|Legalizing drugsPage 6 of 6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)|
You may regulate with how people use or take drugs in public but how are you going to regulate people using drugs at home? You give certain amounts or quantities or set it that way? Well what if these people don't want their drugs regulated or certain quantities? They'll just seek a drug dealer or get the drug through other markets to get the non regulated amounts they want even if the drug is now legal. And some maybe double up on dosage just because they want more or don't care that so much can hurt them, because they want a stronger high now.
We should not be regulating how people use drugs in the privacy of their homes - laws and regulations on drug use should only be used to prevent harm to other members of society. After all, there's nothing to stop someone from overdosing on alcohol, or even Aspirin (there's no limit to how much you can buy at the local drug store).
Posted: 11/14/2013 6:57:11 PM
(I have a lot to say, so this will be a lot of writing).And that's exactly my point. Yeah let's prevent how others use drugs themselves so they don't hurt themselves when taking the drugs. But forget the innocent people that have to live near them or neighbors to these people using the drugs and the threat this can be for neighbors or people than can come walking past these people and have these people walking about high on such drugs. I'm glad you don't care or ignorant to this. I have good neighbor and see them working outside and talk to them, and my niece is over sometimes and see my neighbors in passing. I'm sorry, but I do not or would not want to neighbors right next door well on drugs, but especially not taking synthetic drugs. I see my neighbors outside, I don't want to be pushing my lawnmower outside in the summer and see one on the deck and them becoming really agitated and coming over toward me, sorry, especially not since I have my niece and nephew over sometimes and little ones come over.
Once again, there is nothing to stop somebody from drinking themselves into a drunken stupor at home (and also nothing to stop them from going out into public afterwards and getting into fights with their neighbors). This is because the moment that they step out in public they are subject to laws that will penalize them for misbehaving. This is the way it should be, and I see absolutely no reason to adopt anything different for currently illegal drugs should they be legalized.
Furthermore, like most opponents of legalization, you are assuming that if drugs were legalized then everyone would be able to get access to them. Like I said before, the more dangerous a drug is, the more it should be regulated (this means controlling their distribution and access). Legalizing does NOT mean you can buy cocaine at the local Walmart - it just means that possession and use of those drugs is not a crime.
Believe it or not, alcohol is one of the most lethal drugs in the world (it causes more death and damage than all of the illegal drugs combined!). If we can keep it legal and regulated then there is certainly no reason why we wouldn't be able to do the same with the other drugs. The thing is, if you are serious about the damage of drugs then you should arguing for the prohibition of alcohol more than anything else.
Posted: 11/14/2013 8:29:14 PM
Believe it or not, alcohol is one of the most lethal drugs in the world (it causes more death and damage than all of the illegal drugs combined!).
You are correct. And it doesn't just damage the actual consumer.
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) is an umbrella term which describes a continuum of permanent birth defects caused by maternal consumption of alcohol during pregnancy, which includes, but is not limited to fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Establishing the prevalence of FASD is very difficult, but it is estimated that at least 1 percent of children in the U.S suffers from FAS or other alcohol-related birth defects.
Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)
The main effect of FAS is permanent central nervous system damage, especially to the brain.
The current recommendation of the Surgeon General of the United States, the British Department of Health and the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council is to drink no alcohol at all during pregnancy.
The Australian Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Action Plan 2013–2016
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) are the leading preventable cause of non-genetic, developmental disability in Australia.
Like many other disabilities, people who are born with FASD have the condition for life.
This ^^^ is a recent (SBS TV) current affairs/panel discussion/debate on the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.
At 39.49 the host, Jenny Brockie, asks "How does alcohol exposure during pregnancy compare to other drugs?"
The response (from Professor Elizabeth Elliott, a government adviser and academic who is also a pediatrician running a diagnostic clinic on FASD) '...there's no doubt that alcohol has much more severe effects on the developing brain than these other drugs (heroin, methadone, cocaine).... ...and lasting effects.'
We've got very good evidence that alcohol is toxic to the developing brain... (and does) ... more damage than other drugs'.
