How fucking stupid can people be? :wacko:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us/17salts.html
QuoteAn Alarming New Stimulant, Legal in Many States
Dr. Jeffrey J. Narmi could not believe what he was seeing this spring in the emergency room at Schuylkill Medical Center in Pottsville, Pa.: people arriving so agitated, violent and psychotic that a small army of medical workers was needed to hold them down.
They had taken new stimulant drugs that people are calling "bath salts," and sometimes even large doses of sedatives failed to quiet them.
"There were some who were admitted overnight for treatment and subsequently admitted to the psych floor upstairs," Dr. Narmi said. "These people were completely disconnected from reality and in a very bad place."
Similar reports are emerging from hospitals around the country, as doctors scramble to figure out the best treatment for people high on bath salts. The drugs started turning up regularly in the United States last year and have proliferated in recent months, alarming doctors, who say they have unusually dangerous and long-lasting effects.
Though they come in powder and crystal form like traditional bath salts — hence their name — they differ in one crucial way: they are used as recreational drugs. People typically snort, inject or smoke them.
Poison control centers around the country received 3,470 calls about bath salts from January through June, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, up from 303 in all of 2010.
"Some of these folks aren't right for a long time," said Karen E. Simone, director of the Northern New England Poison Center. "If you gave me a list of drugs that I wouldn't want to touch, this would be at the top."
At least 28 states have banned bath salts, which are typically sold for $25 to $50 per 50-milligram packet at convenience stores and head shops under names like Aura, Ivory Wave, Loco-Motion and Vanilla Sky. Most of the bans are in the South and the Midwest, where the drugs have grown quickly in popularity. But states like Maine, New Jersey and New York have also outlawed them after seeing evidence that their use was spreading.
The cases are jarring and similar to those involving PCP in the 1970s. Some of the recent incidents include a man in Indiana who climbed a roadside flagpole and jumped into traffic, a man in Pennsylvania who broke into a monastery and stabbed a priest, and a woman in West Virginia who scratched herself "to pieces" over several days because she thought there was something under her skin.
"She looked like she had been dragged through a briar bush for several miles," said Dr. Owen M. Lander, an emergency room doctor at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, W.Va.
Bath salts contain manmade chemicals like mephedrone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone, or MDPV, also known as substituted cathinones. Both drugs are related to khat, an organic stimulant found in Arab and East African countries that is illegal in the United States.
They are similar to so-called synthetic marijuana, which has also caused a surge in medical emergencies and been banned in a number of states. In March, the Drug Enforcement Administration used emergency powers to temporarily ban five chemicals used in synthetic marijuana, which is sold in the same types of shops as bath salts.
Shortly afterward, Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, asked the agency to enact a similar ban on the chemicals in bath salts. It has not done so, although Gary Boggs, a special agent at D.E.A. headquarters in Washington, said the agency had started looking into whether to make MDPV and mephedrone controlled Schedule I drugs like heroin and ecstasy.
Mr. Casey said in a recent interview that he was frustrated by the lack of a temporary ban. "There has to be some authority that is not being exercised," he said. "I'm not fully convinced they can't take action in a way that's commensurate with the action taken at the state level."
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, introduced federal legislation in February to classify bath salts as controlled Schedule I substances, but it remains in committee. Meanwhile, the drugs remain widely available on the Internet, and experts say the state bans can be thwarted by chemists who need change only one molecule in salts to make them legal again.
And while some states with bans have seen fewer episodes involving bath salts, others where they remain fully legal, like Arizona, are starting to see a surge of cases.
Dr. Frank LoVecchio, an emergency room doctor at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix, said he had to administer general anesthesia in recent weeks to bath salt users so agitated that they did not respond to large doses of sedatives.
Dr. Justin Strittmatter, an emergency room doctor at the Gulf Coast Medical Center in Panama City, Fla., said he had treated one man whose temperature had shot up to 107.5 degrees after snorting bath salts. "You could fry an egg on his forehead," Dr. Strittmatter said.
Other doctors described dangerously elevated blood pressure and heart rates and people so agitated that their muscles started to break down, releasing chemicals that led to kidney failure.
Mark Ryan, the director of the Louisiana Poison Center, said some doctors had turned to powerful antipsychotics to calm users after sedatives failed. "If you take the worst attributes of meth, coke, PCP, LSD and ecstasy and put them together," he said, "that's what we're seeing sometimes."
Dr. Ryan added, "Some people who used it back in November or December, their family members say they're still experiencing noticeable paranoid tendencies that they did not have prior."
Before hitting this country, bath salts swept Britain, which banned them in April 2010. Experts say much of the supply is coming from China and India, where chemical manufacturers have less government oversight.
They are labeled "not for human consumption," which helps them skirt the federal Analog Act, under which any substance "substantially similar" to a banned drug is deemed illegal if it is intended for consumption.
Last month, the drug agency made its first arrests involving bath salts under the Analog Act through a special task force in New York. Undercover agents bought bath salts from stores in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where clerks discussed how to ingest them and boasted that they would not show up on a drug test.
"We were sending out a message that if you're going to sell these bath salts, it's a violation and we will be looking at you," said John P. Gilbride, special agent in charge of the New York field division of the D.E.A.
The authorities in Alton, Ill., are looking at the Analog Act as they prepare to file criminal charges in the death of a woman who overdosed on bath salts bought at a liquor store in April.
"We think we can prove that these folks were selling it across the counter for the purposes of humans getting high," said Chief David Hayes of the Alton police.
Chief Hayes and other law enforcement officials said they had been shocked by how quickly bath salts turned into a major problem. "I have never seen a drug that took off as fast as this one," Chief Hayes said. Others said some people on the drugs could not be subdued with pepper spray or even Tasers.
Chief Joseph H. Murton of the Pottsville police said the number of bath salt cases had dropped significantly since the city banned the drugs last month. But before the ban, he said, the episodes were overwhelming the police and two local hospitals.
