Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think that if drugs were legalized people would actually not do them as much. Most of the thrill from doing these drugs is knowing that you're getting away with something illegal.

However, there still will be plenty of teens who illegally do these drugs just because it would be a risk.

At 10/6/09 05:21 PM, icezizim wrote: a lot of people are just like any normal person you would meet, but one thing, they use a substance that doesn't harm anyone else to feel good.

Law of unintended consequences, etc.

At 10/6/09 09:28 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

rohibition creates is a huge black market for criminals to cash in on.

And millions of healthy people but hey, let's glance over that.

This is an incredibly ignorant statement.

The percentage of drug addicts hasn't change at all since the 1920s, it didn't go down because of the drug war in the least.

Even if it was true that the drug war had some sort of positive effect on the number of drug addicts in the united states. The only people who are hurt by drug use are the drug users. And i don't see it being 'right' or 'moral' in the slightest that people are being forced to pay for money so that police officers can force people off drugs instead of genuinely protecting the taxpayers by going after rapists and murderers.

There really isn't a point to some drugs being illegal. From person experience, mushrooms and weed aren't even bad. I'm not sure how a cigarette, which is loaded with nicotine,gives off second hand smoke and makes your lungs black and alcohol, which destroys your liver and causes thousands of deaths each year is legal while the above two "illegal" drugs which just make you feel good (while also killing brain cells) are illegal. I understand keeping Smack and Dope illegal, but some are just stupid to keep illegal.

smack and dope are the same thing, unless you dope is weed

and mushrooms can make you feel very bad, i already stated why their illegal

and they don't kill brain cells

At 10/11/09 05:23 PM, MaidenHeaven wrote: There really isn't a point to some drugs being illegal. From person experience, mushrooms and weed aren't even bad.

Had to stop you there. Weed is one thing, but the fact that hallucinogens like shrooms have the chance to cause flashbacks at random intervals down the road does not speak well for their legalization. I would hate to see what would happen if we had guys in the armed forces or law enforcement suddenly seeing pink elephants and zombies all over the place...

lol, psychedelics just give you distortions for the most part

Francis Crick on it
CRICK: That's right. And of course because it's like that, that explains why very tiny amounts of chemicals can alter people's behavior, because they go and sit on some of these molecules, different types of them, and that alters -- for example, you can have one the signal which is to calm down the neuron. And if you therefore put a chemical which increases that, that will calm you down or send you to sleep, if that's what sleeping pills are. And we've seen that, of course, recently in things like Prozac. So that's why tiny amounts of chemicals will do that. In the case of LSD, for example, you only need 150 micrograms to have all these funny experiences, you see. It's minute. And that's because they fit into special places, these little molecules, these drugs which you take. They fit into special places in these other molecules. They've been tailored to do that.

MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.
MISHLOVE: Not at all. Well, I suppose many neuroscientists would feel that the study of the chemical interactions at the synapses of the brain is a very fruitful area for research.

CRICK: Absolutely, but most of it's done in the context of mental illness or conditions like depression and things of that sort.

that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliriant

" Acid really messes with your mind, man. When I was on acid, I'd see things that looked like beams of light... and I'd hear things that sound an awful lot like car horns..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis #Use_of_LSD
steve jobs
bill gates
every artist out there

and i forgot, flashbacks are very rare and probably exaggerated

sort of like HPPD(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halluc inogen_persisting_perception_disorder), if it persisted, then at what level of perception in that experience does it stay at?

so if i had a flashback it would be, moving walls, can hear things clearer, basically raised sensory acuity

but im aware of it being a subjective experience and read about people seeing odd things

i guess you didn't read my explanation of why its illegal or you just ignore it as bs

And if it was legalized not as many people would use it. What is the fun in doing drugs if there isn't a chance that you're going to get in trouble for it?