It's worth watching this ^^^ whole program. One begins to wonder if the epidemic of HyperActivityDisorder, ADD, and possibly autism currently afflicting the western world may be due to alcohol use during pregnancy - it appears there is no safe level.
Posted: 11/15/2013 3:10:11 AM
One begins to wonder if the epidemic of HyperActivityDisorder, ADD, and possibly autism currently afflicting the western world may be due to alcohol use during pregnancy
That would be interesting. All the talk about there being or not being a link between autism and vaccinations or floride in water or whatever, and we have this. Old well established links, not heard about much. And alcohol is the one thing that is legal while people want to pick on weed smoking.
Posted: 11/15/2013 7:07:44 AM
|just look at what the prohibition did, pretty much caused organized crime to spawn. the same goes for most illegal drugs today, it's a source of revenue for black market criminals. the jails getting filled with kids who just wanted to have some fun with some bud and coming out hardened criminals. in the end it's not drugs that hurt people, it's people that hurt themselves. if it's not alchohol it's pills, if it's not pills it's paint, if it's not paint it's self harm, if it's not self harm it's harm towards others. people hurt people, not objects nor substances. if you want to solve the abuse and misuse of anything at all, you start from the ground up, by fixing the education system and make it actually educational rather than institutional.|
Posted: 11/15/2013 7:10:21 PM
Yeah but are drunk person or person may have more acknowledgement of the consqueneces of getting into trouble, thus not causing probalems as far as fights with neighbors when drunk. Whereas, a person high on synthetic drugs is literally out of their minds and are way out of touch with reality, so consequences mean nothing to them or much less to a sober person that starts having a few drinks at home. And laws are after the fact. How does that help if someone on synthetic drugs or PCP kills their neighbor? They'll be arrested and in prison, but that won't bring the person who got murdered back will it. Yeah people can be violent when drunk, but even non violent people can be very aggressive and violent with synthetic drugs and people on them even more likely to come out and do crazy stuff to cause harm. I have a friend, who changes and can be agitated when drunk. But he never come outside of his lawn and just randomly came after neighbors outside. Someone high on synthetic drugs is more likely to do that, as they are hallucinating and not even thinking.
You've obviously never seen somebody who's drunk out of their mind! (for instance, drinking so much that you can't remember what happened) You seem to be deliberately hyping up these so-called "synthetic drugs" while downplaying the dangers of one of the most dangerous drugs in existence. It is only a historical accident that drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal, not because they are somehow safer.
Prohibition was a failure for alcohol, and continues to be a failure for other drugs. It's time to stop this nonsense (never throw good money after bad) and take a more logical, rational approach to drugs.
Posted: 11/16/2013 6:00:10 AM
Yeah I've seen people drunk out of their mind, it can;'t be compared to synthetic drugs. I've seen people who can't walk or slurred speech so greatly, puking, etc. There are people who have to pump their guts so they don't die of alcohol poisoning. I just don't want society to go bat shit crazy, which will happen if more people are on synthetic drugs, and living near you. That's a scary society. Yeah alcohol can hurt people and there are people who drink so much they can't remember what happend. Usually nothing crazy happens, or some pass out and don't remember that. I've been really drunk, slurred speech and all and yet I could still think or aware of what's going on. I've had moments where I was doing something at a party that friends told me about that I didn't remember. It's nothing in comparison. Fact of the matter is, I don't want people hurting themselves, but I care more about my safety and families safety, so yeah I am prioritzing on a drug that makes people even more crazy than alcohol. You say alcohol can be dangerous to me or others because of dealing with a drunk driver. People on drugs try driving and they are just as dangerous, and get in accidents. Last year someone crashed on a highway going 1oomph, luckily this guy didn't hit anyone else, but he was found to be high on synthetic drugs. The reaosn more under the influence accidents aren't show or happen, is because more people in the US and worldwide drink alcohol compared to other drugs. You would be seeing just as many accidents and more if that number of people were high on drugs especiallly synthetic drugs.