"We had two instances in particular where they were acting out in a very violent manner and they were Tasered and it had no effect," he said. "One was only a small female, but it took four officers to hold her down, along with two orderlies. That's how out of control she was."
Deja vu :unsure:
When did Garbon hack timmy's account?
I thought we already had a few threads on this.
Also, is this really a crisis?
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2011, 09:27:23 PM
Also, is this really a crisis?
Yes. Every bit as much as toad-licking was.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 09:23:43 PM
I thought we already had a few threads on this.
Tim doesn't read.
My Cousin told me some nasty stories about this. She's a nurse, so she sees all this kind of shit all the time. Mostly it's white middle class kids.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 09:23:43 PM
I thought we already had a few threads on this.
It's so stupid, it needs to be reiterated.
I got extremely drunk at a bar and someone convinced me to try this. Have not touched any kind of drug since, and have not had as much to drink.
This shit needs to be banned. Everywhere and under all circumstances. It is far more potent, and far more dangerous, than pot, the only other drug I know of.
That explains so much Squeelus.
Makes sense that it's a white middle class drug. Who else keeps bath salts in the house?
I thought you tried cocaine Spellus?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 17, 2011, 11:38:23 PM
I thought you tried cocaine Spellus?
It wasn't coke, it was bath salts. Turns out he wasn't lying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSmu_JDtzVM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics.
:lol:
"My position on gun control is restricted solely on black powder flintlock hunting rifles and the M249 Light SAW."
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
I wish he'd do us all a favor, and try to snort bath beads.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
:lmfao:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2011, 04:46:21 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
I wish he'd do us all a favor, and try to snort bath beads.
I'd like him to snort anal beads.
I've heard about the bath salt pillars of the west.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
They are sold as bath salts.
Quote from: Zoupa on July 18, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Does Timmay know that these are not really bath salts, and that's just the street name?
Just wondering.
I didn't know this and was really confused until you spelled it out.
Something to do with the drug laws in the us. if a drug isn't technically illegal but analogues to another drug then it's illegal, unless you sell it as something else. So selling it as "bath salts" even if it isn't a bath salt makes it legal. IIRC anyway.
Heh, think that's bad? Try googling "krokodil". :D
drugs made from crocodile? :unsure: :P
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2011, 08:26:45 AM
drugs made from crocodile? :unsure: :P
Russian crocodiles.
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2011, 08:26:45 AM
drugs made from crocodile? :unsure: :P
ok looked it up. It's like heroine but with teh added benefit of necrosis and amputation... drug users are fucked up.
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2011, 08:26:45 AM
drugs made from crocodile? :unsure: :P
Drugs that make you *resemble* a crocodile. Seriously. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 08:25:18 AM
Heh, think that's bad? Try googling "krokodil". :D
You tried it, didn't you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 17, 2011, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 09:23:43 PM
I thought we already had a few threads on this.
It's so stupid, it needs to be reiterated.
all drug use is stupid, if people don't know that by now, they will never learn. Why bother?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Isn't that what we did but instead of using Quee's judgement we used some old guys judgement?
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 09:09:32 AM
all drug use is stupid, if people don't know that by now, they will never learn. Why bother?
Agreed. Penicillin is terrible!
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Isn't that what we did but instead of using Quee's judgement we used some old guys judgement?
If by "some old guys" you mean Parliament, then yes. But I can see how you would think that one 20-something Chicago stoner is equivalent to our elected representatives. :wacko:
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Isn't that what we did but instead of using Quee's judgement we used some old guys judgement?
If by "some old guys" you mean Parliament, then yes. But I can see how you would think that one 20-something Chicago stoner is equivalent to our elected representatives. :wacko:
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Isn't that what we did but instead of using Quee's judgement we used some old guys judgement?
If by "some old guys" you mean Parliament, then yes. But I can see how you would think that one 20-something Chicago stoner is equivalent to our elected representatives. :wacko:
Bias is Bias.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:38:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 18, 2011, 12:10:25 AM
My position on drugs is extremely liberal on pot and most hallucinogenics. Not on this shit. This is really, really bad.
:lol:
Legalize the drugs I like, but ban the ones I don't.
Isn't that what we did but instead of using Quee's judgement we used some old guys judgement?
If by "some old guys" you mean Parliament, then yes. But I can see how you would think that one 20-something Chicago stoner is equivalent to our elected representatives. :wacko:
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
If being inconsistent is the mark of an intelligent man, you are a true genius. :hmm:
[Though actually, you are very consistent in that you always construct your arguments out of personal convenience rather than logic.]
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
I seriously don't want to debate legalizing drugs today.
I've never run into "bath salts" on a file, either up north or in Alberta. But as with many trends, sometimes we're just a year or two behind. Or sometimes the trend just never gets here at all. There are some communities which were ravaged by crystal meth, but others (not even that far away) which never had it as a problem at all. Drugs are funny that way.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
I seriously don't want to debate legalizing drugs today.
I've never run into "bath salts" on a file, either up north or in Alberta. But as with many trends, sometimes we're just a year or two behind. Or sometimes the trend just never gets here at all. There are some communities which were ravaged by crystal meth, but others (not even that far away) which never had it as a problem at all. Drugs are funny that way.
What about huffing gasoline? That's always a good one. Hard to ban gasoline. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 08:53:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 08:25:18 AM
Heh, think that's bad? Try googling "krokodil". :D
You tried it, didn't you?
:D
is that where you get your healthy reptilian sheen from? i just assumed it was a lawyer thing
:D
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2011, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 18, 2011, 08:53:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 08:25:18 AM
Heh, think that's bad? Try googling "krokodil". :D
You tried it, didn't you?
:D
is that where you get your healthy reptilian sheen from? i just assumed it was a lawyer thing
:D
It has the side effect that I appear to be shedding my mammalian hair, but sadly, only on my head. :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:56:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
I seriously don't want to debate legalizing drugs today.
