| Pages:
1
2
3 |
szuko03
Hazard to Others
Posts: 188
Registered: 3-4-2015
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Way to remove the last phrase that kind of eliminates anything saying we are different in any other aspect other then frequenting the forum...
Your lucky I am accustom to your style of responses or I'd science you up something so amazing youll wish I never scienced to begin with!
Chemistry is a natural drive, not an interest.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
You'll have an easy time bamboozling me with Science, but to get me Fazed, you'd need to be another alien.
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1348
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by szuko03  |
Way to remove the last phrase that kind of eliminates anything saying we are different in any other aspect other then frequenting the forum...
Your lucky I am accustom to your style of responses or I'd science you up something so amazing youll wish I never scienced to begin with!
|
I'm actually interested in seeing this. Go ahead, do it. 
What spectacular science awaits us? lol
[Edited on 1-9-2015 by Loptr]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
React table salt with sulphuric and i'd say Wooo !
Maybe sneeze a bit due to the evolved HCl.
At least it would be someone Doing Something and not just all Talk.
|
|
|
Darkstar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sleepy
|
|
If it's huffing HCl gas you're after, just drip some conc. hydrochloric acid over a little dry CaCl2 and viola. No need to waste your
valuable sulfuric acid!
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Bromic, I am very much on board with many of the claims made in those articles - and the Ioannidis article, although it has been taken out of context
by many people who'd like to treat science as "just another way of knowing", is one of the landmark papers on the issues surrounding the quality of
the scientific literature. There ARE significant problems in the scientific literature - and whilst the most egregious would have to be outright
fraud, the smaller problems like publication bias, p-hacking, and even the whole idea of the "minimum publishable unit" leading to more and more
trivial publications, are more pervasive and, in many ways, more troubling. I've personally been involved (as part of a research group, not doing the
work myself) in uncovering a fraudulent total synthesis paper, where the methods used by the authors could not possibly have led to the molecule they
claimed, and the data didn't support the claimed structure, either. Yet this paper made it through peer review, which should easily have caught the
problems. A student in our group spent several months repeating their work and also synthesising the molecule properly, and the refutation is soon to
be published in the original journal.
That said, I still disagree with you on the issue of people being able to separate themselves from their biases, and particularly on the ability of
science to do so.
As I said, I think we all have issues which we struggle to divorce ourselves from our biases - you, for example, have extremely strong feelings about
drug use because of your family history. I, on the other hand, have no horse in the race, so I'm more than happy to step back and consider the best
evidence and expert opinion without that emotional baggage. Perhaps in a similar vein, I've seen people injured and fleeced by alternative therapists,
which leads to a strong bias against alternative medicine (reinforced by my scientific training). I can get past it, if the evidence is good, but it
takes a fairly big push! Perhaps more extreme, I'm a vocal advocate for vaccination, and yet I still struggle when it comes time to take my son in for
his flu shot - the bias against taking an action that may (extremely rarely) cause harm is very strong, even in the face of the obvious evidence of
safety and the well known risks of a young child actually catching influenza!
Here's the thing, though - I can, if I choose to do so, thoroughly examine the scientific evidence, overcome those biases and come to the most
evidence-based conclusion (I should get my son vaccinated, and some alternative therapies have validity for some purposes). I still have the nagging
concerns about the injection, and the thought that, even if the alternative is effective, a more conventional treatment probably offers greater
benefits, but I can concede the point. I'm sure you do the same on many issues.
Then there are the more deeply embedded problems, such as racism or sexism. We are all, to some degree, racist and sexist, and even if that's true
only on an unconscious level, it can still impact our behaviour. For example, it has been well documented that people rate the same resume more highly
if the name at the top is John than if it's Jane, or a foreign-sounding name. But, again, if we know that this bias exists, we can easily eliminate it
- the person receiving resumes for a company can simply remove the name, replace it with a number and then pass it on to the people who make the
hiring decisions. Even for the most deeply held biases, of which many of us might be wrongly convinced we don't hold, we can reduce or eliminate their
effects!
When we get to science, the whole thing gets an extra level of checks and balances. If I decide that St. John's wort has no value for the treatment of
minor depression, not too many people are going to know about that, let alone correct me. If I publish that in a journal, however, I'll be torn to
shreds - the evidence in favour is quite good. Now, I can reasonably argue that it may not be the best choice - self medication is a bad idea, seeing
a professional is always a good idea if you have concerns, and the side effects are not trivial - but I can't honestly say it doesn't work, whatever
my bias. Even on unsettled issues, there are likely to be scientists who hold equally strong views in opposition to one another, and they will be
thoroughly scrutinising each others work - so the eventual consensus will likely be even more reliable in those instances (leaving out the possibility
of fraud).