As stated by WHO (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/), alcohol causes more than 2.5 million deaths a year, and "the world’s third largest risk factor for premature mortality, disability and loss of health". Despite the widespread prevalence and availability of the illegal drugs (note that the War on Drugs is not stopping these drugs from becoming available to anyone), alcohol is still ranked as among the highest in terms of harm to oneself and others. Scare stories and anecdotes are one thing, the facts are another. If you believe that these "synthetic drugs" should be kept illegal because they are so dangerous, then you must also take the same stance towards a drug that kills millions of people every year (and ruins the lives of millions more) - alcohol.
A logical approach is keeping the most serious drugs out of people's hands or less access for them.
You said there would be regulations more so on the harder drugs and more so on the distribution and access, well how exactly or what exactly is the plan to make it harder for people getting access to the more serious drugs then?
Since the War on Drugs is NOT keeping the most dangerous drugs out of people's hands, the most logical thing to do is to look for alternatives. Regulating dangerous drugs can at least reduce the risk factor, since there will be guidelines as to dosage and purity (as opposed to getting it on the black market, which can often be in lethal dosages and questionable purity). When I buy alcohol from a licensed merchant, I can be sure that what I'm buying is of good quality, that the alcohol percentage is accurate, and that it won't contain other dangerous materials (there's no guarantee of any of this if I were to buy alcohol from the black market). I can also try to get compensation if the product is not as advertised and hold those companies to account, further maintaining quality and safety. Simply put, if you want to do something dangerous, then you'd want to at least go about it in the safest way possible (you'd never go skydiving with a cheap, dubiously-built parachute, would you?). Regulating drugs can also severely cut into the profit margins of drug dealers, creating a negative incentive to engage in such activity.
Posted: 11/16/2013 7:08:12 PM
No, I personally feel synthetic drugs are the greater evil. They don't kill as many people, because less people use these drugs than the sheer huge number of people who drink alcohol. That is why, you can't have the number of people taking synthetic drugs grow or ever get near the number of people who use alcohol. The reason is because like I said, you think there are a lot of deaths and harm from people drinking alcohol, the number would be that much worse if the number of people on synthetic drugs grew to that number of people who use alcohol. It would be an epidemice basically. You talk about people dying from alcohol poisoning. Last summer during the big synthetic drug stint when it was legal at headshops. The hospitals in my city and just about every nearby city were so packed from people high in synnthetic drugs needing to go to the emergency room as friend and family saw them close to dying. They had to be taken in and something done, to slow their heartrate, etc or else all these people coming in would have had cardiac arrest. The rooms were overloaded, nurses and doctors had to work overtime, because they didn't have enough staff for the sheer number of people coming in and out. These drugs are very easy for people to harm themselves with, because of how strong of a drug it is. The death toll would be so much more and more so than alcohol if the number of people using this drugs as the close to the number of people who drink alcohol. There's a new synthetic drug called "smiles" that is big with teenagers, and teenagers are dying left and right from it, because of how strong the drug is and how much easier it is to overdose to take too much of a drug that strong. Alcohol, generally you have to drink a lot of it in a short period of tiime to overdose and die from alcohol poisoning.
Again, anecdotal evidence means nothing. You keep talking about how these synthetic drugs are so much more dangerous, yet you provide no stats for comparison (e.g., number of people using it, and the number of people who die, or are injured, including both short-term and long-term). Where are the numbers? And what specific synthetic drugs are you talking about?
But they will still get high, which can lead them to do something crazy and hurt an innocent person that lives near them or crosses their path. So that doesn't help.
And yet you seem to be fine with people drinking alcohol and potentially hurting other people , which they do ALL THE TIME!. If you know so much about these drugs, then can you please tell me how many innocent people are seriously harmed/killed from the users of these drugs?
If you are regulating the dosage people can take or use though, can't there be people who don't want their drugs monitored or less dosage and want a greater dosage, which they'll then go to a drug dealer even if the drugs are legal now? So drug dealers would still be getting profits from people going to them who don't want their dosage limited. You see you just brought "incentive".
So because a handful of people might still prefer to get their drugs from an illegal dealer, that creates "incentive"? LOL, that's rich. How does it create "incentive" when the number of customers who buy drugs from you drops significantly? If you used to make $1000 a week from selling illegal drugs, but it was then reduced to $100 a week after legalization, where is the incentive to continue your trade?