At 10/11/09 07:49 PM, pr0ded wrote: and i forgot, flashbacks are very rare and probably exaggerated

I'm disinclined to believe that, given my personal experience with former druggies.

sort of like HPPD(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halluc inogen_persisting_perception_disorder), if it persisted, then at what level of perception in that experience does it stay at?

so if i had a flashback it would be, moving walls, can hear things clearer, basically raised sensory acuity

but im aware of it being a subjective experience and read about people seeing odd things

Coincidentally, most police departments in the country won't even take a recruit who has experimented with hallucinogens for this very reason.

i guess you didn't read my explanation of why its illegal or you just ignore it as bs

I was unaware you had "explained" it in the first place, so no I didn't.

At 10/11/09 09:59 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/11/09 07:49 PM, pr0ded wrote: and i forgot, flashbacks are very rare and probably exaggerated

I'm disinclined to believe that, given my personal experience with former druggies.

how is that evidence, work at some flashback meeting?

Coincidentally, most police departments in the country won't even take a recruit who has experimented with hallucinogens for this very reason.

except there are no hallucinations in the definition of the word,

i guess you didn't read my explanation of why its illegal or you just ignore it as bs

I was unaware you had "explained" it in the first place, so no I didn't.

then read through topics

and quote everything i wrote

and refrain from calling the druggies, as then you'd be calling those i've linked druggies, which includes your favorite musicians

and everyone does drugs, caffeine, alcohol, etc

and if i remember seeing pink elephants has to do with absinthe or alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink _elephants

being misinformed is fun

At 10/11/09 10:24 PM, pr0ded wrote: being misinformed is fun

How very civil of you...

sure, like calling artists and scientists 'druggies'

At 10/11/09 10:30 PM, pr0ded wrote: sure, like calling artists and scientists 'druggies'

...except that the co-workers I was referring to would call themselves druggies, and were mostly more or less average guys. Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue; I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

Besides, I wasn't using the word in a derogatory sense (although obviously some people would take it as such more than others). There's no need to try and insult me over semantics or the fact that we happen to have very different life experiences.

At 10/11/09 06:27 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/11/09 05:23 PM, MaidenHeaven wrote: There really isn't a point to some drugs being illegal. From person experience, mushrooms and weed aren't even bad.

Had to stop you there. Weed is one thing, but the fact that hallucinogens like shrooms have the chance to cause flashbacks at random intervals down the road does not speak well for their legalization. I would hate to see what would happen if we had guys in the armed forces or law enforcement suddenly seeing pink elephants and zombies all over the place..

Do you have a source for psilocybin causing flash back or HPPD, I ask because I have never seen any research on the subject nor have I ever heard of someone getting psilocybin flash backs. That & in my youth used excessive amounts, & my mother has acid flash back so I kind of want to know if I'm at risk.
Also I ask because you referred to hallucinogens which is a very general term.

At 10/12/09 03:30 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/11/09 10:30 PM, pr0ded wrote: sure, like calling artists and scientists 'druggies'

...except that the co-workers I was referring to would call themselves druggies, and were mostly more or less average guys. Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue; I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

What region are you from? I ask because where I'm from "druggie" is a derogatory term, the use of which is liable to get one popped in the mouth. Most people prefer to be called stoner or psychonaut.

Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue;

In my experience illegal drug use doesn't have a particular demographic except for age, people from all walks of life use drugs, but younger people are far more likely to use drugs. It's widely believed that more intelligent people are more likely to use drugs, as it is also widely believed that intelligence has a positive correlation to depression, but that neither here nor there.

:...I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

One thing to remember
Use %u2260 Abuse
Though it could not be proven one must ask; would Freud have been as successful if it weren't for his use of cocaine? Does the altering of thought processes not occasionally lead to a new (and correct) concept? Those are just musing questions though. One quote though

"There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights"
Mr. X AKA Carl Sagan from Marihuana Reconsidered

I do agree that drugs should be taxed, then more harder the drugs the more tax should be put on them.

At 10/11/09 07:40 PM, pr0ded wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis #Use_of_LSD
steve jobs
bill gates
every artist out there

i can quote this again and remind you that psychedelics catalyze imagination
and that altered perception is the entire reason behind psychedelic media
music or movies, anything past the 60's revolution
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues /2006/January/LSD.asp

At 10/12/09 03:30 AM, dySWN wrote: their addictions.

and hallucinogens are not addictive
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries /news/2006/01/70015

but these drugs aren't for everyone

Half this topic is one guy repeatedly advertising shrooms and the other half is college students saying 'drugs r cool'.

