| Pages:
1
2 |
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
prohibition
As some of you know I oppose all drug prohibition laws. I say make them all legal and clean up the meth mess that follows with rehab and education.
The price of marijuana is going way down in California and Washington states. I only know of a few cases of anyone being addicted to psychedelics.
The "rave" scene and it's X use. (Is mdma a psychedelic?) The other case I kow about is Richard Alpert aka Ram Das. Why make these illegal? We're
missing a fantastic opportunity to develop and explore these materials. Sasha Shulgin pave the way and David Nichols keeps the faith so to speak but
in his academically oriented milieu. I'd liketo see a lot more cook and taste going on. Having broached the subject, why are we so hincty about drug
synthesis here? Yes I agree that we don't want to become a source of information for would be meth makers and other profiteers. However it would be
easy to close that subject by itself. Also we generally don't encourage, "how would I make (insert name of drug or its precursor) especially from a
member who hasn't done any reserach or have any references. Maybe I'm saying something that isn't necessary and is the result of my own lack of
understanding of the rules. Would we allow, for example, a report on a new synthesis of an prohibted psychedelic? Could I report improved yields of
mescaline? Or the use of different reduction technique? I'm unclear on that one. We certainly don't want to attract the attention of Big Brother.
Many years ago there was a lot going on at the Hive and ADC. Some of the more paranoid members were sure DEA watched the sites; listening in. I
talked with some "diversion control" cops from DEA about this. They didn't know about ADC or the Hive and expressed zero interest. Bees just aren't
a big threat. A partcularly naive friend who used the nom du guerre of eleusis got in serious trouble because he was selling through the mail and
admitted so when investigators visited his parents. It had nothing to with posting on ADC. What are our guidelines? And what is the limit to what
one can say in this context without massive group flaming? I've tried to figure these out from the forum rules and maybe I don't read carefully or am
not smart enough.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In my experience on this board, there is no problem with posting about drug chemistry (illegal or otherwise) per se; rather, there is a bit of a
double standard, where posts on such topics are held to a higher standard (references, proper grammar etc. mandatory rather than just encouraged).
Makes sense to me as a way of avoiding a lot of traffic from people just expecting to get pointers on improving their drug cookery.
The less you bet, the more you lose when you win.
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
When you put it that way I agree. I appreciate that we don't have those kinds of discussions here. I would like to hear more from those employed in
the industry talking about problems they ran into and how they solved them. A couple of years ago Sauron and a few others from here started a site
called "Synthetic Discussions." The moderator was an industry guy. The discussions were about syntheses of all kinds. I was trying to improve the
yield of a pharm. intermediate by taking a different route and Sauron had a bunch of step by step examples of using TCT or TCCT .. whatever it
is..The site failed from lack of participation and the moderator's lack of time to manage everything. The URL may still exist but I doubt there's
much going on. Sauron was a big player and he was losing his sight.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
SWilkin676
Hazard to Self
Posts: 68
Registered: 3-2-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wonder how many people are using meth to stay awake to handle 2 jobs or long hours on the job - would think the establishment would like that!!
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If they are they won't be for long. You start burning you candle at both ends while taking that crap and you start hallucinating. I don't know about
you, but I wouldn't be able to get a thing done job wise if that was the case. Meth is poison as far as I'm concerned. If you want to poison
yourself go right ahead. I won't stand in your way. Just don't try to take the rest of us with you when you geek out.
