User Controls
California to vote on legalizing magic hallucinagenic mushrooms
-
2017-09-06 at 5:41 AM UTCTriggered word?
-
2017-09-06 at 5:52 AM UTCbundy
-
2017-09-06 at 5:52 AM UTCword enhancement
-
2017-09-06 at 6:05 AM UTCdextromethane
-
2017-09-06 at 6:05 AM UTCi don't get it
-
2017-09-06 at 6:07 AM UTCambedextrioua methamphamine
-
2017-09-06 at 7:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 It's like you don't actually know any drug users.
While your circle of acquaintances, on the other hand, is perfectly representative of the total population of drug users so as to justify bold declarations of truth like:People are uneducated about drugs. Massively, massively uneducated.
Maybe we should see if there's been any research on the issue? Here's an interesting one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268229/
15 question survey of knowledge about drug and alcohol use was administered to adults, mean participants correctly answered between 11 and 12 of the questions correctly. Part of the population then took a course on drug use, the mean score went up by less than one question. A reasonable interpretation would be that after the high school people know about as much about drugs as drug education is going to give them. So hey, even if you insist that most drug users are uneducated, your program of education is still a waste of time since it isn't going to do anything for them anyway.but they couldn't tell you about why things like cocaethylene are bad.
Lol, is this really what we need to be worried about with public education initiatives? Is the drug problem in america going to be solved by teaching everyone chemical produced in your body when drinking with coke?The end goal is not to stop people from using drugs, its to keep people safe. If people can be addicted and be safe what does it matter?
Because "safe" doesn't mean "not a social issue". People who can't read are about as safe as the rest of us, that doesn't mean illiteracy isn't a problem. Addiction is debilitating, whether or not it's safe.You are biased against drugs like meth and heroin. Like my god, those are the drugs which need proper regulation the most. Clearly you do not want people to be addicted for some puritanic reason.
How is that a bias though? Do you not know the difference between being opposed to something and being biased against it? If I say "AIDS is bad" does that make me biased against AIDS? Bonus points for throwing in a pointless use of "puritanic" as an attempted slur. I gave you my reason for being critical of legalization earlier, I think some drugs represent more of a social risk than others, the fact that you can't imagine any reason for disagreeing with your preferred drug policy than hold over religious dogma suggests you're the one with a bias here, not me.Lol what. Purity is definitely a major fucking issue of overdose and all you need to do is look at the opioid overdose statistics for the last 10 years to see that.
I didn't say purity wasn't an issue, I said it wasn't an exclusive cause of overdose.Do you honestly think people would just accidentally overdose if they knew their dose? How many people overdose with alcohol alone? Do most people not simply stop drinking? People have their limits, and if they're able to know those limits they will stay within them most of the time.
I do. How many people died during prohibition because of variable strength of alcohol? Opiates are a different class of drugs, especially with extended use and high tolerance, recreational doses can approach lethal doses especially in combination with other CNS depressants. Empirically people do not always know their limits, people overdose on prescription drugs with fixed purity with some regularity.Infection is not a minor issue. It is a major issue. Do you not remember when Semiazas got a major chunk of his flesh cut out because of an abscess? You know how many uneducated people are out there skin popping and other stupid shit? Or reusing needles? Cleanliness is next to godliness.
So what is your criteria for something being a serious issue? It negatively impacted someone you know at some point in the past and now it's serious? I don't disagree with needle exchange programs at all, I think they're great, but the point is that opiate use poses larger issues on a community level than health complication of users from infection. Again, things like secondary crime and inability to sustain a habit and subsequently function in a society.Your point that addiction is debilitating is null. It isn't. See: Denmark's heroin program.
Denmark's program makes the problem of homeless junkies more manageable. It doesn't mean they don't have junkies, it doesn't make these people functional members of society again, it gets them out of the public eye and reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of overdose.See: Millions of functional alcoholics.