Likewise, if we have solid data that says a public policy is ineffective, then it doesn't matter how many anecdotes we compile, we should conclude
that the policy is a failure, and seek a better one.
The sunk cost example you provide is interesting. Yes, it's a common human problem - we'd rather keep going on something that's objectively likely to
fail, but which we've already invested time or money than to give up and accept it as a loss. And, yes, it certainly happens that researchers
sometimes do - consciously (fraudulently) or unconsciously - massage the data, or keep collecting until it's significant, try different statistical
models until one comes up with a positive result, or whatever. But this is why we cannot rely on the results of a single study to answer any question
- maybe the positive (or negative) results arise from bias in the protocol; maybe the analysis was flawed; or maybe it was just a fluke (p = 0.05
means a 5% probability of the result being due to chance alone). And it's depressingly likely that bad science will make it through peer review, even
in respected journals. But post-publication peer review, whilst having always been important, is beginning to have a significant impact on the
literature, with fraud or bad science becoming more and more likely to get called out as access to the literature continues to expand. beyond a single
study, however, replication of (or failure to do so) by independent groups, allows us to have greater confidence in the results. Likewise, systematic
reviews and meta-analyses by independent groups can - when done well - be used to reduce bias even further (of course, like any tool, they can be used
to muddy the waters by someone with an agenda, but that, too, tends to be called out).
Perhaps you're right, perhaps we can never truly eliminate all bias from our research, let alone from our own lives. But if we're cognisant of our
biases, we can most certainly take highly effective steps to reduce or eliminate their effects on our decisions and our actions.
---
| Quote: Originally posted by szuko03 | Anyone who thinks that people should have free reign over everything simply because to be alive is to be free are showing their ignorance. Sure those
who say that may think the world is like them but I've been to a methadone clinic and taken group, the majority of drug users are NOT at all like the
majority of people who frequent this forum. You give the individuals living in society way WAY too much credit as they routinely spew vastly incorrect
facts and spread the disease of ignorance through their own community. If given access to everything under the sun they would destroy themselves and
take out countless "smart" people with them.
The laws that are in place, be it for firearms or drugs, are needed in this particular point in societies history. Perhaps with technology we can over
come the need for some general restrictions but for evidence you need only look to our "energetic forum"as everyone who can read thinks this gives
them the "right" to synthesize explosives. Until people can make the informed decision of what they can or can not do without jeopardizing everyone in
the process of learning due to a failure to realize their own limitations, we need laws that prevent idiots from killing me or my mother or YOUR
mother. Some idiot will retard his way into your life through his "inflated sense of entitlement" because of his ability to read coupled with the
internet.
Being on this forum means your different from everyone who isnt and the majority of people you wish to trust with drugs and fire arms probably have an
8th grade education just so you know. |
szuko03, I'm not arguing for anything like the idea that all things should be available, individual freedom should reign supreme, or any of the other
extreme libertarian ideas. My position is simply that, when faced with a problem, we should use the best information available to choose the course of
action which is most likely to lead to the desired outcome. In the absence of good information, and for a problem which requires an immediate
response, we should certainly take the most reasonable-seeming course of action, but should put in place research to assess effectiveness and
processes to ensure that appropriate reviews and changes to the policy are made if required. I am quite opposed, for example, to the idea that
everyone should have free access to firearms - I think the system in Australia, where you can get most reasonable guns without too much difficulty -
you require a valid reason (which may be as simple as target shooting), to pass a firearm safety course, a background check, and to meet conditions
around safe and secure storage - is a pretty good balance (there are many weapons that you could easily get in the US that are inaccessible here, but
again, I see no reason for most people to own, for example, high capacity automatic weapons).
Likewise for drugs, I think they should be regulated, their use monitored by health professionals, and options for effective treatment be made readily
available. And I certainly think that drugs should never be allowable as an excuse for crime - in fact, if you kill someone because you were drunk
behind the wheel, I think a good case can be made that this should lead to a harsher sentence than if you were sober given the broad understanding of
the dangers of drink-driving.