Crack, Heroin, LSD, Cocaine, etc. have serious health risks. Hallucinogenics do cause HPPD flashbacks. I don't know about you but I'd rather not have an employee go on a break and come back talking about how, like, the real person... is under the skin.. y'knoow?

So the reasons they're illegal is either A) health risks or B) they're pretty much useless.

To be honest, drugs such as 'shrooms, acid, LSD, whatever, are fine, as long as you do it yourself. But it doesn't need to be legal.

Oh yes, and to all the people saying 'let people harm themselves', imagine the amount of money that would cost to the healthcare industry. Or should we just say 'Hey, he brought it on himself.'

At 10/12/09 02:48 PM, Victory wrote:
I don't get why people say this bullshit all the time.

The topic is clearly more complex than that if you read it properly.. also, get off your high horse.

There are valid posts, I was just summing it up. Excuse me if I accidentally insulted your clearly angelic posting abilities.

Oh, so you mean like now where employees get fired for getting drunk on their breaks?

There's a difference. Most people can down two or even three beers without even feeling 'buzzed'. One hit is all it takes to get high with most drugs, though.

Obviously there is a time and a place in society for everything. The logic clearly runs that, in order to preserve your job, you limit the things which inhibit your ability to do your job properly until AFTER your job is done, not right in the middle of it, and, if you are an employer, you fire an employee who is failing to uphold his job's demands properly and who is thus wasting the company's investment.

See above point, although I do agree with you.

It is the individual's choice so long as they acknowledge the risks involved. Same with drinking, starting smoking..

'Hey kids, Suicide is cool, it's your choice! Go get 'em!'

In this single sentence you both espouse the individual's right to choose what they do to themselves and then concede that they don't actually need to have such a right.. what point are you actually making?

That did come out wrong. +1 for you, good sir.

I take it you are against fast food, cigarettes and alcohol as well then?

Cigarettes, yes. Fast food or alcohol, no.

There's a difference. Most people can down two or even three beers without even feeling 'buzzed'. One hit is all it takes to get high with most drugs, though.

a 4 percent diluted beverage vs a pure chemical..

if you are an employer, you fire an employee who is failing to uphold his job's demands properly and who is thus wasting the company's investment.

like a local news story, where a cop gets drunk and assaults a gay man

Cigarettes, yes. Fast food or alcohol, no.

much more concern to the health industry than all illegal drugs combined

the industry that can only patent chemicals and not herbs
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-
is-marijuana-illegal/

Crack, Heroin, LSD, Cocaine, etc. have serious health risks. Hallucinogenics do cause HPPD flashbacks

what health risk for lsd? flashbacks and hppd are different, and are exceedingly rare, and i bet your idea of the psychedelic is distorted so you'll expect 'pink elephants' etc

So the reasons they're illegal is either A) health risks or B) they're pretty much useless.

just look at all my links

imagine the amount of money that would cost to the healthcare industry

that profit off of treating symptoms of diseases that could have been prevented caused by their buddies in the food industry etc

can just read what people discuss about their symptoms here
http://www.hppdonline.com/forum/

and on other forums many people claim they have it but they obviously don't

and i'll go as far to say you weren't aware of hppd until this thread

like a local news story, where a cop gets drunk and assaults a gay man

well i guess the person wasn't gay, or there were two separate incidents
because this link makes no mention of being drunk
http://www.chineseinvancouver.ca/2009/01 /police-attack-was-racially-motivated-vi ctim-says/

and a spoken word performance from 1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir-Skbhj8 F0&fmt=18

back when cannabis literature/information was prohibited, at least in canada

and supposedly Marc Emery overturned that

At 10/12/09 03:13 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: 'Hey kids, Suicide is cool, it's your choice! Go get 'em!'

it should probably be noted that suicide isn't illegal.

At 10/12/09 04:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/12/09 03:13 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: 'Hey kids, Suicide is cool, it's your choice! Go get 'em!'

it should probably be noted that suicide isn't illegal.

