phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 i guess you don't know anyone who has been seriously, adversely affected by bad ecstasy. i do, and it's not really all that hilarious to me willy, in fact not one bit i do think it's really impressive that you've never been cured by an antibiotic or any medecine before! wow! i know i'm being grumpy here, but i'm not a fan of x for several reasons, which to me are valid but i guess not to others. as always, to each their own. i think i'd better leave this thread alone from now on...sorry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 i guess you don't know anyone who has been seriously, adversely affected by bad ecstasy. i do, and it's not really all that hilarious to me willy, in fact not one bit I don't believe I claimed that. I do however know many people who have been adversely affected by pot as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Begonia Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) Tenants who appear to be overly secretive, keeping their distance from neighbours. But there may also be visitors at unusual times, especially late at night.-Smokers who are always going outside to have a cigarette. I read this and think yikes I hope that my neighbours don't turn me over to the cops. I am just from the country and prefer to keep a little privacy. No more late night shenanigans! I would think that the filler substance that was found could be analyzed and determined the chemical make up, they kinda left that to the imagination well called it poison. Drugs are drugs no matter what the societal view. People choose everyday to take perscription or none perscription medications. Sometimes making our own choices is easier than acception the choices of others. Edited March 15, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 oh, i was mixed up i guess...when you said you don't think there are benefits to any prescription medecine, but do believe that x is no worse than pot, i thought your hilarity at it all was relating to that together (ie. what YATS bokonon and i were talking about) but i guess you were referring to two separate sub-topics in this thread?i must have been confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Sometimes making our own choices is easier than acception the choices of others. this is very true. and reminds me of that thread about spending money on clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 oh, i was mixed up i guess...when you said you don't think there are benefits to any prescription medecine, but do believe that x is no worse than pot, i thought your hilarity at it all was relating to that together (ie. what YATS bokonon and i were talking about) but i guess you were referring to two separate sub-topics in this thread?i must have been confused.Reading this has me confused. We were on the same page there for a while too.But, WIlly,Let's clear things up. I enjoy them both, the first more than the other, but let's face it, pot is nowhere near as harmful as ecstacy... FACT....And, if you think there are NO benefits to ANY prescription drugs, you're absolutely delusional...And, phorbisie, I'm using your words to communicate to Willy, whose striking me as rediculously ignorant right now. So, we're good.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 sorry if i confused you too...i agree with all your thoughts thus far.i think now... his pot/x hilarity thing was not related to tonight's chat but referring to earlier in the thread when some complained that the x bust might be spun into being related to a pot bust, suggesting that pot should not be tainted by such a scandalous relationship. ?but the drugs not curing anything bit must refer to what we were talking about tonight, since you were directly quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chameleon Posted March 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Honestly, I don't need a fucking babysitter. I would like to have the option of legally buying ecstasty should I so choose to partake of it again. Allowing drugs like alcohol and pharmeceuticals to be legal and outlawing ecstasy and other substances does not follow a clear and discernable logical path. I am a self-directed being with morals and values of my own choosing. The government has no right to choose what I can and can not do with my body, as long as I harm no others.Hear Hear! You go girl.All things in moderation. Decriminalize all of it and make it safer for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 So let's get back to the important issue that surfaced during the progress of this thread. Who needs a spanking from the babysitter? } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afro poppa Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 My favourite part of the article is"Any parent that finds their children in possession of these, it's not candy," I don't know why I find that funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 not that I paint myself as the defender of big pharma here, but perhaps I should note that on average, new drugs cost between $100million and $200million to develop, and many of them never see the market. so yeah, while they do charge a lot for brand name pills, they have huge costs to cover. carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Decriminalize all of it and make it safer for everyone.how exactly do you think decriminalisation will make dirty chemical drugs like ecstasy "safter for everyone?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 dirty chemical drug? i thought it was no different than pot. doesn't seem all that funny now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 errr, i mean hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 there was evidence that whoever was making the pills was designing them specifically to appeal to young teens. They found pill presses ready to imprint pictures of popular cartoon characters on the Ecstasy. there is noway these 'popular cartoon characters' would ever appeal to us mature adults the spin they put on this whole thing is way too funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Decriminalize all of it and make it safer for everyone.how exactly do you think decriminalisation will make dirty chemical drugs like ecstasy "safter for everyone?"I wonder that' date=' too. The only way to make drugs like ecstasy safer would be to legalize [i']and regulate their manufacture. Manufacturers would have to be licensed, would have to implement stringent quality control, and would have to be held criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by manufacturing mistakes. In other words, your tab of MDMA is going to have to have been produced by a (big, probably) pharmaceutical company.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 dirty chemical drug? i thought it was no different than pot. doesn't seem all that funny now does it? i don't use either, but yeah i think it's different than pot, and no, i never thought this topic was funny. unless you're responding to something else. bah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 yes, i was responding to Willy. I agree with YOU 110% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 WOOHOO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Zimmy Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Just a questionFor all the supporters of legalizing drugs because it should be a matter of choice...where would it stop? Acid? Mushrooms? X? Meth? Heroin ? Crack? smack? Should everything be legal? Or maybe not Meth or heroin, but X and Pot yes...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chameleon Posted March 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) Decriminalize all of it and make it safer for everyone.how exactly do you think decriminalisation will make dirty chemical drugs like ecstasy "safter for everyone?"Like this.....If it is decriminalized then it can be regulated. It would also take the $$$ out of the hands of criminal organizations and put it above board into the economy.Furthermore, there would be no need for clandestine labs like the one busted in this article. That means there would not be children near the drugs in danger as in this article.To go further if it is regulated and decriminalized then for the user the contents of the drug would be known and the risk manageable, much like alcohol.For the community it gets the dealers and labs out of thier neighborhoods. It would also open up more research and harm reduction as we could put our resources into harm reduction and addiction management as opposed to prohibition like tactics.Really it is a winner for everyone in my view...but then again I am obviously pro drug.And yes I think all drugs should be regulated and decriminalized much like alcohol. I feel the government has no place regulating what a grown adult chooses to put in their bodies. Edited March 15, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Like this.....If it is decriminalized then it can be regulated. It would also take the $$$ out of the hands of criminal organizations and put it above board into the economy.Furthermore, there would be no need for clandestine labs like the one busted in this article. That means there would not be children near the drugs in danger as in this article.To go further if it is regulated and decriminalized then for the user the contents of the drug would be known and the risk manageable, much like alcohol.For the community it gets the dealers and labs out of thier neighborhoods. It would also open up more research and harm reduction as we could put our resources into harm reduction and addiction management as opposed to prohibition like tactics.Really it is a winner for everyone in my view...but then again I am obviously pro drug.1. I wouldn't support a cent of tax dollars going towards any of that.2. I wouldn't support a system that makes that shit available to my (future) kids.3. Everything you write is very pie in the sky positive THEORY.4. I'd be interested to hear you address the social implications, since you haven't yet. I have to get back to work. So I can pay my taxes to support many other ludicrous as well as many worthy government-funded programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Zimmy Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 regulated and decriminalized much like alcoholWouldn't the Gov tax the fuck out of it? then all the hippies wouldn't be able to afford it anyway and start making it on their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questcequecest? Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 decriminalization simply means you would not receive a criminal conviction for possession. it's not the same as legalization and regulation.correct me if i'm wrong, i don't use drugs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edger Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Sorry Willy,I don't think you can put pot and "e" in the same ballpark (but then again I am clearly biased on this one). This does not mean that I judge those who choose otherwise. But the potential negatives are vastly different. Then again, so are the receptors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now