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"prohibition? pfff. they tried that in the movies and it didn't work. i bet this is the last we'll be hearing about prohibition"-homer simpson
|
|
|
aaparatuss
Harmless
Posts: 41
Registered: 12-7-2011
Location: indepth
Member Is Offline
Mood: questing
|
|
I think your pretty much preaching to choir here, good luck convincing the mainstream politician and worried mothers of the world.
i think this forum only tolerates rehashed talk, but enjoys peoples successes in some write up or patent confirmation etc. some actual guide post
the next person can use or get reassurance before embarking on a
costly time consuming adventure.
|
|
|
triplepoint
Hazard to Others
Posts: 127
Registered: 11-4-2012
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: in equilibrium
|
|
This board attracts primaily people who are truly interested in experimentation, rather than meth cooks. If the focus of the board were to be widened
to include more pharmaceuticals, I fear that it would not simply broaden the audience, but dilute the experimental focus of the board. That said, I
understand how someone can be interested in pharm experimentation and be frustrated by the lack of discussion in that field here.
|
|
|
Diablo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 17-9-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Autodidactic
|
|
@hyfalcon Methamphetamine is not a hallucinogen, it is only if it is extremely abused to the point where a person has been awake for several days or
even longer that they will begin to hallucinate. Meth is also no more of a poison on its own accord than is most any other drug. In fact a main stay
of antimeth propaganda is that because its made from scary things like chemicals, drain cleaner, and acids that in fact it absolutely must be an evil
chemical poison itself. Also on a side note The smell of a meth addict is not meth, but actually physical exhaustion.
Although I must say that Meth addiction would absolutely suck. Although this can be said of any addictive drug, especially alcohol with its horrible,
sometiomes deadly withdrawals.
@everyone I also oppose prohibition to any drug as not only is it immoral on its own right, it has many other negative consequences. The main cause of
overdose on illicit drugs is uncertainty of their purity one batch is say 10% you get used to using a certain amount, next batch is 95 % you don't
know you use the same amount and your dead. This particular problem would be incredibly easy to avoid if drugs were legal.
I would keep going, but I could write pages on this topic and not be done.
Edit: also the reason we don't usually dicuss drug synthesis is probably two-fold one. we don't want the chance of getting in legal trouble, and two
we want this to stay a chemistry forum, not turn ito a drug forum.
[Edited on 27-6-2012 by Diablo]
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm a member of the choir also. I guess I should have said poisonous behavior. I've been around meth addicts. It's sad the way they allow the drug
to take over their lives to the exclusion of all else. In that behavior, and I've seen it in heroin addicts also, lies the poison. Meth addicts are
the only ones I've seen stay up for 3-5 days at a time, and at the end of that time they hallucinate, and yes it's from lack of sleep not the drug per
se.
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
my personal aversion to the whole concept of prohibition is simple, yet multifaceted. one the one hand i resent that some group of douche bags that
has never met me has decided that it is not only acceptable but expected that they should be the ones to decide for me what is best and what is ok
(not just politicians and law makers/LEO, but the nervous house mommies as well) for me to do with my life and my body (i understand that when my
actions physically hurt others that should be the line at which my decision making should be questioned). on the other hand, i resent that the only
reason the nanny state pushes such regulation is for political and monetary purposes. no government agency gives a shit about the betterment of
mankind and improving quality of life unless it is a thinly disguised attempt to rake in more capital/votes/power.
|
|
|
dann2
International Hazard
Posts: 1523
Registered: 31-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Am I right is saying that sometimes Meth (or some sort of Amphetamine) is ocassionally given to pilots (airforce) on long missions to keep them awake.
Dann2
|
|
|
Diablo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 17-9-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Autodidactic
|
|
At least as recently as WW2.
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
adderall. same stuff they give to kids with adhd. fighter pilots still take it to enhance cognitive processes on missions requiring extremely fast
decision making and to maintain alertness for extended patrols.
|
|
|
SulfurApothecary
Harmless
Posts: 37
Registered: 26-6-2012
Location: Boise
Member Is Offline
Mood: For science!
|
|
Interesting, I never heard of that before...
You can't arrest me, it was for science!
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Paul Erdős also used amphetamines to apparently positive effect. I believe that they also provide a short-term boost to measured IQ (see: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980.1939.991... ). In general if the activity in question requires a short period of intense
effort and the situation allows for a period of recuperation afterwards, stimulants might be advantageous.