And what about non-functional alcoholics? I'm not saying it's impossible to have a sustainable opiate habit, but I'm saying the chances of regular opiate use turning unsustainable, the ratio of junkies to functional users, is a lot different than other drugs and legislation ought to take this difference into account. -
2017-09-06 at 8:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Yeah, it's a bad habit. No one likes being wrong so if you hedge on every statement you never have to be but that's kind of a shitty style of writing. But I mean if you say "everyone here things psychedelics should be legalized" you're just asking for one asshole to be like "well I don't think that".
i was like that at one stage in my life, sometimes i still do.
but for the most part, maybe due to old age, i've came to accept who i am based on whatever people i interacted with think i am.
a lot of people called me a retard and an asshole, well ... maybe i am actually a retard and an asshole afterall.
no point fighting that.
and the only thing left to do is to look forward and try to pursuit as much happiness and rewarding life as a retarded asshole could possibly get.
edit : and i normally hedge it by saying ''every non-retard know as a fact that etc etc''
so whenever someone comes up and say ''i for one do not .... ''
hes just being a retard.
Post last edited by benny vader at 2017-09-06T08:20:55.483712+00:00 -
2017-09-06 at 11:07 AM UTCyou have to take into consideration the difference between heroin users and junkies. two totally different animals. heroin users stick mostly to heroin and use for pleasure. and think about it, heroin addicts have to go out and earn that shit, the idea of a non-function heroin addict is a paradox. if they didn't function then they wouldn't get the heroin to be addicts.
junkies on the other hand are the ones you see with a needle in one hand and a can of high strength beer in the other. they will do anything they can get their hands on so they inevitably use heroin and end up addicted, but will normally use benzo's, alcohol, crack and all sorts of other shit. if drugs weren't available those fuckers would be huffing raid for real, or something similar. its just about getting fucked up with them, they don't care how they do it.
. -
2017-09-06 at 1:19 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 1:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Maybe we should see if there's been any research on the issue? Here's an interesting one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268229/
15 question survey of knowledge about drug and alcohol use was administered to adults, mean participants correctly answered between 11 and 12 of the questions correctly. Part of the population then took a course on drug use, the mean score went up by less than one question. A reasonable interpretation would be that after the high school people know about as much about drugs as drug education is going to give them. So hey, even if you insist that most drug users are uneducated, your program of education is still a waste of time since it isn't going to do anything for them anyway.
That you would cite this is ridiculously cringeworthy. Also are you HONESTLY saying that people can't learn after highschool? That education after highschool is worthless because 'they know about as much about drugs as drug education is going to give them?"
I swear to fuck Lanny.Lol, is this really what we need to be worried about with public education initiatives? Is the drug problem in america going to be solved by teaching everyone chemical produced in your body when drinking with coke?
Basic pharmacology and understanding is needed to stay safe. The cocaethylene was an example. People do not learn about serotonin syndrome. They don't learn about MDMA abuse damaging dem axons. They don't learn that smoking anything can cause cancer. The drug education in this country, and most others, is absolute shit. It does not teach people the things they need to know. Basically the only thing people know is not to mix 'downers'
If you think people actually are aware of these things you spend far too much time online.
Because "safe" doesn't mean "not a social issue". People who can't read are about as safe as the rest of us, that doesn't mean illiteracy isn't a problem. Addiction is debilitating, whether or not it's safe. I can count the number of people I've met who know what they're talking about on one hand.How is that a bias though? Do you not know the difference between being opposed to something and being biased against it? If I say "AIDS is bad" does that make me biased against AIDS? Bonus points for throwing in a pointless use of "puritanic" as an attempted slur. I gave you my reason for being critical of legalization earlier, I think some drugs represent more of a social risk than others, the fact that you can't imagine any reason for disagreeing with your preferred drug policy than hold over religious dogma suggests you're the one with a bias here, not me. My name is Lanny and I put baseballs up my ass on a regular basis.
You are biased because you do not use drugs like meth and heroin, and I'd guess you haven't met many who do judging by your views on addicts. Drugs are expensive, Lan-Man. Most addicts are functioning members of society. I honestly can't think of any I've met who aren't. I mean I'm sure there are plenty, but this isn't The Wire. Like, your views on addicts being dysfunctional is objectively wrong.I didn't say purity wasn't an issue, I said it wasn't an exclusive cause of overdose.
