Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/15/09 12:23 AM, Nein wrote: Also, what the fuck is up with the whole analog system!? What is the DEA's budget? Why the fuck can't they specifically tell us what drugs are legal? So, I get to buy some 2C-E, Methylone, 5-MeO-DMT, etc. online, only to find out that they're illegal when the DEA kicks down my door? How

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Despite any past position i may have had on Drug legalization , i now see drugs legal or illegal will always be a problem . if its illegal you end up with drug dealers , people breaking into cars for drug money so on and so forth . Legaly you end up with your workforce transforming into a bunch of Hungry Couch dwelling potheads

A problem i see no way of rectifying

At 12/16/09 12:30 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 12/15/09 12:23 AM, Nein wrote: Also, what the fuck is up with the whole analog system!? What is the DEA's budget? Why the fuck can't they specifically tell us what drugs are legal? So, I get to buy some 2C-E, Methylone, 5-MeO-DMT, etc. online, only to find out that they're illegal when the DEA kicks down my door? How

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But the drugs aren't specifically illegal! All they say is: "If it is chemically similar to another illegal drug, it's counted as schedule 1". How do they expect the common citizen to know whether or not a compound is chemically similar? It's bullshit. They should be able to make individual drugs illegal with all them money available to them.

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

lol ignorance, like ignoring of the fact that DMT is a endogenous, thus you are in possesion of a schedule 1 substance\\"Except ... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I.-

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." [9]"

lol and lol

what a confused little christian

At 12/16/09 08:36 AM, pr0ded wrote:

what a confused little christian

haha
:D

At 12/16/09 08:36 AM, pr0ded wrote:

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

lol ignorance, like ignoring of the fact that DMT is a endogenous, thus you are in possesion of a schedule 1 substance\\"

There is a distinction between abusing or trafficking in a controlled substance and having it produced in your body to help you survive.

lol and lol

I don't follow. It only seemed appropriate to answer surrealism with surrealism in that instance.

what a confused little christian

If you think you're going to provoke a response by talking down to me like some sort of high-riding academic, then you really don't know me at all. Quit trying to blow smoke up my ass and give me a valid reason why your position is any better.

At 12/16/09 12:45 AM, Nein wrote: But the drugs aren't specifically illegal! All they say is: "If it is chemically similar to another illegal drug, it's counted as schedule 1". How do they expect the common citizen to know whether or not a compound is chemically similar? It's bullshit. They should be able to make individual drugs illegal with all them money available to them.

I do agree with that. Sometimes, it seems like the government crams all of that verbal judo into a law just to snag people for ignorance; our legislators should be writing for quality, not quantity...

At 12/16/09 11:53 PM, dySWN wrote: our legislators should be writing for quality, not quantity...

The point of laws is to resolve situations clearly the same way each time and predictably.
So that's why they're ridiculously long. They have to account for every possible situation and variable at all times so that if something happens you can go check in the law and it'll tell you how to handle this.

About 99% of it is useless bullshit that basic common sense would let anyone figure out but you can't really start rendering judgments on the "common sense" principle and tell people they "should have known better" or some shit.

So yeah that's why laws are doomed to be extremely long and complex. But precise.

Sadly this system has two big flaws
1. It's easy to sneak in little snipets of bullshit because no one will pay attention all the time to these endless documents
2. It forces law enforcements officials to carry out obviously stupid sentences in situations that are currently badly covered by the law until the law is changed.

Like one time a dad gave his kid Mike's hard lemonade at a baseball game because he thought it was lemonade and they took the kid away and made the dad take classes on how to be a better father. Everyone could see this was clearly stupid but the price of not obeying what the law said in that instance was to make the entire system too flexible for our liking...

There's no system of law that is both fair, consistent and concise :O

Though if we had computer brains, this would be fixed for us as we'd have the ability to actually know all the laws and have them up to date and monitored. That would rule.

Or we could just learn how to be civil on our own volition.

At 12/15/09 12:23 AM, Nein wrote: To be perfectly honest, we shouldn't group all drugs together. There are drugs that are easy to manage, and drugs that are hard to manage.

Nearly all Hallucinogens/Psychedelics should be legal. The popular ones have no physical dependence
I'll give you some names so you can argue against specific drugs if you'd like.

THC- Cannabinoid

This one does stimulate physical dependence, according to recent data by the DSM-IV, and provokes an abstinence syndrome. Cannabis abstinence syndrome manifestation varies according to dosage, time and frequency of administration. Daily consumers manifested anxiety, tension, insomnia, anorexia, concentration difficulty, dysphoria, irritability, aggression, as well as physical signs such as diaphoresis, shaking, myalgias, nauseas and diarrhea.

At 12/19/09 12:40 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 12/15/09 12:23 AM, Nein wrote: To be perfectly honest, we shouldn't group all drugs together. There are drugs that are easy to manage, and drugs that are hard to manage.

Nearly all Hallucinogens/Psychedelics should be legal. The popular ones have no physical dependence
I'll give you some names so you can argue against specific drugs if you'd like.