I agree that, given the incompetence of individuals to make good decisions, we need processes in place to minimise the harm caused to those
individuals and to others when bad decisions are inevitably made. But we need to choose the processes that are the most effective at reducing harm and
dispense with processes which fail to reduce harm, or which create more problems than the issue that they were supposed to deal with. In the context
of drugs, would the harms associated with drug use be more or less if the resources currently devoted to policing were diverted into the health system
to support safe access and effective treatment programs?
|
|
|
x_blaster_x
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 2-9-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I believe that no-one can be bound by law, that regulate what people could and what could not consume.
I find that as absolutely outrageous that governments siezed this power over lifes of citizens w/o being kicked right in their butts. All drugs are
legal not a while ago, so... They should be legal. No-one have the power to force others on what they can and what they cannot consume.
Such power is usually abused badly. See this document:
History of Marijuana
http://ulozto.cz/x5e5GYg/history-of-marijuana-avi
("Stáhnout" means download, so just type the captcha and click... downloading at 300k is done relatively quickly)
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
x_blaster_x, not that long ago it was perfectly legal to sell poisons as medicine. It was legal to have your infant ride unrestrained in a car. It was
legal to dump whatever waste you liked in the local river. On the flip side, it used to be illegal to marry someone of another race. In many places it
used to be illegal to open a shop on a Sunday. It used to be illegal to have an abortion, be a homosexual, or for women to vote. In many places around
the world these things are STILL illegal, whilst other things that should be criminalised are not.
Just because something WAS legal, certainly doesn't mean that it SHOULD be legal. Nor should unjust laws remain in place simply because they are in
place. Beyond that, however, just because something is legal doesn't mean that there should not be restrictions on its use. If there is evidence that
something may cause harm to the user or to others, then it is reasonable to consider the need for regulation - which may include outright
criminalisation of an activity or product.
A society always puts limits on what its members can and cannot do, and it's a matter of where those lines are drawn and how the society should
respond to issues it perceives as problems that is up for debate. "Let everyone do whatever they want" is not likely to lead to optimal outcomes.
|
|
|
KesterDraconis
Hazard to Self
Posts: 78
Registered: 27-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by ziqquratu | | If there is evidence that something may cause harm to the user or to others, then it is reasonable to consider the need for regulation - which may
include outright criminalisation of an activity or product. |
Yet things don't cause harm. Until you can definitively prove that inanimate things can cause harm on their own, without misuse by a user and their
direct action leading to others harm, that initial assumption is absolutely unreasonable and cannot stand.
Punishment rests on the user and their actions with whatever substance or tool in their possession. Regulation and criminalizing a substance or tool
is simply the result of the nonsensical assumption that a person will automatically cause harm him they possess said substance or tool.
Needless endangerment is another thing however. I can drink, and I am allowed to drive a car, but doing both on a road where other people are driving
is akin to pointing a gun at them and waving it around. Its a criminal act because its endangering others.
[Edited on 11-9-2015 by KesterDraconis]
[Edited on 11-9-2015 by KesterDraconis]
|
|
|
James Ikanov
Hazard to Self
Posts: 81
Registered: 12-7-2015
Location: Alaska
Member Is Offline
Mood: Zen
|
|
All things in moderation.
I think you should be allowed to partake in whatever you, as long as it does not interfere with your normal functioning outside a set percentage of
your day. There are specific rules that can be used to greatly reduce the negative impact of drugs.
The first one is safe rooms and a good trip shepard. A safe room is a room where you can be medically supervised while you partake in whatever drug
you choose. They've tried this in at least one Scandinavian country and found that it very quickly stopped over dosing deaths.
A more open ended but perhaps less effective (still better than nothing) method, is trip shepards. They are sober people who voluntarily do not
partake in drugs, who are responsible for ensuring that someone under the influence does not overdose, nor injure themselves or others. It helps if
they have some level of medical training and an understanding of how to provide immediate aid to someone suffering and overdose. (I've taken on this
role a few times before, often in an unofficial capacity, but at least I know my friends won't wonder into traffic or such.)
Any use that becomes persistent or "needed" should simply be treated as addiction and/or a mental health issue. I'm of the opinion that most people
outside of the people who can casually handle drug use with moderation, in other words, the people who often become addicted, usually have underlying
problems or are in some way dissatisfied with life. Any meaningful reduction in the actual use of drugs must come from a reduction in demand,
not supply. And the only way to reduce demand is to improve the quality of life of everyone to the point of happiness or address the underlying issues
that cause or contribute to it..... something that has no downside I can find.