The less you bet, the more you lose when you win.
|
|
|
Diablo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 17-9-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Autodidactic
|
|
Also a study on rats shows that worker rats do less work on amphetamine, and slacker rats do more work. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339509/title/Slac...
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
One thing to remember is that big Pharma has had 50+ years to explore these compounds from every angle. Work done by expert chemists and medical
researchers using the best equipment.
If MDMA, LSD etc. did something wonderful, doctors would be prescribing them now. They already do for some like amphetamine to treat ADHD (although
most don't consider that wonderful).
Whole classes of drugs have been discovered and abandoned. In the 60s barbiturates where commonly used.
Now they have been replaced by benzodiazepines which
are much safer (but still create dependency issues).
This company has a whole bunch of drugs that you can
buy semi-legally (some are schedule 4):
http://www.antiaging-systems.com/
Check out deprenyl which is related to amphetamine and increases dopamine and has also been shown to increase the live spans of some animals by 30%
Some MDs will work with you and prescribe you drugs if you ask for them. It's interesting to see their reaction when you ask for something that they
have not heard of before.
Much safer than making your own or buying them on the
street.
[Edited on 29-6-2012 by gregxy]
|
|
|
weiming1998
National Hazard
Posts: 616
Registered: 13-1-2012
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Amphoteric
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  | | As some of you know I oppose all drug prohibition laws. I say make them all legal and clean up the meth mess that follows with rehab and education.
The price of marijuana is going way down in California and Washington states. I only know of a few cases of anyone being addicted to psychedelics.
The "rave" scene and it's X use. (Is mdma a psychedelic?) The other case I kow about is Richard Alpert aka Ram Das. Why make these illegal? We're
missing a fantastic opportunity to develop and explore these materials. Sasha Shulgin pave the way and David Nichols keeps the faith so to speak but
in his academically oriented milieu. I'd liketo see a lot more cook and taste going on. Having broached the subject, why are we so hincty about drug
synthesis here? Yes I agree that we don't want to become a source of information for would be meth makers and other profiteers. However it would be
easy to close that subject by itself. Also we generally don't encourage, "how would I make (insert name of drug or its precursor) especially from a
member who hasn't done any reserach or have any references. Maybe I'm saying something that isn't necessary and is the result of my own lack of
understanding of the rules. Would we allow, for example, a report on a new synthesis of an prohibted psychedelic? Could I report improved yields of
mescaline? Or the use of different reduction technique? I'm unclear on that one. We certainly don't want to attract the attention of Big Brother.
Many years ago there was a lot going on at the Hive and ADC. Some of the more paranoid members were sure DEA watched the sites; listening in. I
talked with some "diversion control" cops from DEA about this. They didn't know about ADC or the Hive and expressed zero interest. Bees just aren't
a big threat. A partcularly naive friend who used the nom du guerre of eleusis got in serious trouble because he was selling through the mail and
admitted so when investigators visited his parents. It had nothing to with posting on ADC. What are our guidelines? And what is the limit to what
one can say in this context without massive group flaming? I've tried to figure these out from the forum rules and maybe I don't read carefully or am
not smart enough. |
Making all drugs legal could spell disaster for everyone. Firstly, there would be an increase in car accidents/murder, etc under the influence of
psychedelic drugs. Alcoholics already causes a large percent of car accidents, and we don't need to increase it more. Fights, etc is also common in
alcoholics around pubs, and if all drugs are made legal, I cannot imagine the mess it would cause in bars and pubs.
Secondly, children would be influenced the most. If we made all drugs legal, then the drugs would be even more accessible to curious teens. New trends
could start, influencing every teen to take drugs (they are extremely susceptible to peer pressure/ media influence). Some of them would no doubt
experiment with the more addictive drugs like heroin, and we could be facing a whole generation of future addicts, causing chaos to society and
hindering it down.