Posted: 11/16/2013 9:27:19 PM
Well here's an article about different synthetic drugs and deaths
As his business grew and his stores moved into small towns like Herkimer, Oneida, Rome and Utica, so did those communities’ problems with people who were out of control. Every day, small police departments and hospital emergency rooms handled people who were violent and disoriented, authorities say
In 2011, poison control centers took more than 5,000 phone calls from people who were either high on the substances, or worried about a loved one who was.
Utica Police say eight people were sent to the hospital after smoking a form of incense or spice Thursday night in Brunswick, Georgia. Seven of the eight people have been released but one person remains in critical condition.
"Police say the symptoms linked to "Crazy Clown" include nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, weakness, cardiac problems and an inability to move. According to WJBF, three of the teens and young adults hospitalized in Georgia were foaming at the mouth."
Ummm sounds like a dangerous drug for users to me. Just not the number of taking it as people who use alcohol. But the stronger the drug, the more dangerous and easier it is for someone to harm themselves even if drug is regulated. Just common sense, let alone more likely to make them to even more bizarre, dangerous things than alcohol.
Spice," also known as "K2" or "potpourri," is a synthetic marijuana made from fertilizer from China, mixed with lettuce leaves. The drug, five times more powerful than marijuana, causes agitation, confusion, hallucinations, vomiting and, in some cases, heart attacks and even comas, according to CBS2.
Another teen, who said she was addicted to spice, went to the ER “couldn’t move for three hours," was “semi-paralyzed” and vomiting, while experiencing hallucinations and paranoia, her mother told CBS2.
I don't see a widespread problem in those reports, plus many of them seem to be due to drugs that were manufactured improperly. This is precisely the kind of thing I was talking about - illegal drugs are not subject to standards and regulations and so it's easy for someone to overdose or become injured using them. As I said from the start, the more dangerous the drug, the more we need to regulate them.
I've been to plenty of bars. There have been fights every now and then. But I've been around quite a bit of drunk people, not too much fighting and violence. If you think a person high is any safer driving a car than a person drunk you have the wrong conclusion. I'm sorry but I'd rather run into a drunk person than a person high on "spice" or bath salts. A drunk person while number, I've been drunk, they can still feel some pain. I'd not want to run into a person on a drug "spice", where they just pull of tasers like its nothing. I know people high on cocaine do that, but synthetic drugs causes people to need even more shots to slow them down. Scary stuff. Police reports where 6 taser shots were needed to slow a guy high on bath salts and people high on the drug taken to the hospital needing the 12 people to hold the person down. Listen, all I want is a safer society not juse from the users, but people that aren't using these substances to have to worry less about nutjobs high on these drugs, trying to kill them or eat their cat (that happened last year, with a boy trying to eat his cat high on "spice" in my city, it was in the cities paper). I'm glad you're so careless about ****ed up drugs, but naturally I am goinng to prioritize drugs, with people's reactiosn to them, makes my skin crawl.
Um, it's precisely because I prioritize drugs that I'm calling for them to be regulated (what do you think "regulation" means?). You still seem to be under the illusion that people who want drugs legalized and regulated are endorsing their use, and that we would allow anyone to have them! What supporters of legalization want is to put these illegal drugs under government/public control so that we can reduce the harm that they do to people (both users and non-users alike). It's been clearly shown that the War on Drugs does not stop people from getting drugs - the only thing it does is make illegal drugs far more dangerous than they would otherwise be (as well as making and support criminals).
Yeah I'm sure more than a handful of people will prefer their drugs from an illegal deal. How would this guy be an illegal dealer, since what he's selling is not illegal anymore?
You seem to have a short memory. These illegal dealers would be selling drugs in higher dosages (you stressed this point yourself in your last post!). Obviously, if people try to make and sell drugs that are beyond government standards, then they would be illegal.
Posted: 11/17/2013 6:45:31 AM
People can probably still be dangerous trying to drive with those drugs though as well as to others even if the synthetic drugs they take are regulated.
We do not permit people who are high on alcohol to drive so what makes you think we'd allow it for any other mind-altering drug? If a drug affects your coordination or awareness then activities like driving would be out of the question (if these drugs were legalized then DUI charges would apply to them as well).