I firmly believe that the war on drugs has done little to stop the proliferation of drugs aside from causing people to cut corners, reduce purity, and
avoid teaching people the best ways to minimize risks when they eventually DO participate in drug use as at least some of them will. Mixing drugs
without a good understanding of what's going to kill you is just a sad after effect of not teaching people about the dangers of mixing drugs. The same
could be said for people who use things like inhalants (eg, huffing toluene  )
Frankly I think decriminalizing drugs is a necessary step for the immediate future, along with strong and blunt regulations. People who mislabel or
spike drugs should be civilly and criminally liable for any deaths or injuries that result.
I also think it's important to investigate the implications of drug use on mental health. Unless I'm mistaken, there's some work out there now to
suggest that people with more serious problems who cannot get help are significantly more likely to abuse drugs. Mental healthcare is something
society should be addressing anyway, but to a certain extent, fortunately or unfortunately, many governments want to do as little as possible in many
areas. They often enact flawed, reactionary legislation, in response to very misrepresented issues or a strong public fear of something rather than
any actual facts or information.... I believe this attitude is the primary cause of many issues almost all countries face today. This and many issues
could be solved much more effectively if we were willing to invest more money and time into healthcare rather than silly things like arguing over
religion and blindly opposing any other ideology but our own. (Fat chance of that though.)
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Totally correct IMHO.
Legal/illegal it all still happens.
Sticking an 'Illegal' tag on it does Not make it go away.
Accept and Assist is a much better alternative, however that carries a Dark Side, in that those who refuse assistance must be slaughtered to make it
work.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | The laws that are in place, be it for firearms or drugs, are needed in this particular point in societies[sic] history.
|
I'll make it as simple as I can . . .
Guns are weapons (you know, things that kill people?) ─ drugs are substances people take to make themselves feel good!
Do you see a difference?
|
|
|
James Ikanov
Hazard to Self
Posts: 81
Registered: 12-7-2015
Location: Alaska
Member Is Offline
Mood: Zen
|
|
I'd argue that laws against either, are for the most part, entirely useless.
Legislating to stop people from doing things they still have a reason to do is generally an exercise in frustration rather than productive if you
never actually address the reasons that they want those things or to do those things.
Europe for example, has strong gun control. People still want guns or to commit harm... as a result, there is still demand, and still a monetary
incentive to provide weapons to people, regardless of legality. The result is that violence still occurs, people still get hurt, and the government
tightens regulation rather than recognizing that the system they are trying to fight is already out of their scope of control; someone who will murder
has no reason not to murder simply because they cannot legally acquire one a gun.
Relevant and interesting reads related to this particular line of argument, before I go too far down a rabbit hole with it.
http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleTyp...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/11/mystery-9mm-ma...
Simply making a material illegal is irrelevant to the want to acquire, whether that material is drugs (just look at prohibition in the US  ) weapons, energetic materials, pornography, news from the outside world, encryption
programs, HAZMAT..... it certainly can reduce the ease of acquisition, but often all it really does is raise prices or ensure that only the "right"
people can get access to those materials. And I assure you, the Chinese government feels just as strongly about how "correct" it's censorship is for
the country as many European or American politicians do about drugs and guns. At the end of the day it's almost entirely subjective decisions that
steer and define public policy 
...Perhaps I've said too much.
Oh, and for the record, firing a machinegun once (a great privilege I doubt I'll enjoy again any time soon in this economy) was very much on par on
the fun scale with any variety of drug I've experienced, and for better or for worse, I've been exposed to many, though none recreationally, aside
from alcohol. People can partake in either for fun, to help them cope with things, whatever. Abuse is the issue, not possession or proper usage.
[Edited on 13-9-2015 by James Ikanov]
|
|
|
BuTTeRz
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 1-2-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
[Edited on 13-9-2015 by BuTTeRz]
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Before I start again, this is starting to sound like I'm all pro-regulate everything and anti-freedom, blah blah blah. I'd like to be clear - this is
NOT my position. I simply think that there is a place for regulation in improving the safety of people who wish to use or access items which have a
significant likelihood of causing or being used to cause harm to themselves or, more importantly, others.
| Quote: Originally posted by KesterDraconis |
Yet things don't cause harm. Until you can definitively prove that inanimate things can cause harm on their own, without misuse by a user and their
direct action leading to others harm, that initial assumption is absolutely unreasonable and cannot stand. |
Things cause harm all the time. On the obviously ludicrous scale, there's hurricanes and volcanoes. If you want something which can be regulated,
though, how about objects being blown from skyscraper construction sites, which could fall on and injure a person. Or maybe contamination of a food
manufacturing plant because some animal died and fell into the water supply. We have regulations about securing items or monitoring levels of
pathogenic bacteria in food to mitigate the harm caused by these things.
