EDIT... PROOF: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...
Are 'Legal Drugs' as Dangerous as Illegal?
SodaHead News
2012/06/14 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
1,138 votes
|
|
87% | |||
|
164 votes
|
|
13% | |||
Just because a substance is legal, that doesn't mean it's safe. With new substances hitting the market on a regular basis, it's impossible for authorities and experts to keep track of them, meaning there's very little reliable information available. A while back, a handful of teens were hospitalized after taking synthetic marijuana -- cause enough for concern. But this weekend a 20-year-old man died after taking a substance called Benzo Fury at a Scotland music festival.
David Liddell, director of Scottish Drugs Forum, said in a statement, "Benzo Fury is a so-called legal high -- or New Psychoactive Drug -- which appears to have a similar effect to Ecstasy. It's one of the new legal highs developed to get around the banning of similar compounds ... As it's not been around for long there is little information on long-term effects and as with all these drugs, there's no knowing what's actually in them. The names are just to market them and may bear no relation to what's in them." Do you think these "legal drugs" are just as dangerous as the illegal ones?
David Liddell, director of Scottish Drugs Forum, said in a statement, "Benzo Fury is a so-called legal high -- or New Psychoactive Drug -- which appears to have a similar effect to Ecstasy. It's one of the new legal highs developed to get around the banning of similar compounds ... As it's not been around for long there is little information on long-term effects and as with all these drugs, there's no knowing what's actually in them. The names are just to market them and may bear no relation to what's in them." Do you think these "legal drugs" are just as dangerous as the illegal ones?
Top Opinion
-
Yes
+17Legal drugs kill more people than all of the illegal ones combined - apart from, of course, Cannabis that in and of itself has never killed anyone, and yet which is illegal... makes sense.
EDIT... PROOF: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...
Weed does make some people stupid. Others it makes really focused. Others it makes relaxed enough to calm down and live a normal life. I know a guy who's never found anything else that would help with the grand mal seizures that have plagued him his entire life. He's dangerously scary smart.
The stereotype of the burned-out mindless pot head is really very misleading.
That being said, the breathing in of smoke for anyone kills brain cells. Cigarettes, Weed, or anything else. The THC, however does make a good portion of the population stupid. They just think they're smart when ingesting it. Stupidity is not fatal. If it were we'd be doing mass euthanasia for the mentally handicapped.
Yes, I know THC stops cancer growth and has other good side effects. Yes, I know it helps ill people, like your friend. I actually prefer weed over tobacco but that's a long discussion I'd rather not get into. The long and the short is this: It typically makes normal healthy people dumb.
As far as any sort of smoke inhalation kills brain cells...you definitely have more of an education along those lines than I. The studies I've seen were all inconclusive.
Maybe the heavy pot smokers I know who seem like normal people of basically average intelligence would be absolutely brilliant if they didn't smoke so much. Then again, they all claim it's the only thing that lets them get through a work day without killing someone else.
It seems to me that's the sort of trade-off they should be allowed to decide for themselves.
Then again, anything can be abused to a lethal extent.
What was the point of this poll again?
pill-popping country in the the world when it come to
prescription drugs.
And the worst abusers? Mormons.
People who want to alter their body chemistry *will* find loopholes in the rules and ways to make it happen.
The people pushing for the misinformation are charlatans who advocate rubbish treatments for cancer like prayer or herbs.
Eating potatoes alters body processes. So does watching a movie. Or exercising.
Learning to read permanently alters the way a person thinks and experiences reality.
Every thought a person has is a change in brain chemistry. Emotions are fairly major changes in body processes.
Caffeine is generally much less dangerous than, say, drain cleaner.
It was really the "equally" part that I caught on. Eating too much sugar will eventually kill you, long-term. But it's nowhere near as dangerous as, say, PCP (at least short-term, in similar doses).
I appreciate you taking the time to share your wisdom. You are correct.
I honestly have no problems with recreational drug use, but when the drug controls you instead of the other way around, it becomes an big problem for me.
I just think that keeping certain ones illegal does far more harm than good. (Especially when the "good" is very doubtful).
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, then we wind up with dietitians dictating what we're allowed to eat at each meal. Etc.