I've never run into "bath salts" on a file, either up north or in Alberta. But as with many trends, sometimes we're just a year or two behind. Or sometimes the trend just never gets here at all. There are some communities which were ravaged by crystal meth, but others (not even that far away) which never had it as a problem at all. Drugs are funny that way.
What about huffing gasoline? That's always a good one. Hard to ban gasoline. :hmm:
Thankfully, the negative effects of huffing are both rapidly apparent, and the high you get is apparently not very good, it is pretty rare for it to be much of a problem (except on some seriously isolated native communities).
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 10:16:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:56:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 09:54:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Though, oddly enough, in this case he's got the better opinion. :D
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
I seriously don't want to debate legalizing drugs today.
I've never run into "bath salts" on a file, either up north or in Alberta. But as with many trends, sometimes we're just a year or two behind. Or sometimes the trend just never gets here at all. There are some communities which were ravaged by crystal meth, but others (not even that far away) which never had it as a problem at all. Drugs are funny that way.
What about huffing gasoline? That's always a good one. Hard to ban gasoline. :hmm:
Thankfully, the negative effects of huffing are both rapidly apparent, and the high you get is apparently not very good, it is pretty rare for it to be much of a problem (except on some seriously isolated native communities).
That's just the point: drug prohibition, where
successful, is likely to result in a situation where drugs that are relatively non-lethal become impossible to get are replaced by substitutes such as huffing solvents, or "krokodil"-like stuff.
The reason is that the problem is not the availability of drugs, it is the social conditions that lead people to want vacations from reality.
[Obviously, people smoking a bit of pot to enhance listening to an album, or having an after-dinner glass of wine, are not in the same category as people huffing glue or doing meth because their reality is unbearable, but that's a different argument - about the silliness of treating 'em legally as similar].
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 10:25:12 AM
[Obviously, people smoking a bit of pot to enhance listening to an album, or having an after-dinner glass of wine, are not in the same category as people huffing glue or doing meth because their reality is unbearable, but that's a different argument - about the silliness of treating 'em legally as similar].
Come on Malthus - you know they aren't treated the same. You're probably the only other person on this forum who knows the difference between a Schedule I drug (meth) and a Schedule VII drug (marijuana).
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
there are plenty of rational, medical and scientific reasons.
Increase in mental health disorder risks is one among many, health care concerns for the users and mostly secondhand users is another.
Driving under the influence is the most important. Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 10:48:27 AM
Driving under the influence is the most important. Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.
I have no idea what you're talking about. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 10:30:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 10:25:12 AM
[Obviously, people smoking a bit of pot to enhance listening to an album, or having an after-dinner glass of wine, are not in the same category as people huffing glue or doing meth because their reality is unbearable, but that's a different argument - about the silliness of treating 'em legally as similar].
Come on Malthus - you know they aren't treated the same. You're probably the only other person on this forum who knows the difference between a Schedule I drug (meth) and a Schedule VII drug (marijuana).
I know they aren't the *same* - point is that they are treated *similarly*, that is, their use is an offence. The punishment varies, depending on the amount of drug you have.
Pot is listed on Schedules II, VII and VIII. For simple possession, the *only* differences between pot and a Schedule I drug is (1) that possession of truly small amounts of pot is punished as a summary offence only; and (2) that, if the Crown elects to proceed by way of indictment, the maximum punishment is two years less (5 years as opposed to 7).
From the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
Quote4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
Obtaining substance
(2) No person shall seek or obtain
(a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or
(b) an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV
from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances, from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days.
Punishment
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
Punishment
(4) Subject to subsection (5), every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years less a day; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable
(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, and
(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
Punishment
(5) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VIII is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.
Quote
SCHEDULE II
(Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)
1. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including
(1) Cannabis resin
(2) Cannabis (marihuana)
(3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)
(4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)
(5) Nabilone ((±)–trans–3–(1,1–dimethylheptyl)–6,6a, 7,8,10,10a–hexahydro–1–hydroxy–6,6–dimethyl–9H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–9–one)
(6) Pyrahexyl (3–n–hexyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–7,8,9, 10–tetrahydro–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)
(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)
(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)
but not including
(8) Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks
...
SCHEDULE VIII
(Sections 4 and 60)
Substance
Amount
1. Cannabis resin
1 g
2. Cannabis (marihuana)
30 g
Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years!
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.
there are plenty of rational, medical and scientific reasons.
Increase in mental health disorder risks is one among many, health care concerns for the users and mostly secondhand users is another.
Never heard of "secondhand smoke"? Or any bad health impacts to users from tobacco or booze? :hmm:
Quote
Driving under the influence is the most important. Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.
:huh: That's a new one.
Malthus - that's exactly my point. The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.
By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 10:52:29 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 10:48:27 AM
Driving under the influence is the most important. Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.
I have no idea what you're talking about. :huh:
there was a case in Quebec where a pot user was accused of driving under the influence and killing someone in a accident. He got off with a few hours of community work because he "proved" he was addicted to pot and couldn't help but smoke it constantly.
And I've found another one, where a murdered got 5 years of jail time, instead of 25, for successfully pleading addiction to cannabis. The guy claimed he was seeing the Devil, so he killed the man he was with.
Case of Martin Veilleux, judged in Longueil by judge Gilles Hébert in 2004.
There's too many cases like this.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 10:55:04 AM
Never heard of "secondhand smoke"? Or any bad health impacts to users from tobacco or booze? :hmm:
I have my lungs on fire and still have red eyes from the show on Saturday night.
Tobacco is bad enough, don't add anymore.
Quote
:huh: That's a new one.
not really. All you need to have is a psychiatrist testifying you are addicted to the stuff and it causes you to hallucinate.
Quote
Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years!
How many times does that happen? For fuck sake, people were smoking in the streets with cops everywhere and nobody was arrested.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:08:55 AM
Malthus - that's exactly my point. The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.
By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.
Not really.
Person A has some pot. Person B has some Meth.
If the crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, both face a maximum of $1000 fine and/or 6 months in prision.