The "argument" that "things don't kill people, people kill people" is also a patently absurd strawman. I seriously doubt that anyone believes that,
for example, guns kill people of their own volition, which is what the statement implies. But guns can be used to kill people, and having one can make
an ineffective would-be killer pretty damned efficient. They can also be deadly without intent to harm - when a child plays with a gun that was
accidentally left unsecured, for example, which seems to happen all too often. On the flip side, I fully recognise the value of guns - for hunting,
sport, farming, even defence - and thus would never contend that guns should be outlawed. But because they can be accidentally lethal even in skilled
and responsible hands, I think that regulation is entirely appropriate. Like I've said a few times recently, I think the Australian system is quite
reasonable - easy to access many types of gun, so long as you pass a basic safety course, justify your need and show that you can store them safely.
Certain types of weapons are effectively out of reach unless you're in the military - and you can certainly discuss where that line gets drawn - but
most people can access the tools they need for their work or sport with less difficulty than getting a driver's license (and, having gone through both
processes, I mean that literally).
I think drugs should be treated similarly. For most common illegal drugs, we have a pretty good idea about their pharmacology and toxicology, and can
start to decide which - if any - should remain illegal on that basis, whilst allowing some or all of the others to be brought to the legal market.
Then, just like with prescription drugs, we should monitor for adverse events, and remove from sale any that cause significant problems. This,
however, would differ from blanket prohibition - if you can buy, say, cheap cocaine, then it's not going to matter much if methamphetamine is illegal
because it's been deemed too neurotoxic.
| Quote: Originally posted by KesterDraconis |
Punishment rests on the user and their actions with whatever substance or tool in their possession. Regulation and criminalizing a substance or tool
is simply the result of the nonsensical assumption that a person will automatically cause harm him they possess said substance or tool.
|
I agree. If someone acts in an illegal manner, they should be punished appropriately for their actions. But part of the point of regulation is to
mitigate harm - that is, to prevent a harmful situation from occurring, or reducing the harm that is done when something does happen. So, with our
skyscraper construction, it's probably safe to say that, sooner or later, an improperly secured item will fall and injure someone. But, by having
rules about securing items, we can dramatically reduce the chance of that happening. Similarly, if a drug (legal or otherwise) is associated with
significant damaging side effects - say increased risk of heart attack, or perhaps an increase in violent assault - then we should regulate it, which
may include prohibition on the sale of that drug, depending on the risk-benefit profile (so a life-saving medicine which causes a 5% increase in the
risk of heart attack might still be useful, whereas a recreational hallucinogen which has the same cardiac risk should probably be taken off the
market).
| Quote: Originally posted by KesterDraconis |
Needless endangerment is another thing however. I can drink, and I am allowed to drive a car, but doing both on a road where other people are driving
is akin to pointing a gun at them and waving it around. Its a criminal act because its endangering others. |
I think it's fairly likely that most people who drink-drive manage to reach their destinations without incident (or being caught). By your logic
above, then, why not just allow it and punish any drink-driver who causes injury to another person? Instead, however, we recognise that certain
actions (being drunk behind the wheel) are associated with a significant likelihood of harm, and thus we make said actions punishable - and we punish
people doing these things even if nobody is harmed. As before, if owning a weapon, or using a drug, or driving a car, or whatever, is an action that
increases the risk to the public (or even the individual), then regulation may be needed to prevent or reduce the harm associated with those things.
---
James, I largely agree with your post, and I think that this sums up the point I've been trying to make in this thread fairly nicely:
We, as a society, can implement rules - regulations - to make drug use dramatically safer than it is now. Safe rooms for users have made a difference
everywhere they've been tried. And having trip shepherds - or better, trained paramedics - on hand in places where drug use may get dangerous (eg. in
those safe rooms, or at music festivals, or wherever else) would allow an immediate response to a problem. Likewise, if you can buy your drugs at the
pharmacy, then the pharmacist can provide advice and keep an eye out for signs that you might be developing a problem. And if it's not illegal, then
it also becomes a lot easier to seek help - either in an emergency or for a chronic addiction.