Finally, there would be mass addiction issues over the drugs. You claim to only see a few cases of people becoming addicted to psychedelics, but if it
was made legal, and freely available, then the "few" would turn to "many". There are also other drugs that would be more addictive, and if they are
made freely available, well, probably death and destruction to society. There would be hoards of beggars on the street, begging for money to buy
drugs, the prisons would be crammed tight with people being violent whilst on drugs, bars/pubs would literally be war-grounds of people on drugs and
in chaos, and many productive members of society would degenerate to drug-addicts. That would not be good at all. Think of the damage tobacco and
alcohol has caused us now, and many times worse.
I don't think discussions of direct drug synthesis should be allowed, even if it is in scientific discourse. There are countless other, just as
interesting compounds for those who like to do synthetic organic chemistry, so why focus on drugs specifically? It makes no sense.
Last thing, education of people would not work to prevent them from becoming addicted. There are simply just too many hormone-crazed teens and stupid
people that would ignore education, and continue taking drugs. Did the education of people about the dangers of tobacco stopped many from continuing
to smoke? No. Then it won't happen for other drugs. I think banning them is a very good idea, and even tobacco should be banned but are not just
because the government can leach tax money from it.
|
|
|
Diablo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 17-9-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Autodidactic
|
|
Legalization of drugs wont get everyone to start using them. For example many people don't smoke even though tobacco is legal. Believe it or not
heroin would likely be far less dangerous legalized than alcohol.
Children would not be positively reinforced to do drugs just because they are legal. Legalized drugs are far, far more difficult for minors to obtain
than illegal ones. Dealers dont ask for ID.
Also being legal wont make physcedelics addictive thats just silly.
Education doesnt stop people who are using drugs, rather it helps to prevent their use.What happens now when a heroin addict wants help would they
tell someone when what their doing can put them in jail? The tax money made from a legal drug trade would be able to be used to help both the economy,
and build rehab centers for the people who do develope probles.
Banning drugs thats just stupid and ineffective, it takes lives and imprisons people for years rather then helping them, and you want more drugs to be
illegal, ridiculous.
|
|
|
Sgiglio10
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 21-2-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
[/rquote]
Making all drugs legal could spell disaster for everyone. Firstly, there would be an increase in car accidents/murder, etc under the influence of
psychedelic drugs. Alcoholics already causes a large percent of car accidents, and we don't need to increase it more. Fights, etc is also common in
alcoholics around pubs, and if all drugs are made legal, I cannot imagine the mess it would cause in bars and pubs.
Secondly, children would be influenced the most. If we made all drugs legal, then the drugs would be even more accessible to curious teens. New trends
could start, influencing every teen to take drugs (they are extremely susceptible to peer pressure/ media influence). Some of them would no doubt
experiment with the more addictive drugs like heroin, and we could be facing a whole generation of future addicts, causing chaos to society and
hindering it down.
Finally, there would be mass addiction issues over the drugs. You claim to only see a few cases of people becoming addicted to psychedelics, but if it
was made legal, and freely available, then the "few" would turn to "many". There are also other drugs that would be more addictive, and if they are
made freely available, well, probably death and destruction to society. There would be hoards of beggars on the street, begging for money to buy
drugs, the prisons would be crammed tight with people being violent whilst on drugs, bars/pubs would literally be war-grounds of people on drugs and
in chaos, and many productive members of society would degenerate to drug-addicts. That would not be good at all. Think of the damage tobacco and
alcohol has caused us now, and many times worse.
I don't think discussions of direct drug synthesis should be allowed, even if it is in scientific discourse. There are countless other, just as
interesting compounds for those who like to do synthetic organic chemistry, so why focus on drugs specifically? It makes no sense.
Last thing, education of people would not work to prevent them from becoming addicted. There are simply just too many hormone-crazed teens and stupid
people that would ignore education, and continue taking drugs. Did the education of people about the dangers of tobacco stopped many from continuing
to smoke? No. Then it won't happen for other drugs. I think banning them is a very good idea, and even tobacco should be banned but are not just
because the government can leach tax money from it.