It might help them from not overdosing, but them taking the regulated dosage can still cause them to be very hostile and dangerous to others.
Yes, just like alcohol, which is known to make people aggressive. Any mind-altering drug can potentially make people more aggressive and violent; this is nothing special.
But these drugs can be cumulative meaning even if the person takes the regulated dosage, they are more likely to have non reparable damage from the continued drug use, even quicker and faster than cocaine, etc.
Legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco also cause massive long-term damage/death, yet we allow them to be used. Binge drinking is especially known to cause significant damage in the brain.
But yes, I do believe drugs being illegal has made new drugs to be created and more potent and drug dealers being more creative with having drugs slip under the radar and harder to be detected in people's systems. I never believe weed should be illegal, and wonder if following Colorado and making it legal will allow less people to take harder drugs, as they can get high without being arrested. Certainly, people who want to get high at all costs, will find a way even if all drugs are legal, but people, if finding something more convenient can and will direct more attention to the drug they can get high from easier and with less hassle because it's legal now, than other drugs. I'd like to find out studies as far as hard drug usage in Colorado and numbers of that before weed became legal there and after and if the numbers of people using synthetic drugs, or cocain, heroine, meth, etc is less after weed became legal, or the same or more so. If the numbers of hard drug usage is less since weed became legal, then other states can or should try it maybe.
What we've learned from prohibition is that people will find ways to acquire the drugs that they want. The addictive drugs work on the reward pathways in our brain, and it's difficult to just stop using them once we've become used to them (this is also true for benign substances like caffeine, which can create dependencies to the point where some people cannot function in the morning without it). What we need to do is find ways to deliver that reward in a way that is least harmful. There is no way to eliminate the harm completely - after all, even a bit of alcohol will kill brain/liver cells - but there should certainly be better alternatives than to leave it up to black market dealers, who have absolutely no obligation to care about people's health. Of course some drugs are almost impossible to use safely (e.g., crack cocaine) and for these we should be looking for safer alternatives.
Coincidentally, the mayor of my city, Toronto, has recently admitted to using cocaine while in office. He's also admitted to drinking heavily, driving under the influence, and has been seen in a violent rant, possibly under the influence (e.g., talks about ripping someone's throat out and killing them). He obviously has a problem with drugs and most people want him out of office, including me. Although I think drugs should be legalized, when it starts affecting your job, or starts harming other people (e.g., DUI) then it needs to be dealt with.
Posted: 11/17/2013 9:43:18 AM
People can probably still be dangerous trying to drive with those drugs though as well as to others even if the synthetic drugs they take are regulated. It might help them from not overdosing, but them taking the regulated dosage can still cause them to be very hostile and dangerous to others. Unless you think more likely, more of this erratic behavior is from people is from people taking a higher dosage than they thought they were taking? Or from the drugs being tainted, etc? But these drugs can be cumulative meaning even if the person takes the regulated dosage, they are more likely to have non reparable damage from the continued drug use, even quicker and faster than cocaine, etc. I really don't feel like looking this up, I'm not making this up. I read it in the paper from physicians talking about the drug and it's effect on the brain and how people just using the drug once can have permanent damage and have mental disorders and flashbacks and psychotic episodes even a week after taking a drug like bath salts. But yes, I do believe drugs being illegal has made new drugs to be created and more potent and drug dealers being more creative with having drugs slip under the radar and harder to be detected in people's systems. I never believe weed should be illegal, and wonder if following Colorado and making it legal will allow less people to take harder drugs, as they can get high without being arrested. Certainly, people who want to get high at all costs, will find a way even if all drugs are legal, but people, if finding something more convenient can and will direct more attention to the drug they can get high from easier and with less hassle because it's legal now, than other drugs. I'd like to find out studies as far as hard drug usage in Colorado and numbers of that before weed became legal there and after and if the numbers of people using synthetic drugs, or cocain, heroine, meth, etc is less after weed became legal, or the same or more so. If the numbers of hard drug usage is less since weed became legal, then other states can or should try it maybe.
Number one, paragraphs are you friend.