Simple regulations can often improve life for everyone involved in any inherently risky activity. The key is to find the most effective forms of
regulation for each situation, without going too far (blanket criminalisation of drugs) or not far enough (a sufficiently fat wallet is the only
requirement to qualify as the owner of a high capacity automatic rifle).
---
To aga, James, and others saying that outright prohibition of an item or activity is ineffective in preventing people from using or doing those things
- well, yes, people still commit murder. Sometimes making something illegal isn't just about stopping the activity - it's about spelling out what is
and isn't appropriate in a society. It can be a very easy form of social engineering - by making something which is in any way questionable illegal,
you pretty much automatically convince some portion of the population that the thing is bad, which can snowball into general social disapproval of
that activity. Thus, many people think (with a perverse twisting of logic) that drugs are illegal, so they must be bad - they wouldn't be illegal for
no reason, after all! A slightly different spin, but take seatbelts - there was much grumbling and discontent when it was made illegal to drive
without one, but nowadays forget the law, almost everyone just does it automatically and failing to wear one is simply unacceptable. Thus, with
simple, perhaps not even popular, legislation plus sufficient time, a quick but life-saving action is deeply ingrained in most of us from the first
time we're put in a car.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | - well, yes, people still commit murder. |
What, exactly, is the connection you find between people ingesting drugs for fun and people committing the crime of murder?
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It would have to be the most extreme example to highlight that simply making something illegal (let alone the fact that murder, to most, is morally
repugnant and socially intolerable) doesn't mean people won't still do it. And if that is true for something as extreme as murder, then you can
probably assume that it is true for, say, drugs - making them illegal does not eliminate their desirability.
Although I thought the context of the statement was clear, let me emphasise - it was hyperbole to highlight how criminalisation cannot totally prevent
people from doing something; it was not an attempt to link recreational drug use and murder.
|
|
|
Little_Ghost_again
National Hazard
Posts: 985
Registered: 16-9-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Baffled
|
|
Funny thing is Ethanol has killed more people,caused more crime,ripped more families apart,cost more time money and police resources and put more
people in prison than every other drug combined.
But its controlled and Governments make money from it. They know its so bad for you that in order to try and protect more people in the UK they are
going to increase the TAX so less people drink and harm themselves, I sleep better at night knowing the government I have looks after my welfare so
well. <____________ Yeah piss taking
I cant wait to vote and elect another bunch of the same people with different colours but the same self serving interest as every other prick that
rules over us
[Edited on 8-10-2015 by Little_Ghost_again]
Dont ask me, I only know enough to be dangerous
|
|
|
symboom
International Hazard
Posts: 1143
Registered: 11-11-2010
Location: Wrongplanet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Doing science while it is still legal since 2010
|
|
Ohh maybe this might be boarderline psychological torture
http://disinfo.com/2014/03/future-drugs-will-make-prisoners-...
Making the prisoners feel like time is going slower
So 20 years feel like 100 years
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2787
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Regulations on drug consumption, and sale to consumers, comprise a measure, positive or negative, which is intended to reduce a certain activity from
being performed because society does not wish for it to be performed. These laws are "okay".
What is not okay are the regulations on precursors, plants, equipment, etc. These regulations do not actually decrease drug consumption very much.
Instead they have the effect of displacing the crime associated with drug production from the first world to the third world -- literally exporting
our problems. Such regulations also drive up the profit margins associated with drug production, favoring the formation of large multinational
criminal organizations, which we know today as drug cartels. Oras Friedman put it:
"In the drug war, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."
Yes, Milton Friedman said "literally". And precursor and plant regulations do not demonstrably decrease drug consumption enough to justify the
enormous burden of violence foisted on to innocent people because of the profit potential created by these regulations. It is easily understood why
they are ineffective: when raw materials for one drug become unavailable, users (who are already choosing to consume an illegal and unregulated
substance) will substitute a different one. For example, Japan, an isolated island nation in East Asia, does an excellent job of controlling drug
importation (mostly because of geography), and has also been an epicenter of the appearance of new synthetic cannabinoids, and it also has more
methamphetamine use than conservative American media would have you believe, because meth production is nearly impossible to contain. Banning the
actual consumable material has a rational basis in that it prevents consumption from becoming popularized, and prevents "law-abiding people", if there
are any such people, from using drugs, but banning precursors is silly, because it is always possible to simply increase the scale of the operation so
as to insure against any losses of precursors.