The *only* difference is if the crown chooses to proceed by way of indictment. Where the amounts of drug are small, that seems unlikely - but by statute, the crown CAN'T proceed by indictment if the poor mook has 1 gram or less of pot resin.
The difference if the crown DOES proceed by indictment is minor (5 years vs. 7 maximum).
That hardly appears to be an "enormous difference". Going to jail for 5 years for having a relatively tiny amount of resin (more than 1 gram - which is nothing) would be pretty similar to going to jail for 7 years.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 11:19:05 AM
How many times does that happen? For fuck sake, people were smoking in the streets with cops everywhere and nobody was arrested.
It is true, most cops - like most people generally - don't bother with this silly law, because they recognize its absurdity.
However, I'm talking about what is in the actual legislation, not how that legislation is viewed by society ads a whole. The legislation has not caught up to the popular view.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 11:20:40 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:08:55 AM
Malthus - that's exactly my point. The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.
By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.
Not really.
Person A has some pot. Person B has some Meth.
If the crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, both face a maximum of $1000 fine and/or 6 months in prision.
The *only* difference is if the crown chooses to proceed by way of indictment. Where the amounts of drug are small, that seems unlikely - but by statute, the crown CAN'T proceed by indictment if the poor mook has 1 gram or less of pot resin.
The difference if the crown DOES proceed by indictment is minor (5 years vs. 7 maximum).
That hardly appears to be an "enormous difference". Going to jail for 5 years for having a relatively tiny amount of resin (more than 1 gram - which is nothing) would be pretty similar to going to jail for 7 years.
Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment. Only very few offences are straight summary conviction. So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.
And you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum. Nobody ever gets the maximum. When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 10:55:04 AM
Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years!
Where prison rape is concerned, those two years are a god send :P
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:27:49 AM
When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).
In the US Marijuana is a schedule one drug.
Do you think it is right that it is a Schedule one drug here?
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 11:34:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:27:49 AM
When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).
In the US Marijuana is a schedule one drug.
Do you think it is right that it is a Schedule one drug here?
I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work. In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs. It might be different down there though.
Cannabis is any quantity is listed in Schedule II.
And my mistake - methamphetamine is a Schedule III drug. Although that gets tricky as there are dozens of chemically very similar drugs listed.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:45:23 AM
I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work. In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs. It might be different down there though.
No it is exactly the same. Schedule one is the most dangerous drugs like heroin and crack and the like.
Heh. What is the point of Schedules, then?
There's a part of me that thinks if tobacco cigarettes are legal, there's nothing that should be illegal.
Quote from: dps on July 18, 2011, 12:15:50 PM
There's a part of me that thinks if tobacco cigarettes are legal, there's nothing that should be illegal.
If tobacco was invented yesterday there's no way you could legalize it.
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:45:23 AM
I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work. In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs. It might be different down there though.
No it is exactly the same. Schedule one is the most dangerous drugs like heroin and crack and the like.
There are multiple schedules in the US as well. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created the familiar national schedules based on the abuse potential of medically approved drugs. Schedule I is for drugs with no medically approved purpose, so includes heroin (unlike in the UK), marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc. Cocaine (and presumably crack) is Schedule II since there are some anaesthetic indications for cocaine, as is methamphetamine, which has some indications for ADHD.
But in Tennessee, for instance, marijuana is criminally prosecuted as a Schedule VI drug, making it lower than any prescription drug and in a schedule of its own. I imagine there are similar things in other states.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 12:40:30 PM
But in Tennessee, for instance, marijuana is criminally prosecuted as a Schedule VI drug, making it lower than any prescription drug and in a schedule of its own. I imagine there are similar things in other states.
Well that is the funky thing. In addition to the federal laws for interstate issues each state has their own laws for drug abuse inside their borders. Hence the proposition in Cali to legalize Marijuana or things like medical Marijuana. All well and good so long as nobody leaves the state.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 11:46:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:45:23 AM
I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work. In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs. It might be different down there though.
No it is exactly the same. Schedule one is the most dangerous drugs like heroin and crack and the like.
There are multiple schedules in the US as well. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created the familiar national schedules based on the abuse potential of medically approved drugs. Schedule I is for drugs with no medically approved purpose, so includes heroin (unlike in the UK), marijuana, LSD, MDMA, etc. Cocaine (and presumably crack) is Schedule II since there are some anaesthetic indications for cocaine, as is methamphetamine, which has some indications for ADHD.
But in Tennessee, for instance, marijuana is criminally prosecuted as a Schedule VI drug, making it lower than any prescription drug and in a schedule of its own. I imagine there are similar things in other states.
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
:blink:
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 12:42:41 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 12:40:30 PM
But in Tennessee, for instance, marijuana is criminally prosecuted as a Schedule VI drug, making it lower than any prescription drug and in a schedule of its own. I imagine there are similar things in other states.
Well that is the funky thing. In addition to the federal laws for interstate issues each state has their own laws for drug abuse inside their borders. Hence the proposition in Cali to legalize Marijuana or things like medical Marijuana. All well and good so long as nobody leaves the state.
That's true of many things. It's alright to text while driving as long as you remain in states where it is legal.
I guess that explains why fentanyl is also Schedule II despite blowing heroin out of the water. On most people, at least. Sadly, it seems to do nothing for me. :(
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:31:42 PM
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people. And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.
And it's worth noting again for our non-US posters that as far as the national schedule goes, the Feds rarely prosecute anyone for simple possession (at least for pot)--they mostly go after the dealers. So you're not likely to end up in the Federal pen for pot if you're just caught with your personal stash. The exceptions would be if they're trying to pressure you into testimony against a supplier, or occasionally to make a point--for example, when California legalized medicinal marijuana, the feds busted some people to remind everyone that it was still illegal under federal law (though even then, I think it was mostly head shop owners, not people who were just users).
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
:blink:
No idea what they were thinking. I had a nosebleed that wouldn't stop, and had gone on for a few hours. I guess cocaine does have the effect of constricting blood vessels, but man, it had me flying off the walls for five minutes, then crashing and shivering immediately afterwards.
