NationStates Jolt Archive

Medical marijuana? Preposterous idea put forward by hippy potheads and evil liberals.
Medical ecstasy? Genius! Let's research it as a treatment for the same things medical marijuana would be used for!

http://www.slate.com/id/2158144/?GT1=9010

This is absurd.

Fuck it. Legalize and regulate all drugs. That will solve many of the problems associated with them.

Fuck it. Legalize and regulate all drugs. That will solve many of the problems associated with them.

Then we'll lose the war on drugs!

I say keep it illegal so we can kill brown people whenever we feel like it.

Then we'll lose the war on drugs!

I say keep it illegal so we can kill brown people whenever we feel like it.

We don't have to stop killing third world people (don't care what color they are) just because we've legalized drugs. There are plenty of reasons to kill them other than drugs.

Actually, ecstasy originally was developed for treating psychiatric conditions and was prescribed as a treatment during the 1970's; it wasn't until it began to emerge as an abusive drug that it was made illegal. This is really just going back to the original purpose of MDMA, which was meant to treat psychiatric conditions.

As a dutiful communist I shall say this and only this:

There's no E in communism.

We don't have to stop killing third world people (don't care what color they are) just because we've legalized drugs. There are plenty of reasons to kill them other than drugs.

But coming up with another excuse will hurt their brains. Can't have our politicians thinking now can we?

As a dutiful communist I shall say this and only this:

There's no E in communism.
There is one in commune, though...

Makes sense to me.

Then we'll lose the war on drugs!

I say keep it illegal so we can kill brown people whenever we feel like it.
Aren't we already losing it?

Not that I am... *tokes*

Fuck it. Legalize and regulate all drugs. That will solve many of the problems associated with them.

legalize and regulate it wont work as well as so many people think. there is already a regulation on it and that regulation in most places is you are not alowed to have any on you at all. and look how well that does. what do you think the regulations when they legalize it would do?

Actually, ecstasy originally was developed for treating psychiatric conditions and was prescribed as a treatment during the 1970's; it wasn't until it began to emerge as an abusive drug that it was made illegal. This is really just going back to the original purpose of MDMA, which was meant to treat psychiatric conditions.

In that case, why isn't vicotin or xanax or the blue pills (matrickslawl) or the yellow pills or anything that can be used as speed illegalized?

I'd like to think it's because they're still making money off that stuff, as opposed to people having already perfected making ecstasy in their basement.

As far as I know, the only harm coming from ecstasy is if people get dehydrated, but that shouldn't be a problem if people are more knowledgeable about what to do while on the drug, but another reason it's been so dangerous is because people will drug the water the person is drinking and rape them. This can't really be kept from happening in a party situation. Yet another danger is the possibility of contamination or lacing of other drugs into it, such as heroin or LSD.

As far as weed goes: doesn't make you dehydrated, but it does give you the munchies. Lacing is a problem, but can be solved through government regulation and selling.



But as safe as both of those drugs can be, they won't encourage medical use for it, because it's harder to make money off of it. They can tickle with the idea of using them, and a few people may even get on a small government-sponsored program for it, but for the most part it won't happen.

Actually, ecstasy originally was developed for treating psychiatric conditions and was prescribed as a treatment during the 1970's; it wasn't until it began to emerge as an abusive drug that it was made illegal. This is really just going back to the original purpose of MDMA, which was meant to treat psychiatric conditions.

I thought it was developed during WWI by the Germans to allow greater forced marches of troops...and as it happens I am wrong...seems that was a myth.

It was patented in 1912 by Merck but only until 2006 did the company publish its history of the drug...

http://www.mdma.net/merck/ecstasy-mdma.pdf

Here is a brief overview...

http://www.mdma.net/merck/

legalize and regulate it wont work as well as so many people think. there is already a regulation on it and that regulation in most places is you are not alowed to have any on you at all. and look how well that does. what do you think the regulations when they legalize it would do?

Methinks you don't know what regulate means in this context. Regulate, as in, have the FDA inspect and pass it like they do food, so that they can be sure it's not laced with anything or under a certain quality.

I thought it was developed during WWI by the Germans to allow greater forced marches of troops...and as it happens I am wrong...seems that was a myth.

It was patented in 1912 by Merck but only until 2006 did the company publish its history of the drug...

http://www.mdma.net/merck/ecstasy-mdma.pdf

Here is a brief overview...

http://www.mdma.net/merck/

Maybe you got it confused with the Japanese using cocaine on their pilots?