What happens is drugs become less safe, innocent people in poor countries are killed, organized crime finds new sources of profit, and law enforcement
gets lots of photo ops standing next to huge shipments of safrole. Without the protection of the government, large-scale producers lose out to
competition from small scale producers who are less violent because they are better hidden. Such a phenomenon occurred in the United States when
"shake and bake" methamphetamine cut into the market for cocaine in the early 2000s.
So if any drugs are to be banned, I think it ought to be done while recognizing the market for drugs will still exist, and regulating this to minimize
violence, rather than to maximize restrictiveness. In short: stop protecting the drug cartels!
[Edited on 10-8-2017 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
AngelEyes
Hazard to Others
Posts: 187
Registered: 24-1-2003
Location: South of England
Member Is Offline
Mood: Better than it used to be.
|
|
Banning drugs, making them illegal, prohibition...call it what you will...but it'll never work.
If you take a step back and look more broadly, drugs are fulfilling the same role as films, books, music, art etc - and that role is escapism.
All humans, at various points in their lives, want to escape the reality of normal everyday life. Some more than others, it has to be said. They might
lose themselves in a book or good film, listen to an album, wander through an art gallery...or get drunk, high, stoned etc.
Drugs are an extension of our species need to, on occasion, not be ourselves. That will never go away and that is why the 'war on drugs' can never be
won. Ever. All it does is make many people suffer, make some people rich and allow politicians to have a cause to champion (to try and win votes of
course, although most rational people can see the logic of some sort of decriminalisation).
\'Silk and satin, leather and lace...black panties with an Angel\'s face\'
|
|
|
Elemental Phosphorus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 185
Registered: 11-11-2016
Location: Is everything
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well, in an ideal world, drugs would be legal, but there would be programs directed at educating and discouraging people from using them. But this is
not an ideal world. Think though, how many people here would use PCP if it was legal? Or for that matter, drugs like meth?
Legalization would allow people access to higher purity substances and proper dosage information, etc. to help eliminate or reduce deaths by overdose,
and all this has already been said, but it would remove cash flow from large cartels. What I am torn on, is what the pricing should be. Commercially,
fentanyl and LSD could be produced for just cents per dose, but with the idea of reducing use in mind, is that really prudent? I am not sure, and I
would like to hear some discussion on the pricing of these drugs if they were to become legal.
|
|
|
CLaS
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 19-11-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Elemental Phosphorus | Well, in an ideal world, drugs would be legal, but there would be programs directed at educating and discouraging people from using them. But this is
not an ideal world. Think though, how many people here would use PCP if it was legal? Or for that matter, drugs like meth?
Legalization would allow people access to higher purity substances and proper dosage information, etc. to help eliminate or reduce deaths by overdose,
and all this has already been said, but it would remove cash flow from large cartels. What I am torn on, is what the pricing should be. Commercially,
fentanyl and LSD could be produced for just cents per dose, but with the idea of reducing use in mind, is that really prudent? I am not sure, and I
would like to hear some discussion on the pricing of these drugs if they were to become legal. |
"One way to determine what the cost of a drug should be is to apply classical economic concepts. In classical economic theory, the price a corporation
charges its customers for a product is the total cost of investment plus a normal profit. Critics of the pharmaceutical industry argue that prices
charged by pharmaceutical corporations are unfair to consumers because they are excessive, that is, the profit margin is not “normal”. Proponents
of free market theory argue that as long as free market forces determine the selling price of pharmaceutical products, the price charged is, by
definition, “fair”.
In a free market, there are two pricing models: opportunity-based pricing and risk-based pricing. Opportunity-based pricing sets the price at the
highest possible level that buyers are willing to pay, without increasing production volume to the point where it diminishes total profit. Under this
model, some patients are inevitably priced out of the market, but this is considered a problem outside the purview of economics.
Risk-based pricing accounts for the financial and market risks that a company takes by pursuing an economic opportunity in a given market. The greater
the risk takenby the company, the higher the expectation for profit. Conversely, the lower the risk, the lower the profit expectation. Under a
risk-based pricing policy, an “unfair” price is one that is set higher than the risk exposure can justify. Both pricing models are indifferent to
the actual distribution of a product among consumers, making it impossible—in theory—for pharmaceutical companies to exercise any social
obligations toward price-sensitive patients by adjusting prices. Obviously, pure economic theory will not help us determine how drugs should be
priced."
TLDR: The cost of manufacturing a drug is not what determines the price its sold for in black market or legal markets.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v04/i03/html/03zal...