[/rquote]
This is terribly misinformed. .
First, there are few drugs which impair your ability to drive a car more than alcohol. Regardless, this is irrelevant, if someone is going to be
fucked up driving they are going to do so regardless of what is in their system. It is irresponsible to drive while under the influence of just about
anything, the legal status of a drug does not change that. If anything, it would make it easier to impose regulations for driving while intoxicated.
Most drugs do not make you angry like alcohol can. I have never experienced a psychedelic that has made me angry, nor have I ever seen anyone pissed
off while stoned or tripping. It is far too intense. Additionally, it is impossible to become truly "addicted" to most hallucinogens because the
bodies natural tolerance will become so high the effects will be unnoticeable. Cocaine and meth have the reputation for doing so as well, but those
are also some of the most detrimental drugs, ranking above tobacco and even alcohol in their detriment, according to the UN.
Children have far easier access to illegal drugs than they do to beer and tobacco. This is because in order to get them you need to have ID. Illegal
drugs no one cares how old you are, because you do not buy them from a store. Instead of making drugs some kind of forbidden fruit, like many cultures
do, the distinction between soft and hard drugs needs to be clarified, as well as the categorization, and addiction potentials. Your point that people
will always do dumb things and teens will always be curious is true whether or not drugs are legal or illegal. However, by making them illegal, we
create a market that is dangerous for them to obtain such materials in, and renders them uncertain of the purity.
If you were to examine the UN convention on global drug policy, you would see that it takes a stance similar to the other members on this board. Your
point about alcohol and tobacco causing harm is legitimate, however tobacco and alcohol are two of the worst drugs imaginable. They are extremely
harmful, physically, mentally and socially. Things such as LSD, psilocybin, THC (and the other ~60 naturally occurring cannabinoids that are present
in cannabis) MDMA, Mescaline, Kava, DMT and in fact most other ddrugs are all significantly safer. As you have, many people try to compare alcohol to
other drugs, however unless it is being compared to another depressant, it does not overlap very well. Even then you are on shaky ground. Alcohol is a
sedative hypnotic, a very specific class of drugs. As another user mentioned, psychedelics are another class of drugs which operate in a totally
different way, give totally different feelings and do not cause the same level of addiction as alcohol or even close to the addiction of tobacco.
Why focus on drugs? Because they open a new perspective and state of awareness. The word "drugs" is seriously bastardized nowadays. All humans use
drugs, whether or not they accept it is irrelevant. However, what we must learn to do (as I said earlier) is to recognize the difference between drugs
that have something to offer and are safe, and ones that are destructive. Whoever said that you will gain nothing from drugs has clearly never
experienced any type of entheogen.
There have been societies that have used (and still do) use drugs, significantly more than western society drinks alcohol. In Polynesia, on the Island
of Pohnpei, the inhabitants drink Kava for roughly 8 hours per day. They do not work, they sustain themselves from the land and enjoy Kava and talk.
The recommended theraputic does for kavalactones is approximately 160 mg. These people drink roughly 2600 mg per day. And they are fine. They have
been doing so for thousands of years. In Latin America, the use of psilocybin mushrooms and ayahuasca (DMT containing plants mixed with MAOI
containing plants) has been around again, for thousands of years. By the letter of the law (at least in the US) these people would be drug addicts.
Kava is not illegal, yet, in the States, however the dependence on this substance would most certainly be classified as addiction. Obviously DMT and
mushrooms are schedule one drugs in the US. As are all hallucinogens. The safest class of drugs.
Which brings me to my final point. Prohibition does not work, but more than that, it leaves people who are already seeking help completely rejected,
isolated or, worse, imprisoned. It is centered around racism, religion, and most of all money. There is an enormous amount of money in keeping drugs
illegal. Lots of police are employed, lots of prisons have to be built. Here in the US, guess what our #1 growing industry is? Private Prisons.