Are you asking if pot "could" be a "gateway" drug, or are you saying "it is". The "gateway" argument has been done. One of the things studies have shown is that a lot of "pot" smokers also drink booze. So,by default, is booze a "gateway" drug???? Abusers, will abuse. Be it food, smoke or drugs(illegal or legal). I know a few that are addicted to painkillers, initially prescribed by their doctors. And by the way, there is an actual roadside "test" to determine if a driver has smoked a doob. Some police forces actually are using it already.
Edit to add; I just read the previous pages. You obviously have been "reading" some phucked up information. What "synthetic addition" are you speaking of when relating to pot??????? Are you talking about the shiat that is being added to some bags of weed by some piece of shiat dealer????? Or are you talking about the manufactured heroin, meth, X???????
Posted: 11/17/2013 7:04:47 PM
Number one, after wrting 3,000 paragraphs and tired, I might not separate or break it up sometimes.
On the contrary, I've been following you from the start and you've always used extremely long paragraphs, often rambling on about one thing or another. The basic point is, learn to organize your thoughts better (often times, when someone goes on a long, unbroken rant it is a clear indication that they have no idea what they are talking about).
Oh well. And it's called synthetic marijuanna, it's not ****ed up information, it's called "spice" and sold amongst the other synthetic drugs. Just look it up, there is something called google you know.
I actually looked up this drug a few days ago, and it basically reinforced my point that regulation was needed (the drugs were manufactured in ways that made them extremely dangerous - something that regulation can prevent). If drugs were regulated, we would keep them within normal boundaries (that is, at levels that would not harm the users or the public).
I care about innocent people more so than the users taking them. So there are people addicted on painkillers and prescription drugs, that sucks, but not my main focus. So bringing that up doesn't point out anything.
As pointed out many times, public safety would be at the forefront of any new drug legislation. This is, for example, why we have laws agains drunk driving, so that those who drive know what is expected of them concerning alcohol (will it absolutely prevent someone from driving under the influence? Nope. But it will create a standard in society for what is acceptable and not acceptable to do when under the influence of drugs). For instance, my sister mentioned the other day that she was the "designated driver" for someone's birthday party - which means that she has chosen not to drink alcohol so that she could drive people around.
Except, it's not just like Alcohol. Yes alcohol makes or can make people aggressive. But, synthetic drugs since they are stronger have a stronger mind-altering effect than alcohol. So as aggressive alcohl can make people, synthetic drugs makes people even that much more aggressive. So naturally I'm going to focus on the drug that has a stronger mind-altering effect on people than alcohol.
And yet you have not provided a single verified study that shows that these "synthetic drugs" (which is, BTW, a very generic term for which you have never even attempted to define) cause more aggression. I asked you for the hard numbers on precisely how many innocent people have been hurt by these drugs... I'm still waiting for those numbers (until you provide this data, I cannot take any claim you say about the "aggressive effects of synthetic drugs" seriously).
A person using strong synthetic drugs can be effect with long term heatl issues just after using a few times. So there is a difference from the previous perspective I brought up and this one.
Again, an unsubstantiated claim. You keep making up these claims without a single shred of evidence to back them up! I'm not going to take your word on faith - either back up these assertions with cold, hard facts or admit that your position is a position of faith. Right now, I have to take anything that you say with a large grain of salt, since I have no idea where you are getting this kind of data!
Posted: 11/17/2013 7:14:26 PM
Toronto mayor would be accepted as norm among politicians.
We may even get one in the White House like Toronto mayor.
That would be comedian's dream.