Not fun.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:31:42 PM
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people. And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.
But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal. Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product. It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:31:42 PM
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
Glad we dodged that bullet with pot.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal. Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product. It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.
Who says that it has to be sudden? It isn't like smoking bans came in suddenly.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:31:42 PM
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people. And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.
But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal. Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product. It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.
We did it to those who drank alchohol.
Of course, I can't say that that worked out well.
Which reminds me. Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco). The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal. But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:27:49 AM
Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment. Only very few offences are straight summary conviction. So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.
Yes, but the amount listed in Schedule VIII is tiny. 1 gram of has oil is nothing - no-one ever buys a single gram for personal use. Most by a quarter (7 grams) as the absolute smallest amount.
QuoteAnd you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum. Nobody ever gets the maximum. When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).
Then why are you mentioning the drug Schedules at all, if the legislation is irrelevant? It's you that made the claim they were vastly different because they were differently scheduled, and me that's pointing out that this isn't true. :lol:
Of course the courts tend to treat pot differently, as a matter of case law - as, I pointed out to Viper, does society as a whole; but that's no argument, because (a) it is uneven - one cop can arrest you even though 99% of cops don't care; and (b) it is unjust to have laws on the books that allow for judges to punish you the same, or nearly the same, if they should so choose.
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freefoto.com%2Fimages%2F41%2F05%2F41_05_68---Speed-limit-25-mph-road-sign_web.jpg&hash=b5498cbb22995d709f201b81e1132b1c343437fa)
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
:hmm: That's an interesting concept, I have to admit.
Quote from: dps on July 18, 2011, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2011, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:31:42 PM
If you listed it as a controlled substance today however you'd instantly make criminals out of millions of people. So instead we try and go after it in other ways.
But the drug laws do make criminals out of millions of people. And the taxpayer is stuck with the bill of investigating, arresting, charging, and incarcerating them.
But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal. Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product. It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.
We did it to those who drank alchohol.
Of course, I can't say that that worked out well.
Which reminds me. Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco). The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal. But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.
One problem with this is something I pointed out upthread - that some of the very worst drugs (as in, worst health effects) are otherwise-legal substances used as drugs, or home-made drugs containing impurities and poisions. For example, huffing gasoline, 'krokodil", or in the Prohibition era, bootleg booze.
Making more actual drugs illegal doesn't work to improve public health, it makes it worse: alkies, instead of drinking themselves to death slowly with legally-made booze (government certified as to purity), drink themselves to death quickly with bathtub booze (containing any number of poisions).
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2011, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freefoto.com%2Fimages%2F41%2F05%2F41_05_68---Speed-limit-25-mph-road-sign_web.jpg&hash=b5498cbb22995d709f201b81e1132b1c343437fa)
Yea! Most Speed limits should be raise by 10 to 25 mph.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2011, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freefoto.com%2Fimages%2F41%2F05%2F41_05_68---Speed-limit-25-mph-road-sign_web.jpg&hash=b5498cbb22995d709f201b81e1132b1c343437fa)
The problem with speed limits is quite different, because no matter how they are raised, people will tend to go 10km faster. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:19:18 PM
The problem with speed limits is quite different, because no matter how they are raised, people will tend to go 10km faster. :lol:
Not really. It may seem like it only because within our living memory, speed limits have been kept absurdly low.
The issue is in fact very similar in many ways. Speeding is a good way for police to stop people arbitrarily, since pretty much everyone does it. Laws that require a lot of discretion to be excercised are bad laws.
There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 18, 2011, 01:37:33 PM
There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.
I don't think anyone was suggesting there shouldn't be limits. More like the limits should reflect reality. If everyone is going 75 on the Garden State Parkway - having a limit of 55 (in places) can only serve to function as a method for arbitrary enforcement/police harassment.
Quote from: dps on July 18, 2011, 01:01:14 PM
Which reminds me. Someone (grumbler, I think) posted in another thread that alcohol has one of the highest social and health costs of any recreational drug, even though it's legal (and the same can be said for tobacco). The implication, given the context, seemed to be that perhaps other drugs should be legalized, since the one's that cause the most problems are the ones that are legal. But it seems to me that that point can easily be turned around--the high costs associated with those few recreational drugs that are legal could indicate that letting recreational drugs be legal is a bad idea.
Given that alcohol is so widespread, it's no surprise that it has the highest social and health costs.
A lot more people drink a beer or two than people who smoke pot.
And pot has zero positive contribution to your health, while alcohol as many, particularly wine, but also strong alcohol.
Just like coffee, it can be nocive if you take too much. But a regular consumption of wine will prevent many cancers and heart diseases.
Overall, alcohol has a lot more positive outcome than any of the illegal drugs when you factor in everything.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 01:51:39 PM
And pot has zero positive contribution to your health, while alcohol as many, particularly wine, but also strong alcohol.
Just like coffee, it can be nocive if you take too much. But a regular consumption of wine will prevent many cancers and heart diseases.
I wouldn't say zero. I does help alleviate spasticity, improve appetite, reduce inflammation, etc.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 18, 2011, 01:37:33 PM
There are very good reasons to limit speed: its relation to drag, the role it plays in kinetic energy buildup and reaction distance increase.
Yes, but up to a point. Speed limits have to have credibility in order to control actual speed. Setting speed limit everywhere to 10 mph wouldn't slow us down much.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 11:27:49 AM
Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment. Only very few offences are straight summary conviction. So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.
Yes, but the amount listed in Schedule VIII is tiny. 1 gram of has oil is nothing - no-one ever buys a single gram for personal use. Most by a quarter (7 grams) as the absolute smallest amount.
QuoteAnd you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum. Nobody ever gets the maximum. When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).