I didn't say that either. But it's a major frosting cause of overdose, yeah? Don't be pedantic.I do. How many people died during prohibition because of variable strength of alcohol? Opiates are a different class of drugs, especially with extended use and high tolerance, recreational doses can approach lethal doses especially in combination with other CNS depressants. Empirically people do not always know their limits, people overdose on prescription drugs with fixed purity with some regularity.
People overdose with prescription drugs largely because of COMBINATIONS, not because of the small recreational range. I suggest you look here:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
You will never, ever, ever stop people from not knowing their limits. But you CAN help them find you. I cannot fathom how you think keeping something like heroin can possibly be safer than regulating it so that people know their dose.So what is your criteria for something being a serious issue? It negatively impacted someone you know at some point in the past and now it's serious? I don't disagree with needle exchange programs at all, I think they're great, but the point is that opiate use poses larger issues on a community level than health complication of users from infection. Again, things like secondary crime and inability to sustain a habit and subsequently function in a society.
First of all LOL
Second of all, a lot of the crime relating to addiction RESULTS from its illegality. You never hear about alcoholics stealing to support their habit because it is affordable. $50 a day habits are common, double that is also common. Kind of hard to support your addiction when you're spending $1,500-$3,000 a month. That is why people steal. Not because the drugs make them do it. I'm sure you know that though, I just don't get why you're correlating these things when we know that legalizing heroin and other drugs would solve this issue of petty crime.Denmark's program makes the problem of homeless junkies more manageable. It doesn't mean they don't have junkies, it doesn't make these people functional members of society again, it gets them out of the public eye and reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of overdose.
No. You are wrong. Lots of them went on to become functioning members of society and went to school and such. I don't know why you think they were all homeless before. Many of them quit using too as the stability helped them get to a place in life where they did not feel they needed to. It overall lowered Denmark's opiate addict population.
And again, I never said that legalization would eliminate overdose. I mean, that program did, because they gave out measured doses to the addicts at a clinic. But legalization wouldn't. It doesn't solve all the problems. It just keeps people safer and improves their quality of life.And what about non-functional alcoholics? I'm not saying it's impossible to have a sustainable opiate habit, but I'm saying the chances of regular opiate use turning unsustainable, the ratio of junkies to functional users, is a lot different than other drugs and legislation ought to take this difference into account.
The ratio is different for illegal drugs because illegal drugs are fucking expensive, and they're expensive because they're illegal. It isn't something inherent to opiates that makes people dysfunctional. They're likely to be that way with or without the heroin. In many cases, it helps people become *more* functional in the same way that anti-depressants help people become more functional, pain related issues aside.
I think you've got this idea of addicts nodding out all the time and it's just not like that.
Why do you think legalizing weed or psychedelics or whatever you think should be legalized would be ANY different? -
2017-09-06 at 1:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist you have to take into consideration the difference between heroin users and junkies. two totally different animals. heroin users stick mostly to heroin and use for pleasure. and think about it, heroin addicts have to go out and earn that shit, the idea of a non-function heroin addict is a paradox. if they didn't function then they wouldn't get the heroin to be addicts.
junkies on the other hand are the ones you see with a needle in one hand and a can of high strength beer in the other. they will do anything they can get their hands on so they inevitably use heroin and end up addicted, but will normally use benzo's, alcohol, crack and all sorts of other shit. if drugs weren't available those fuckers would be huffing raid for real, or something similar. its just about getting fucked up with them, they don't care how they do it.
Yeah, I really don't think Lanny has had any experience with opiate addicts to be honest. He's got a very stereotypical perception of what it is. -
2017-09-06 at 5:54 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 6:03 PM UTCCocaethalyn isnt bad for you. Everyone drinks and does coke.
-
2017-09-06 at 6:06 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 6:12 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-06 at 6:13 PM UTCI think he's talking about cocaethylene but I don't know why it's being so retarded about it
-
2017-09-06 at 6:20 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 6:20 PM UTC
-
2017-09-06 at 6:21 PM UTCI don't want to be a loser like everyone else. Please help me.