In some counties in the US it is still a misdemeanor offense, how you punish someone for suicide I don't know but that's the law.

At 10/6/09 05:21 PM, icezizim wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense if drugs were legalized and we take the money away from violent cartels and drug dealers. we could then tax the hell out of it and use that money to pay for REAL drug education(cause some drugs are really bad fo realz). there would be less nonviolent criminals and police could focus on real crime.
a lot of people are just like any normal person you would meet, but one thing, they use a substance that doesn't harm anyone else to feel good. those people might actually look at the police and feel like they're there to do something for them, not do something to them.

the only thing prohibition creates is a huge black market for criminals to cash in on.

I understand your points, but there is a perfectly fine reason why most drugs are illegal: because they're bad for you. This is why you can't just get a random medicine at the apothecary and why bridges have railings: because you could harm yourself. Wherever possible, the government tries (like it should) to protect you, in a reasonable way.

Drugs are addictive and harmful to your body. People should be discouraged to use drugs, making them illegal is one way of doing that; one could also think of taking away certain (free) health-care benefits or place high taxes on the substances.

At 10/12/09 04:57 PM, Diederick wrote: I understand your points, but there is a perfectly fine reason why most drugs are illegal: because they're bad for you. This is why you can't just get a random medicine at the apothecary and why bridges have railings: because you could harm yourself. Wherever possible, the government tries (like it should) to protect you, in a reasonable way.

why should the government tell us not to harm ourselves? we have the right to make informed decisions, even if they are inherently stupid ones. the only place government should have a say regarding our actions is when our actions may harm others; i.e. laws that prevent one from driving under the influence.

surely if the government is to protect us from others, then taking power from criminal organizations should be of a high priority.

Drugs are addictive and harmful to your body.

humans can become addicted to absolutely anything, harmful or not. not all drugs are as addictive as the drugs we have legally available.

while it may not be a drug we, as a society, are addicted to convenience, which is much more harmful than most drugs.

People should be discouraged to use drugs, making them illegal is one way of doing that; one could also think of taking away certain (free) health-care benefits or place high taxes on the substances.

certainly providing information on the substances should be enough of a deterrent, considering the fact that many are highly addictive as well as physically damaging.
taxing, providing and encouraging rehabilitation with the money gained from the sale of these substances would be a great way of addressing the problem.

considering many at the moment do not have access to such treatments or are afraid of the stigma.

At 10/12/09 04:57 PM, Diederick wrote:

I understand your points, but there is a perfectly fine reason why most drugs are illegal: because they're bad for you. This is why you can't just get a random medicine at the apothecary and why bridges have railings: because you could harm yourself. Wherever possible, the government tries (like it should) to protect you, in a reasonable way.

Don't be naive if that we're true we'd outlaw everything more dangerous than illegal drugs, like fast food, driving, alcohol, tobacco, etc...

With the exception of heroin & few other exceptions, That's not the reason most drugs are illegal, cannabis is illegal for cooperate & racial reasons (originally), & most other drugs were originally made illegal, on the federal level as a way to attack hippies, there are a few reasons we continue prohibition. One reason is every federal agency/bureau receives funding for it, another reason is the economic benefit from having a huge artificially inflated market for these drugs, there are a few more reasons but those are the main ones.
If you insist that it's because they're dangerous then I'd have to ask why cannabis is still a schedule one substance even though the Institute of Medicine believes it to have medical value, or why MDMA is a schedule one even though most experts involved in the hearings recommended it be placed under schedule three? For that matter why is the task of scheduling drugs placed in the hands of law enforcement instead of medical professionals?

Drugs are addictive and harmful to your body. People should be discouraged to use drugs, making them illegal is one way of doing that; one could also think of taking away certain (free) health-care benefits or place high taxes on the substances.

The law isn't a way to do that as legislation has been shown to be completely ineffective, & placing high taxes (depending on the definition of high) could just lead to a black market for them, to be honest for most drugs the best rout is education it's the most cost effective & a moderate vice tax on these substances, just look at what those two methods did to the smoking rate.