As a Torontonian (who unfortunately voted for our current mayor in the last election), I am embarrassed beyond words, for my fellow citizens, and for my city. This is causing an unnecessary distraction from the many important issues facing my city, and I wish Ford would do the right thing and resign (or at least take a leave of absence). Not only did he do hard drugs like cocaine and associate with drug dealers, but he deliberately lied about it (and attacked the reporters who, doing their public duty as reporters, reported on it!). I'm only in my thirties, but I've never seen such a mayor as Ford (and next year, I will do all I can to get him booted out of office). Having a mayor like Ford means that the rest of the world is laughing at Toronto, and at Torontonians like me :(
Posted: 11/18/2013 5:40:13 AM
I write synthetic drugs as in the new ones, not the 90s synthetic drugs like ecstacy or PCP, which are pretty strong. I write them, because there are many types, but they seem to have similar effects on the person in causing hallucinations, agiation, bizarre behaviour. Bath salts had a lot of attention last year, but "spice" or synthetic marijuanna caused people to do very similar crazy actions as bath salts. These drugs or the powder are made in India and Chine from what I've learned and sent over here and picked up by headshops to which they are sold, or especially were sold last year.
The study found a bath salt ingredient, MDPV, is 10 to 50 times more potent than cocaine in its ability to increase dopamine in the brain.
Emergency rooms around the country have reported cases of people taking bath salts who become psychotic, violent and delirious. These patients also may have a very high body temperature. Some people have died from bath salts use. Dr. Baumann notes the data for the year are not yet complete.
This was an interesting article. Maybe regulation of synthetic drugs can help the dangers in people not to themselves but others. As a lot of the crazy tendences are from the "mixed bag" of chemicals people take when using these synthetic drugs. But if the drugs are coming and sent over from China, do we intercept and monitor the chemicals coming in? If we can;t do that now, and intercept the drugs coming in, how will we do that even if legal, if the people sending them don't want the drugs monitored, and rather sneak the drugs in?
Patients with the syndrome known as “excited delirium” from taking bath salts also may have dehydration, breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue, and kidney failure. Intoxication from several synthetic cathinones including MDPV, mephedrone, methedrone, and butylone has proved fatal in several instances.
who was “violently combative” and may have been "growling," according to police and resisted attempts to handcuff her. Budlong used his police-issued pepper spray on McCarthy to no effect, so he then deployed his Taser and was able to handcuff McCarthy..
Of course you probably think this is propaganda, but these are police reports.
Of course, bath salts don't alter the mind or don;t cause more aggression. I mean after all drunk people do this stuff right? Maybe if they are taking a strong drug with their alcohol. Yeah I'm sure more violence from people being drunk isn't reported, because alcohol has been around for a long time and there have been incidents for years with things, so nothing seems to stand out. BUT, If alcohol altered the mind as much as synthetic drugs like bath salts, there would be bizarre behaviour like shown in the article and if there was, trust me, it would be reported by the media and from police reports. Standard violent incidents won't but if a drunk guy is running around naked, foamin at the mouth like an animal, I'm pretty sure the media would take notice. But I don't recall seeing any crazy behavious from people seemingly drunk, so yeah, It's safe to assume this stuff isn;t happening with people using alcohol unless they are on PCP or someother drug while drunk or simply already psychotic. Seriously, if someone is doing this stuff, then obviously their mind is being altered much more from these drugs than what alcohol does. That previous article shows the effects on people's health and how it can cause schizophrenia. They are still studying more on the long term effects, but It's more of a matter of them learning more about the drug, than the fact that the drug isn;t causing significant brain damage. I wish I could find the informatin about the relape from people who used bath salts just once, but like I said, even though you think I'm making it up; it was valid information in the newspaper from physicians. I know you want all these statistics, but umm, if people are causing riots and doing very aggressive, non logical things like shown in the tnonline.com article, then it obviously show this drug causes more aggression and mind altering effects to do such bizarre things, more so than what drunk people do.
On the contrary, I've been following you from the start and you've always used extremely long paragraphs, often rambling on about one thing or another. The basic point is, learn to organize your thoughts better (often times, when someone goes on a long, unbroken rant it is a clear indication that they have no idea what they are talking about).
I have a lot to see and many points to make and get impatient, structuring things, that's all. And yes, I know what I'm ****ing talking about, these are valid points. These reports wouldn't be made if they didn;t cause people to act very erratically and aggressively. I'm sorry but what I compare how people react with one drug (alcohol) vs another )bath salts, I don't need these cute little time consuming stats for a drug they are still learning more about to show. Plus I don''t like reading these stats and articles which is why I didn;t want to go looking for them. If alcohol caused the same things, you'd hear the same reports, trus me. That's just common sense. The fact that you don't shows that alcohol doesn't alter the mind like bath salts or "spice" does to people.