THC- Cannabinoid

This one does stimulate physical dependence, according to recent data by the DSM-IV, and provokes an abstinence syndrome. Cannabis abstinence syndrome manifestation varies according to dosage, time and frequency of administration. Daily consumers manifested anxiety, tension, insomnia, anorexia, concentration difficulty, dysphoria, irritability, aggression, as well as physical signs such as diaphoresis, shaking, myalgias, nauseas and diarrhea.

The problem with that argument: for some reason, in spite of a mountain of evidence, delta-9 tetrahyrdrocannabinol is still singled out as being the "addicting" substance of smoked cannabis (a.k.a. marijuana). It should be noted that there are a number of different cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, like cannabidiol, for instance. This substance has been shown to have beneficial results with the treating of psychosis for the sheer virtue of the fact that it calms you down. Furthermore, the last thing you should be quoting is the goddamned DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4), because that tome is about as scientific as the Holy Bible.

At 12/16/09 11:36 PM, dySWN wrote:
There is a distinction between abusing or trafficking in a controlled substance and having it produced in your body to help you survive.

they don't make a distinction

I don't follow. It only seemed appropriate to answer surrealism with surrealism in that instance.

maybe because surrealism is an art movement, and perception is a cognitive science

what a confused little christian

If you think you're going to provoke a response by talking down to me like some sort of high-riding academic

you get butthurt in the drug thread so you join a atheist materialist in the thread i linked in my last post here

At 12/21/09 10:50 AM, TokingFire wrote: The problem with that argument: for some reason, in spite of a mountain of evidence, delta-9 tetrahyrdrocannabinol is still singled out as being the "addicting" substance of smoked cannabis (a.k.a. marijuana). It should be noted that there are a number of different cannabinoids in the cannabis plant, like cannabidiol, for instance.

I agree that there are quite a number of cannabinoids in the plant, but THC is found in much more quantity than the rest. Therefore, it is the one considered representative.

Also, note that I was quoting THC only.

This substance has been shown to have beneficial results with the treating of psychosis for the sheer virtue of the fact that it calms you down.

It also prevents cerebral infarction via a serotonergic 5-Hydroxytryptamine1A receptor-dependent mechanism, but I don't see how is that relevant to the argument either.

Furthermore, the last thing you should be quoting is the goddamned DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4), because that tome is about as scientific as the Holy Bible.

How so? Their information is used worldwide by most physicians.

The main problem isn't with the criminals, its with the medical companys. MJ is proven to be healthy for the user, and used in states like california for medical purposes. The only reason why it isn't legalized is it would cost the medical companys millions of dollors out of pills. If u combined all the hedache pills, cough, cold, and some flue pills that MJ cures (not only other illnesses) the medical companys lose out in millions like i said. Sure they could tax the hell out of it but in the long run, the government makes more out of prescription pills...

-Zack

The main problem isn't with the criminals, its with the medical companys. MJ is proven to be healthy for the user, and used in states like california for medical purposes. The only reason why it isn't legalized is it would cost the medical companys millions of dollors out of pills. If u combined all the hedache pills, cough, cold, and some flue pills that MJ cures (not only other illnesses) the medical companys lose out in millions like i said. Sure they could tax the hell out of it but in the long run, the government makes more out of prescription pills...

-Zack

At 12/22/09 08:57 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 12/21/09 10:50 AM, TokingFire wrote:

Furthermore, the last thing you should be quoting is the goddamned DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4), because that tome is about as scientific as the Holy Bible.

How so? Their information is used worldwide by most physicians.

Allow me to elaborate. It wasn't until recently that biologists discovered that the brain contains cannabinoid and opioid receptors in the hippocampus, which developed over the course of human evolution to allow the human body to accept these chemicals for their benefits to the central nervous system. Now, psychiatry, which makes use of the DSM as an encyclopedia of disease, does not take into account human physiology when it comes to "drugs," a very treatable problem at the chemical level, but a very protracted and even excruciating process of interrogative divination that seeks to eliminate the problem by the examination of character traits.

If you wanted to properly treat and cure someone of, say, morphine dependence (read: addiction), you could, 1) thoroughly stabilize the body by way of hydration and nutrition, and then administer apomorphine, the chemical opposite of morphine to reset the opioid receptors to normal, or 2) subject a morphine dependent to indefinite one-on-one, or group, therapy to extrapolate the latent personal trauma incensing the need to take "drugs" like heroin, and in the process, engage in a heavy medication of psychotropic drugs until, all of a sudden, the person is "cured," because they don't want to do "drugs" anymore. The latter is a billion dollar industry that provides for relapse of individuals with such constant need for stimulants and painkillers, whereas the former is a pretty definitive solution that can take the brief course of a week to enact.

By the way, you might want to ask yourself why a physician would ever be concerned disorders that appear psychiatric in nature.

Becuase there is a small group of old white people who like money alot and really hate immigrants and minorities.