Drug addicts only hurt themselves in their use. A person who is seeking to reject humanity, nature and the world in place of a needle and an acyl
ester needs serious help. Not punishment. If we really want to see a world where there are no actual drug addicts (those who use drugs to remove
themselves from the misery they perceive in their existence) we will find ways to bring them back to life and show them that their failure is not
their fault, but a failure of the systems and constructs there to protect them and ensure their well being.
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gregxy | One thing to remember is that big Pharma has had 50+ years to explore these compounds from every angle. Work done by expert chemists and medical
researchers using the best equipment.
If MDMA, LSD etc. did something wonderful, doctors would be prescribing them now. They already do for some like amphetamine to treat ADHD (although
most don't consider that wonderful).
Whole classes of drugs have been discovered and abandoned. In the 60s barbiturates where commonly used.
Now they have been replaced by benzodiazepines which
are much safer (but still create dependency issues).
This company has a whole bunch of drugs that you can
buy semi-legally (some are schedule 4):
http://www.antiaging-systems.com/
Check out deprenyl which is related to amphetamine and increases dopamine and has also been shown to increase the live spans of some animals by 30%
Some MDs will work with you and prescribe you drugs if you ask for them. It's interesting to see their reaction when you ask for something that they
have not heard of before.
Much safer than making your own or buying them on the
street.
[Edited on 29-6-2012 by gregxy] |
right, because no government ever criminalized any substance as part of a political agenda or to exert its will over the people.
some of these other arguments sound like they came right out of the books printed in the 1950's and 1960's. where is the evidence that people on
psychedelics will run rampant raping and murdering? sounds more like some regurgitated crap you heard from your health teacher in high school. rape
and murder are doing just fine with alcohol and yet that is still legal. only good use for alcohol is as a reagent/solvent.
when i was a teenager i used a tenstrip (that's ten hits of acid for the uneducated) two, sometimes three times a week my junior year in high school.
my only side effect was my first ever honor roll report card.
[Edited on 30-6-2012 by Rogeryermaw]
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3254
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
When taking classes on leadership, problem solving and compromise were covered in depth. One of the key points stressed was that there are several
steps to come to a solution that must be passed through. The first step is agreeing on the problem. If this cannot be done then things can go no
further. You state your standpoint that these compounds should be legalized and then things can work out on their own. Essentially you're offering a
solution to a problem that others in this thread cannot see and as such no forward momentum can be obtained. Not to say there is a better way of
doing it but I can't see anyone on either side of this issue convincing anyone else on the opposite side.
That being side, by my own experience living so close to the ghetto, dealing with the addiction to illicit narcotics, and the horrible devastation to
my own family, the families of those around me, and so many people from my high school class that are no longer with us, I have to say that I am
against legalizing anything. People are too stupid to see when enough is enough. Recreational drugs change the way our brain receives and interprets
information. Really, the brain is all we truly are, therefore willful intake of these substances with the intention of altering perception is
tantamount to self mutilation.
|
|
|
Diablo
Hazard to Others
Posts: 113
Registered: 17-9-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Autodidactic
|
|
All of the violence and most of drug related deaths exist solely due to their illegality, which makes them both a way to rebel and a valuable
commodity.
Edit: changed do to due
[Edited on 30-6-2012 by Diablo]
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3254
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
I didn't mean to single out illegal narcotics but anything mood/mind altering. Also I didn't even get into the violence, just the annihilation of the
family unit by the drugs themselves. If the potential for abuse exists, it will be abused.
Alcohol-Related Deaths Kill More Than AIDS, TB Or Violence, WHO Reports
Prescriptions now biggest cause of fatal drug overdoses
To use a false analogy:
Murder is illegal. If people were allowed to murder they would have less stress by removing from their lives the source of that stress. Eventually
if murder were legal thing would work themselves out though retaliation killings / mutually assured destruction and because people would no longer
indulge in murder because it was no longer illegal. 
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