News sources carry many stories relating serious harm resulting from the abuse of bath salts, synthetic marijuana (often called Spice) or other synthetics. Such as the man in Louisiana who bit a chunk off his neighbor's face during a dispute. And the naked man in Illinois who, on June 15, 2012, grabbed a man's car hood and rode it for four miles until the driver could have police meet him. In Albuquerque, a Spice-abusing man tried to kill his own father with a knife in 2012.
I don't recall seeing, a man simply drunk doing the first thing, if so, not like people on these drugs.
Similar to the adverse effects of cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamine, synthetic cathinone use is associated with increased heart rate and blood pressure,
chest pain, extreme paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, and violent behavior, which causes users to harm themselves or others. The effects of synthetic cannabinoids include severe agitation and anxiety, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia (fast, racing heartbeat), elevated blood pressure, tremors and seizures, hallucinations, dilated pupils, and suicidal and other harmful thoughts and/or actions. You see "severe agitation"?
"Police say the man appeared distraught, and claimed to have used 'bath salts' two days ago. He said he was still feeling the effects of the drugs. However, police say he did now have any of the drugs in his possession. He was taken to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Utica for a mental health evaluation."
This is the article I was talking about among others. I know you though I was pulling this out of my ass, but this gives and indication of the damage it can do on someone's brain. I don't recall any other drugs lingering that long after use. Alcohol? Usuaully a person is sober after sleeping overnight. other drugs symptoms fade too. If this wasn't a sign of the effects on the brain, I don't know what is. Seriously, he used bath salts two days ago and was still having episodes and still high. That's insane.
I find it amusing how you think that googling up newspaper articles and forum posts constitute "serious research" (as if the media never hypes things up, and does not have a tendency for sensational news items :p). I've asked for the hard numbers but all you've given me are round figures, and you pretty much seem to have admitted that the data is lacking.
This is not to say that synthetic drugs are perfectly safe - far from it. They can often times be lethal, and the risk of overdoses and poisoning is higher for illegal drugs. However, as I pointed out before, this is where regulation can help. At the very least, regulation can make these drugs less damaging.
You also continue to whitewash alcohol, which is by far the biggest problem drug we face today, as well as the biggest social health issue. It should be obvious why alcohol-related abuses aren't reported much. It is because we, as a society, have considered it a normal thing (that is, most people see alcohol as an acceptable drug). What do we do when we want to relax? Sit in front of the TV and open a cold one. Celebratory occasion? Wine and champagne. Party? Vodka and tequila. It can also be considered a rite of passage - when you become a man then you can drink alcohol. We make movies and TV shows about it (e.g., the Hangover series, plus season 15 episode 14 of South Park comes to mind: "they're white trash... and when you give them a little Pabst Blue Ribbon, they can't help getting arrested!" :p).
If someone throws up on the street from drinking alcohol we think they had a good time. If they have a massive hangover or don't show up the next day we assume that they had a REALLY good time. We laugh at young people drunk on the street and find it amusing when they do crazy things or start fighting each other. The fact is, if ANY of this happened while under the influence of an illegal drug then it would be considered a serious health issue and the media would be all over it. Someone vomits and passes out after taking bath salts, it is considered a medical emergency. If someone vomits and passes out after taking alcohol it's considered normal ("oh, he's just wasted"). This double standard is there because one drug is illegal and the other not (that is, we've been conditioned to acceptable alcohol). Your constant whitewashing is a perfect example of this double-standard, downplaying the effects of alcohol and insisting that it's a normal part of society, despite the fact that it causes many injuries and deaths, including domestic violence (it's not uncommon to hear a guy beating up his wife or injuring someone else after a heavy bout of drinking).
Posted: 12/2/2013 10:48:58 AM
|demigod1979- People are going to find a way to get drugs even with them being illegal.|
All the "drug war" has done is make the US a country that has more of it's citizens in jail than any other country.
There is something WAY wrong with a system that has mandatory sentencing for non violent drug offenses and then turns around and frees rapists and murderers.
6 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)