Then why are you mentioning the drug Schedules at all, if the legislation is irrelevant? It's you that made the claim they were vastly different because they were differently scheduled, and me that's pointing out that this isn't true. :lol:
Of course the courts tend to treat pot differently, as a matter of case law - as, I pointed out to Viper, does society as a whole; but that's no argument, because (a) it is uneven - one cop can arrest you even though 99% of cops don't care; and (b) it is unjust to have laws on the books that allow for judges to punish you the same, or nearly the same, if they should so choose.
The fact that the laws are not enforced to the full range isn't an argument for keeping the laws on the books as they presently are, it's an argument for changing them to reflect actual practice.
Why do you only refer to the 1g of cannabis resin? I've so very rarely even seen resin or oil in a file. The other amount listed is 30g of actual cannabis - which seems like a reasonablely small amount for personal use.
And I certainly didn't say that Schedules were unimportant. Please observe the "and", which indicated I was making an additional point, not changing the point I was making.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
But when comparing drug laws to tobacco, at least when drug users started using they knew it was illegal. Right now millions of smokers are hooked on what is a legal product. It seems pretty harsh to suddenly tell them one day their cigarettes are illegal.
Before the marijuana laws were enacted, the drug was also legal. What it didn't have was a politically well-connected and well-financed industry to protect it from criminal legislation.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 01:51:39 PM
Given that alcohol is so widespread, it's no surprise that it has the highest social and health costs.
A lot more people drink a beer or two than people who smoke pot.
And pot has zero positive contribution to your health, while alcohol as many, particularly wine, but also strong alcohol.
Just like coffee, it can be nocive if you take too much. But a regular consumption of wine will prevent many cancers and heart diseases.
Overall, alcohol has a lot more positive outcome than any of the illegal drugs when you factor in everything.
Most of the benefits of wine are due to certain flavonoids, not alcohol itself. If good health is what you're after it is much better to get them from fruit.
I wouldn't be surprised if doing small amounts of drugs such as alcohol actually does you some good, but that fact is irrelevant.
The (reasonable) reason why drugs are illegal is twofold: (1) harm to self and society resulting from addiction (that is, chronic use effects); and (2) harm to self and society caused by taking the stuff on any given occasion (acute use effects).
In terms of actual harms to individuals resulting from chronic and/or acute use, alchohol rates as far, far more dangerous than pot. It is more addictive, has worse chronic health effects, and the acute effects of booze are well-known: they include violent behaviour, blackouts, vomiting, etc.; the acute effect of pot are giggling, eating Doritos and sleeping. :P
But without alcohol how would ugly people get laid? :(
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2011, 03:16:56 PM
But without alcohol how would ugly people get laid? :(
I said taking fruits instead of alcohol is best for your health. I never denied having your date take alcohol instead of fruits is also best for your health. :P
Quote from: Iormlund on July 18, 2011, 03:03:07 PM
Most of the benefits of wine are due to certain flavonoids, not alcohol itself. If good health is what you're after it is much better to get them from fruit.
it's part of the package. If we were to drink pure, 100% alcohol, I don't think it would be that good for us. But it's like marijuana, wich comes with THC. I don't think you could smoke pure THC either, so it's irrelevant what 100% THC would do to you.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 03:10:16 PM
In terms of actual harms to individuals resulting from chronic and/or acute use, alchohol rates as far, far more dangerous than pot. It is more addictive, has worse chronic health effects, and the acute effects of booze are well-known: they include violent behaviour, blackouts, vomiting, etc.; the acute effect of pot are giggling, eating Doritos and sleeping. :P
pot induce psychosis. As as been used in legal defense, with success, more than once.
I've never seen a drunk hearing voices, thinking he had to kill the Devil who posessed his friend.
Blackouts, you see that often during rock shows. Just this Saturday, dozens of poeple used too much pot and either fell asleep or where evacuated by paramedics.
Sickness? I don't think people turning green and vomitting is something else than sickness related to too much pot. It could have been the poutine, but I wasn't sick, so... ;)
So, we have essentially the same effects as alcohol, worst, even, and you make others smoke that shit when they don't want to.
Nobody is forced to drink in my presence. Alcohol 100, Pot 0. :P
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 18, 2011, 03:03:07 PM
Most of the benefits of wine are due to certain flavonoids, not alcohol itself. If good health is what you're after it is much better to get them from fruit.
it's part of the package. If we were to drink pure, 100% alcohol, I don't think it would be that good for us. But it's like marijuana, wich comes with THC. I don't think you could smoke pure THC either, so it's irrelevant what 100% THC would do to you.
Not really. First of all, you don't need to smoke marijuana to absorb THC. But most importanly, treatments for which marijuana is an alternative have their own problems, while flavonoid alternatives to wine are perfectly healthy.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2011, 03:54:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 03:10:16 PM
In terms of actual harms to individuals resulting from chronic and/or acute use, alchohol rates as far, far more dangerous than pot. It is more addictive, has worse chronic health effects, and the acute effects of booze are well-known: they include violent behaviour, blackouts, vomiting, etc.; the acute effect of pot are giggling, eating Doritos and sleeping. :P
pot induce psychosis. As as been used in legal defense, with success, more than once.
I've never seen a drunk hearing voices, thinking he had to kill the Devil who posessed his friend.
Blackouts, you see that often during rock shows. Just this Saturday, dozens of poeple used too much pot and either fell asleep or where evacuated by paramedics.
Sickness? I don't think people turning green and vomitting is something else than sickness related to too much pot. It could have been the poutine, but I wasn't sick, so... ;)
So, we have essentially the same effects as alcohol, worst, even, and you make others smoke that shit when they don't want to.
Nobody is forced to drink in my presence. Alcohol 100, Pot 0. :P
You've never heard of DTs? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens
Or alcohol-related psychosis?
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/289848-overview
Alcohol-related dementia?
http://www.annals-general-psychiatry.com/content/5/S1/S57
I've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
I've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
I knew someone would correct viper.
But pot is strongly associated with a variety of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. Heavy pot users are much more likely to develop such illnesses when compared to the general population. Now the comeback to this is you can not prove causation - theoretically you could argue that people predisposed to mental illness are more likely to smoke pot.