I recently spent almost a month at a hospital, watching a team of endocrinologists try to find the "right" balance between insulin injections and a dextrose drip. They finally just basically gave up and opted for keeping the patient's blood sugar *way* too high. Far too often, the "experts" don't really know what they're talking about.
I think it's *obviously* better to get expert opinions about what we put into our bodies. But, as long as it's something that doesn't directly hurt anyone else...individuals need to make their own choices (and are going to anyway, for that matter). That's an important part of living in a free society: accepting the consequences (good and bad) for our personal decisions.
Anyway. No, you can't do anything personally about the "War on Drugs." Any more than I. But we can actually think about the issues, especially when they come up on ballots, and decide whether "This is illegal, so we have to kee...
I just think that keeping certain ones illegal does far more harm than good. (Especially when the "good" is very doubtful).
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, then we wind up with dietitians dictating what we're allowed to eat at each meal. Etc.
I recently spent almost a month at a hospital, watching a team of endocrinologists try to find the "right" balance between insulin injections and a dextrose drip. They finally just basically gave up and opted for keeping the patient's blood sugar *way* too high. Far too often, the "experts" don't really know what they're talking about.
I think it's *obviously* better to get expert opinions about what we put into our bodies. But, as long as it's something that doesn't directly hurt anyone else...individuals need to make their own choices (and are going to anyway, for that matter). That's an important part of living in a free society: accepting the consequences (good and bad) for our personal decisions.
Anyway. No, you can't do anything personally about the "War on Drugs." Any more than I. But we can actually think about the issues, especially when they come up on ballots, and decide whether "This is illegal, so we have to keep it that way" or "The law is wrong" is a proper response.
For people who have the "I need the government to dictate everybody aspect of my life and the lives of those around me" response...well, if enough Americans continue to hate the idea of freedom, then we'll lose what we have left.
Thank you for a thoughtful and pleasant response.
I don't believe that most people want the government to dictate every aspect or their lives. What I do believe is that as long as their is a rule--even if it's just one--there's going to be a segment of society who disagrees with it and feels inhibited because that rule is in place. They feel like they are being denied something because they don't have the "freedom" to do what they want.
On the flip side, it's not possible to have true freedom. There have to be rules in place. Rules that restrict your neighbor from breaking into your house. Rules that restrict people from driving 100 miles an hour in residential areas. Rules that restrict people from just killing other people because they ate the last bagel.
The problem is that people want to pick and chose. They want the rules in place that keep them and their families safe, but then complain about the loss of freedom when something that they personally want to do or support carries restrictions. We can't have it both ways.
Individuals do need to make their own choices within reason, but turn on Courtv or watch the news tonight to see ...
I don't believe that most people want the government to dictate every aspect or their lives. What I do believe is that as long as their is a rule--even if it's just one--there's going to be a segment of society who disagrees with it and feels inhibited because that rule is in place. They feel like they are being denied something because they don't have the "freedom" to do what they want.
On the flip side, it's not possible to have true freedom. There have to be rules in place. Rules that restrict your neighbor from breaking into your house. Rules that restrict people from driving 100 miles an hour in residential areas. Rules that restrict people from just killing other people because they ate the last bagel.
The problem is that people want to pick and chose. They want the rules in place that keep them and their families safe, but then complain about the loss of freedom when something that they personally want to do or support carries restrictions. We can't have it both ways.
Individuals do need to make their own choices within reason, but turn on Courtv or watch the news tonight to see what some people do when left to their own devices. Imagine them having the true freedom that people mention when they feel slighted because something like marijuana isn't legal.
People like some rules, then get all uptight when they don't.
Again: thank you for a thoughtful, polite, meaningful response. Those are pretty rare on here. I appreciate it on the rare occasions I run across them.
The first thing accomplished by keeping it illegal is driving users to harder, more dangerous drugs. It's exactly the same thing that happened in Prohibition 1.0: we turned a country full of beer drinkers into a country full of booze drinkers.
The second thing accomplished has been a huge explosion of our prison populations. That makes a lot of sense. Let's keep people from ruining their lives by being pot heads by ruining their lives by making felons out of them.
The third accomplishment has been the militarization of our police. No-knock SWAT raids are now something normal that happen all the time.
This approach has failed. It's long past time to admit it and try something different.
Back when pot was legal, it was *not* a problem.