Methinks you don't know what regulate means in this context. Regulate, as in, have the FDA inspect and pass it like they do food, so that they can be sure it's not laced with anything or under a certain quality.

okay and then what stops people from growing it themsevles or paying someone else a cheaper price to get high than buy it for double the price from the "drug store"

okay and then what stops people from growing it themsevles or paying someone else a cheaper price to get high than buy it for double the price from the "drug store"

The fact that, at the drug store, they know what they're getting. Sure, some people will still black market it - just as they do with any type of prescription or even OTC drug (and the unregulated stuff is usually more expensive). But most people would prefer the security they would get by knowing what they are getting - and that it isn't laced with some random drug or dangerous material.

legalize and regulate it wont work as well as so many people think. there is already a regulation on it and that regulation in most places is you are not alowed to have any on you at all. and look how well that does. what do you think the regulations when they legalize it would do?

And we're facing the same problems we saw with alcohol prohibition. If we legalize them and tax them using the taxes for drug education and rehab programs that work (not that bullshit 12 step cult) we can see drug use decline like cigarette use has.

okay and then what stops people from growing it themsevles or paying someone else a cheaper price to get high than buy it for double the price from the "drug store"

How many people grow their own tobacco or make their own liquor? Very few. Fact is even with taxes and regulations it's still more convenient to pay a couple of dollars extra and not go through all the hassle of making moonshine or growing your own tobacco and rolling your own cigarettes.

How many people grow their own tobacco or make their own liquor? Very few. Fact is even with taxes and regulations it's still more convenient to pay a couple of dollars extra and not go through all the hassle of making moonshine or growing your own tobacco and rolling your own cigarettes.

Also, the "taboo" factor is really gone the minute you can buy it down at the drugstore. I'm sure that half of the fun of "grow-your-own" drugs is the idea that you're beating the man, or something.

How many people grow their own tobacco or make their own liquor? Very few. Fact is even with taxes and regulations it's still more convenient to pay a couple of dollars extra and not go through all the hassle of making moonshine or growing your own tobacco and rolling your own cigarettes.

Some people like rolling their own cigs, still, even if they have to buy the tobacco by itself. They're really insistent upon it, as well, because it doesn't have any of the added crap they put in commercial cigarettes.

How many people grow their own tobacco or make their own liquor? Very few. Fact is even with taxes and regulations it's still more convenient to pay a couple of dollars extra and not go through all the hassle of making moonshine or growing your own tobacco and rolling your own cigarettes.

Exactly. Especially when it takes a lot of time to develop the skill to make decent liquor, etc. I'd rather shell out the cash to ensure I'm getting something that won't eat out my stomach lining.

Also, the "taboo" factor is really gone the minute you can buy it down at the drugstore. I'm sure that half of the fun of "grow-your-own" drugs is the idea that you're beating the man, or something.

Not when you have to actually smoke that ditch weed.

Some people like rolling their own cigs, still, even if they have to buy the tobacco by itself. They're really insistent upon it, as well, because it doesn't have any of the added crap they put in commercial cigarettes.

Um...huh? Loose tobacco has as many additives as pre-rolled...if not more:

http://www.tarnival.org/cigarette/ingredients/additives.html

"Regulations such as this in New Zealand have revealed that loose tobacco and pipe tobacco have even more additives by weight - up to three times as much. Because these tobacco products are exposed to air, the additives are more likely to break down and no longer perform their role. Greater quantities must be added to ensure that there are active additives present when the tobacco is used."

Um...huh? Loose tobacco has as many additives as pre-rolled...if not more:

http://www.tarnival.org/cigarette/ingredients/additives.html

"Regulations such as this in New Zealand have revealed that loose tobacco and pipe tobacco have even more additives by weight - up to three times as much. Because these tobacco products are exposed to air, the additives are more likely to break down and no longer perform their role. Greater quantities must be added to ensure that there are active additives present when the tobacco is used."

Natural additives, maybe, but not random chemicals.

Natural additives, maybe, but not random chemicals.

I just provided you with a source that totally invalidates your above comment. Read it again, or provide a refutation.

*taps boot impatiently*

I just provided you with a source that totally invalidates your above comment. Read it again, or provide a refutation.

Well, I refute it by reading it. There is no licorice or chocolate in natural tobacco, as opposed to commercial cigs.

Well, I refute it by reading it. There is no licorice or chocolate in natural tobacco, as opposed to commercial cigs.

What on earth are you talking about?

First, define 'natural tobacco'.

Are you talking about homegrown stuff?

Because ealier you mentioned people purchasing 'loose' tobacco, which is also a form of commercial tobacco.

Some people like rolling their own cigs, still, even if they have to buy the tobacco by itself. They're really insistent upon it, as well, because it doesn't have any of the added crap they put in commercial cigarettes.

The source I provided asserts that contrary to your position, commercial 'loose' tobacco in fact overall has MORE additives (chemical and otherwise) than pre-rolled.

So?