Drug use has certainly been a factor with a few of the raving loonies I've dealt with.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PMI've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
i knew a girl who claimed she thought she was in hell after smoking too much (also an inexperienced user), but she was very drunk at the time. it can happen
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
I've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
I knew someone would correct viper.
But pot is strongly associated with a variety of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. Heavy pot users are much more likely to develop such illnesses when compared to the general population. Now the comeback to this is you can not prove causation - theoretically you could argue that people predisposed to mental illness are more likely to smoke pot.
Drug use has certainly been a factor with a few of the raving loonies I've dealt with.
Yeah, I've seen research that indicates that pot use can trigger psychosis in some people.
If it's a question of comparative harms in the form of mental illnesses triggered or exacerbated by sustance abuse, alcohol "wins" hands down, I would think.
And if it's a question of its use being a factor in crimes and accidents, I doubt it's even a contest.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 18, 2011, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PMI've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
i knew a girl who claimed she thought she was in hell after smoking too much (also an inexperienced user), but she was very drunk at the time. it can happen
Huh? If she both smoke and drank to excess, seems her testimony is worthless if the question is which of those two causes mental problems. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
I've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
I knew someone would correct viper.
But pot is strongly associated with a variety of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. Heavy pot users are much more likely to develop such illnesses when compared to the general population. Now the comeback to this is you can not prove causation - theoretically you could argue that people predisposed to mental illness are more likely to smoke pot.
Drug use has certainly been a factor with a few of the raving loonies I've dealt with.
Yeah, I've seen research that indicates that pot use can trigger psychosis in some people.
If it's a question of comparative harms in the form of mental illnesses triggered or exacerbated by sustance abuse, alcohol "wins" hands down, I would think.
And if it's a question of its use being a factor in crimes and accidents, I doubt it's even a contest.
And what of it?
I don't have a problem saying I see alcohol as being a factor in a lot more files than I do marijuana. That doesn't mean that we should legalize marijuana though.
haven't read the past few pages of the thread, i was only commenting on that one line
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 04:49:04 PM
And what of it?
I don't have a problem saying I see alcohol as being a factor in a lot more files than I do marijuana. That doesn't mean that we should legalize marijuana though.
Think it through.
Surely though if one were to make decisions about the laws based purely on the potential for harms, pot would likely rate far lower on any objective scale than alcohol in both acute and chronic effect.
Given that there is a scale of harm, from the "not very harmful" effect of (say) caffene on the one hand (a cup of tea, anyone?) through to the "most harmful" effect of (say) krocodil on the other(causes gangrinous wounds and death), most folks who think drug laws are necessary are going to have to draw a line on that scale and say 'anything worse than X is going to be prohibited'.
The question is, where to draw that X? Given the widespread acceptance of booze, it makes sense to say that 'anything worse than booze is prohibited', right?
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 05:07:55 PM
Think it through.
Surely though if one were to make decisions about the laws based purely on the potential for harms, pot would likely rate far lower on any objective scale than alcohol in both acute and chronic effect.
Given that there is a scale of harm, from the "not very harmful" effect of (say) caffene on the one hand (a cup of tea, anyone?) through to the "most harmful" effect of (say) krocodil on the other(causes gangrinous wounds and death), most folks who think drug laws are necessary are going to have to draw a line on that scale and say 'anything worse than X is going to be prohibited'.
The question is, where to draw that X? Given the widespread acceptance of booze, it makes sense to say that 'anything worse than booze is prohibited', right?
First - think it through? You think this is the first time I've heard or contemplated this argument? Do you think so little of me that you think I simply missed your point?
I understand your point and still say - so alcohol is worse than pot. So what?
Booze is the exception. Booze is the one substance with deep cultural roots in most societies. Hell it has religious roots for many. It's the one we failed spectacularily when we did try to ban it. It is the easiest intoxicant to make yourself - pot is easy to grow, but it's only one plant species. Alcohol can be made from
anything.
Potheads who want to legalize marijuana using the alcohol argument remind me of a little kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar blurting out 'but Johnnie took a cookie earlier'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I've spent way more time this summer working on pot busts than I expected. Granted, it's usually in conjunction with something else, but still. Setting felony marijuana levels at a half-ounce = :bleeding:
I've known several people that have ended up residing in a mental institution for some time after drug abuse. While they did use plenty of marijuana, they also drank alcohol and took ketamine, metamphetamine and other shit so it's hard to say which is to blame.
It is also worth noting that all of them were already ... peculiar (if completely functional) before taking drugs. Drug abuse seemingly exacerbated their tendencies to the extreme.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 05:07:55 PM
Think it through.
Surely though if one were to make decisions about the laws based purely on the potential for harms, pot would likely rate far lower on any objective scale than alcohol in both acute and chronic effect.
Given that there is a scale of harm, from the "not very harmful" effect of (say) caffene on the one hand (a cup of tea, anyone?) through to the "most harmful" effect of (say) krocodil on the other(causes gangrinous wounds and death), most folks who think drug laws are necessary are going to have to draw a line on that scale and say 'anything worse than X is going to be prohibited'.
The question is, where to draw that X? Given the widespread acceptance of booze, it makes sense to say that 'anything worse than booze is prohibited', right?
First - think it through? You think this is the first time I've heard or contemplated this argument? Do you think so little of me that you think I simply missed your point?
I understand your point and still say - so alcohol is worse than pot. So what?
Booze is the exception. Booze is the one substance with deep cultural roots in most societies. Hell it has religious roots for many. It's the one we failed spectacularily when we did try to ban it. It is the easiest intoxicant to make yourself - pot is easy to grow, but it's only one plant species. Alcohol can be made from anything.
Potheads who want to legalize marijuana using the alcohol argument remind me of a little kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar blurting out 'but Johnnie took a cookie earlier'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And the war on drugs hasn't .... ?