[Edited on 20-11-2017 by CLaS]
|
|
|
LearnedAmateur
National Hazard
Posts: 513
Registered: 30-3-2017
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Free Radical
|
|
I agree with and share your stance on recreational substances, they should be regulated like alcohol/tobacco (which are far worse for the body than
many illegal substances) and possession legalised - I mean look at Portugal, you can have literally any drug you want (with exceptions of course) and
it's only the manufacturers and suppliers who are targeted. Addicts can get all the help they need stigma free, cutting down on overdoses, diseases,
and other drug related problems.
However, onto what I was actually going to say. PCP and methamphetamine are perfectly fine to use with correct dosage - PCP is used by many to no ill
effect, and meth is prescribed for ADD/ADHD under the brand name Desoxyn. The issue with these drugs stems from prohibition itself, PCP has hit the
media because people are overdosing, thinking that they've actually taken a different substance like cocaine for instance which is less potent.
Methamphetamine of course is addictive, but this can be negated with harm reduction practices which obviously aren't adequately conveyed in an
abstinence based society. When people suffer ill effects due to a recreational substance, chances are that it's because they don't know how to use it
properly, they just think 'drug = high' without taking the time (either due to inaccessibility or an unwillingness to ask others) to learn about the
drug and how to dose effectively. Then you've got your adulterants, heroin is quite safe on its own and was once used in a medicinal sense, but today
it is commonly tainted with far cheaper and more dangerous opioids which is in fact one of the most common reasons for overdose. Another reason again
is a lack of drug education, some heavy users don't realise that tolerance to effects is also tolerance to overdose - what they see as a normal dose
can actually be lethal to those who don't use it, and so after a period of abstinence they may take what they're used to and suffer the consequences
because of it.
In chemistry, sometimes the solution is the problem.
It’s been a while, but I’m not dead! Updated 7/1/2020. Shout out to Aga, we got along well.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by TheAlchemistPirate |
That isn't to say that the drug war is a bunch of caring,passionate figures who sincerely want the best for us and our freedom. I typically compare it
to anti-terrorism. |
You are correct to compare the drug war with anti-terrorism. But wrong about WHY they are similar.
The "drug war" and terrorism/"antiterrorism" are largely conducted for the benefit of those in power- State governments, their intelligence agencies
and others profiting from the military/industrial/intelligence/financial complex.
BOTH sides of these alleged struggles do not exist in their present form for any other reason. It is at the base all a cynical game, sold to you under
false pretexts with huge helpings of propaganda.
Quite a while back, some very smart and totally amoral people in USA looked at drug prohibition laws, knowing that there would always be mafias and
other cartels arising to profit from them- and considered that the profits and power generated from those drug operations might be used in ways not
in their interests. They made the decision to RUN BOTH SIDES OF THAT GAME. And they have largely succeeded.
You drive the French connection out of North America- So the CIA run heroin from Asia and/or Colombia can have the lions share of the USA market,
funding black ops off of the proceeds. Just like you do later with the cocaine operations around Iran/contra. You also target the USA sales of heroin
and crack cocaine at areas and demographics you feel are in opposition to the status quo and would rather not see politically well organized, it's
just another benefit.
Similarly, why ERRADICATE terrorism when you can CONTROL and USE IT.
THERE IS NO LARGE SCALE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD WITHOUT A STATE BACKER. Frequently, the same state that claims to be in a struggle with
said terrorist organization.
You organize terrorist attacks ostensibly by communist groups in Italy, Germany and elsewhere when there is a good chance they are going to elect a
socialist government, unless you can sufficiently repel the local population from anything even loosely associated with the idea of communism. It
works.
You turn loose the core of ISIS from your military prison in Iraq, quietly arrange for them to meet each other and rich Saudi Wahabi asshole funders,
then leverage THAT can of worms into a good faith effort to take down the intransigent Syrian government, plus the usual profits to the right sort of
people in the military/industrial/intelligence/financial complex. AND you now have a plausible excuse to keep a huge military presence in the middle
east when the Iraquis finally tell you to please get the hell out of their country. Additionally, your Wahabi colleagues get to put all the
dangerously energetic young men they would rather not deal with becoming political at home onto airplanes headed for that insurgency... Where they can
get killed by someone else in a useful fashion, instead of having to be imprisoned or beheaded back home.
Meanwhile, hey, Superbowl will be in our town this year! And have you seen the latest Game of Thrones?
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
