being granted early parole so that more pot smokers can take their place.
I see no problem with releasing stoners from jail. Maybe we'd get much better music in this country as a result
Not all drugs have the same risk profile. You can easily die from alcohol poisoning, but it's damn near impossible to die from marijuana.
Since when do lawmakers care about the Constitution?
Why? Alcohol use is a threat to public safety and is sold and consumed in huge quantities, yet there are no mandatory breathalyzers on cars.
Many companies already test their employees and many schools already test their students (something I strongly disagree with). What would change?
Are you talking about banks drug testing their customers?
You don't think that all the policy propping up the War on Drugs and the DEA isn't intrusive already? I don't see a massive bureacracy patrolling people's use of tobacco and alcohol.
Why should it be viewed with skepticism? A huge number of HIV infections come from sharing needles and equipment, because right now it's extremely difficult for drug users to buy needles legitimately.
Prisons are mostly full of nonviolent drug offenders. Murderers are being granted early parole so that more pot smokers can take their place.
I see no problem with releasing stoners from jail. Maybe we'd get much better music in this country as a result
Riddle me this: what drugs have the same effects as MDMA but without the side effects? I'd love to know, and so would the scientific community.
Pretty much anything that releases serotonin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Yes, and the Erowid link you posted contradicts that. What's on that Eurekalert site is a press release. It's not a valid scientific source from which to draw conclusions. Do you understand the difference between a huge peer reviewed paper full of statistics and citations and a short blurb?
As I said, I posted multiple sources that all have somewhat conflicting information. I'm not going to dig through science journals to find annotated and peer-reviewed articles to make you happy.
There is more compelling evidence of harmful effects than positive effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
There is not enough data to conclusively say whether MDMA is completely safe, but we know it's not completely dangerous. We need more research, and the only obstacle is the War on Drugs
You mean like the research they are currently doing in several countries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Your post count does not reflect your ability to make rational arguments. You don't read what I write, you respond with completely fallacious arguments
It's relative when you start accusing me of trolling.
And I do read what you right. It was the very definition of a straw-man argument and I called you on it. You were making up a separate argument and attacking that. Don't get irritable because I won't play your game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
No, no argument is that just because something may be harmful in some cases does not mean it's harmful in all cases. The study you linked to on Erowid stated that problems occur with prolonged use and/or high doses. MDMA has tremendous medical benefits.
And there are other cases and studies that say it's not necessary to have prolonged or high exposure.
As far as tremendous medical benefits, not really. It has some, but it's not some saving grace like you seem to think it is.
It's been around for almost 100 years, and no substantive benefit (or, to be fair, enormous risk) has come from it.
Just what this forum needs, someone else who doesn't understand the Constitution but wants to pretend they do.
Seriously, I don't even think the Supreme court judges understand the Constitution. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the meaning of many of the articles that were within it.
If you go by a rigid, strict reading, the gentleman you are referring to is actually right. If you have the open to interpretation view that our lawmakers have today, then anything is possible.
You have a really simplistic view of neurochemistry, and even with that you're completely wrong.
MDMA doesn't just "release" serotonin -- it's an SRI and has an effect on norepinephrine and dopamine too. It's a very interesting drug with complex effects.
It's like saying heroin is identical to a nice cup of tea. They both make you feel good and relaxed! Simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
As I said, I posted multiple sources that all have somewhat conflicting information. I'm not going to dig through science journals to find annotated and peer-reviewed articles to make you happy.
OK, then stop making claims that you can't back up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
There is more compelling evidence of harmful effects than positive effects.
Can you theorize on why this or who might benefit from overwhelming negative evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
And there are other cases and studies that say it's not necessary to have prolonged or high exposure.
And there are other studies which say the opposite. Again, it needs more research and the only way this is going to happen is if prohibition is abolished and the DEA stops pushing its agenda by stifling medicine and science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
As far as tremendous medical benefits, not really. It has some, but it's not some saving grace like you seem to think it is.
I don't think it's a saving grace. I think it's a drug with great potential that has been ridiculed and demonized by prohibitionists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
It's been around for almost 100 years, and no substantive benefit (or, to be fair, enormous risk) has come from it.
It was used in therapy with great success prior to its criminalization.
Again, you claim with great certainty that it presents "enormous risk" yet you refuse to back up your claims.
Last edited by ah yes of course; 02-09-2010 at 06:07 PM..
Hmm, yes, you're right!
Creating huge illegal industries which feed prominent criminal behaviors in the desperate attempt to remove some supposedly "massive" social ill is completely rational behavior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