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:23:48 PM
First - think it through? You think this is the first time I've heard or contemplated this argument? Do you think so little of me that you think I simply missed your point?
I understand your point and still say - so alcohol is worse than pot. So what?
I just explained the "what". ;)
Quote
Booze is the exception. Booze is the one substance with deep cultural roots in most societies. Hell it has religious roots for many. It's the one we failed spectacularily when we did try to ban it. It is the easiest intoxicant to make yourself - pot is easy to grow, but it's only one plant species. Alcohol can be made from anything.
The "booze has deep roots in our culture" argument cuts no ice. Lots of things have deep cultural roots, even religious roots, but which we have changed. Think for example of the status of women.
The "we failed at prohibition" argument - like we are succeeding with "drug prohibition"? :huh: Since when does doing something and failing spectacularly act as a recommendation to do
exactly the same thing again?
The "it is easier to make booze" argument is lame Pot is a
weed. It grows almost anywhere.
QuotePotheads who want to legalize marijuana using the alcohol argument remind me of a little kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar blurting out 'but Johnnie took a cookie earlier'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There is no "wrongs" involved at all. The question is one of public policy and harm reduction. What is "wrong" about having a glass of wine?
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
:blink:
So did I when I was a kid. It's used as anesthetic for the eye. Or at least it used to be, don't know if it is anymore. I had a cut on my eye, and I was screaming and kicking any doctor who would get near me. They held me down, put the stuff in my eye and I immediately calmed down.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 05:24:25 PM
Setting felony marijuana levels at a half-ounce = :bleeding:
You're allowed to possess 24 ounces of "useable marijuana" in Washington, with a MM license.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2011, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
:blink:
So did I when I was a kid. It's used as anesthetic for the eye. Or at least it used to be, don't know if it is anymore. I had a cut on my eye, and I was screaming and kicking any doctor who would get near me. They held me down, put the stuff in my eye and I immediately calmed down.
There's no fucking way that cocaine calmed me down. Quite the opposite.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:39:45 PM
There's no fucking way that cocaine calmed me down. Quite the opposite.
The amount of cocaine solution used for eye anesthesia is extremely small. Even less than the already small amount sprayed intranasally. He probably calmed down because, you know, it worked.
Source: Summers of 2002 and 2003 doing data entry in the ophthalmology wing of Columbia Presbyterian. :smarty:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:39:45 PM
There's no fucking way that cocaine calmed me down. Quite the opposite.
The amount of cocaine solution used for eye anesthesia is extremely small. Even less than the already small amount sprayed intranasally. He probably calmed down because, you know, it worked.
Source: Summers of 2002 and 2003 doing data entry in the ophthalmology wing of Columbia Presbyterian. :smarty:
They didn't spray me. They used a cotton ball soaked in liquid cocaine.
I'm pretty sure the doctor fucked something up in that whole transaction.
IIRC it didn't even stop the nosebleed.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:44:16 PM
They didn't spray me. They used a cotton ball soaked in liquid cocaine.
I'm pretty sure the doctor fucked something up in that whole transaction.
IIRC it didn't even stop the nosebleed.
:lol: Ah.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:44:16 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 18, 2011, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:39:45 PM
There's no fucking way that cocaine calmed me down. Quite the opposite.
The amount of cocaine solution used for eye anesthesia is extremely small. Even less than the already small amount sprayed intranasally. He probably calmed down because, you know, it worked.
Source: Summers of 2002 and 2003 doing data entry in the ophthalmology wing of Columbia Presbyterian. :smarty:
They didn't spray me. They used a cotton ball soaked in liquid cocaine.
I'm pretty sure the doctor fucked something up in that whole transaction.
IIRC it didn't even stop the nosebleed.
Was BB's childhood during Victorian times ? :P
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
I've never seen any pot-smokers who thought they heard devils. :huh:
Unless you read French, I can't provide a source, but see the case I pointed to BB, the one of Martin Veilleux in Longueuil. He's not the first one, wasn't the last either, afaik.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
You've never heard of DTs? ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens
Never seen this in recent times. Not with legally bought alcohol, anyway. With moonshine, anything is possible.
It seems to happens when you enter withdrawal, not when you drink the stuff.
Quote
Or alcohol-related psychosis?
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/289848-overview
Alcohol-related psychosis spontaneously clears with discontinuation of alcohol use No permanent harm, then.
QuoteAlcohol-related dementia?
http://www.annals-general-psychiatry.com/content/5/S1/S57
The term "alcoholic dementia", formerly used to describe this concept, has cast doubt on its existence due to the absence of validated clinical, neuropathological and radiological criteria.So, they broaden the definition to include just about everything bad that can be caused when you drink 40oz of Dekuyper gin before breakfast.
Quote from: Malthus on July 18, 2011, 04:44:51 PM
And if it's a question of its use being a factor in crimes and accidents, I doubt it's even a contest.
Unless I am mistaken, it is still forbidden to a police officer to force a blood test on you. Pot detector aren't mandatory, unlike alcohol.
Quite often, people smoking pot in a night also drink. Police test for alcohol with the usual tools, guy is charged with DUI, media reports he was charged for driving drunk.
Unless someone makes a detailed analysis of all criminal cases, it's going to be hard to get reliable stats.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 05:39:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2011, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2011, 12:43:25 PM
I was administered cocaine once by a doctor. I was 12.
:blink:
So did I when I was a kid. It's used as anesthetic for the eye. Or at least it used to be, don't know if it is anymore. I had a cut on my eye, and I was screaming and kicking any doctor who would get near me. They held me down, put the stuff in my eye and I immediately calmed down.
There's no fucking way that cocaine calmed me down. Quite the opposite.
Don't know about much medicine but there is a concept called "Paradoxical reaction", where the medication does the opposite of what it's suppose to to.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2011, 08:51:17 PM
Don't know about much medicine but there is a concept called "Paradoxical reaction", where the medication does the opposite of what it's suppose to to.
Works with strategy game too.