At 12/23/09 10:23 AM, TokingFire wrote: Allow me to elaborate. It wasn't until recently that biologists discovered that the brain contains cannabinoid and opioid receptors in the hippocampus, which developed over the course of human evolution to allow the human body to accept these chemicals for their benefits to the central nervous system. Now, psychiatry, which makes use of the DSM as an encyclopedia of disease, does not take into account human physiology when it comes to "drugs," a very treatable problem at the chemical level, but a very protracted and even excruciating process of interrogative divination that seeks to eliminate the problem by the examination of character traits.

Odd. Most psychiatric books does take into account human physiology, since many psychiatric disorders does have decently explained physiopathology. The DSM does not contradict anything already established, therefore there is no reason to say it is not scientific.

If you wanted to properly treat and cure someone of, say, morphine dependence (read: addiction), you could, 1) thoroughly stabilize the body by way of hydration and nutrition, and then administer apomorphine, the chemical opposite of morphine to reset the opioid receptors to normal,

This sounds like an interesting read. Mind you giving me a link please? I tried a google and ovid search, but found nothing. I have never read anything like that before: using apomorphine to treat opioid dependance. Only the usual (metadone, buprenorphine, or even naltrexone and naloxone).

By the way, you might want to ask yourself why a physician would ever be concerned disorders that appear psychiatric in nature.

Why not?

At 12/23/09 03:51 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 12/23/09 10:23 AM, TokingFire wrote:

Odd. Most psychiatric books does take into account human physiology, since many psychiatric disorders does have decently explained physiopathology. The DSM does not contradict anything already established, therefore there is no reason to say it is not scientific.

If you wanted to properly treat and cure someone of, say, morphine dependence (read: addiction), you could, 1) thoroughly stabilize the body by way of hydration and nutrition, and then administer apomorphine, the chemical opposite of morphine to reset the opioid receptors to normal,

This sounds like an interesting read. Mind you giving me a link please? I tried a google and ovid search, but found nothing. I have never read anything like that before: using apomorphine to treat opioid dependance. Only the usual (metadone, buprenorphine, or even naltrexone and naloxone).

By the way, you might want to ask yourself why a physician would ever be concerned disorders that appear psychiatric in nature.

Why not?

First off, do keep in mind that psychology, ultimately, is concerned with the study of the mind, and if there is a one-word definition I could give for such a thing, it is "intangible"; so, as far as science is concerned, if it cannot be concretely quantified, it cannot stand up as a hard science. (And you can categorize and scientize the observations and perspectives of human behavior all you like; however, you will still have to contend with that damnedly incurable disease called "cultural relativity.")

As for the apomorphine, this chemical was used by a William S. Burroughs, one of the original Beatniks (the dopefiend grandaddy-os of the Hippies) and a drug user so hardcore that he is the only one who can go hit for hit with Keith Richards (Burroughs lived 'til he was 83, mind you). If you don't have Naked Lunch: The Restored Text, I suggest looking up the article, "Letter from a Master Addict to Dangerous Drugs," reprinted for the British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 53, No.2.

And thirdly--just look up the etymology of those two words, and you will see what I mean.

At 12/24/09 02:25 AM, TokingFire wrote:
...And thirdly--just look up the etymology of those two words, and you will see what I mean.

First off, do keep in mind that psychology, ultimately, is concerned with the study of the mind...

Hold it right there. Psychiatry does not equal to psychology. In order to become a psychiatrist you must study 6-7 years of medicine, then you choose a residence. In this case, psychiatry. Once you specialize in any field of medicine you are considered a physician. Psychiatrists are physicians. Psychiatry is a scientific area.

As for the apomorphine, this chemical was used by a William S. Burroughs, one of the original Beatniks (the dopefiend grandaddy-os of the Hippies) and a drug user so hardcore that he is the only one who can go hit for hit with Keith Richards (Burroughs lived 'til he was 83, mind you). If you don't have Naked Lunch: The Restored Text, I suggest looking up the article, "Letter from a Master Addict to Dangerous Drugs," reprinted for the British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 53, No.2.

I thank you for this read, it is indeed very interesting and easy understanding of the different effects of drugs (unlike just some listing of symptoms).
However, I was more asking of an actual medical report of succesfully using apomorphine for treating opioid dependance or withdrawal symptoms, instead of somebody's personal experience in 1956. People can't be just treated with apomorphine without official instructions for it, because if something goes wrong you go to jail. No wonder I never read it anywhere officially published, however that sounds like good grounds for further research.

At 12/24/09 09:32 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 12/24/09 02:25 AM, TokingFire wrote:
...And thirdly--just look up the etymology of those two words, and you will see what I mean.

First off, do keep in mind that psychology, ultimately, is concerned with the study of the mind...

Hold it right there. Psychiatry does not equal to psychology. In order to become a psychiatrist you must study 6-7 years of medicine, then you choose a residence. In this case, psychiatry. Once you specialize in any field of medicine you are considered a physician. Psychiatrists are physicians. Psychiatry is a scientific area.

As for the apomorphine, this chemical was used by a William S. Burroughs, one of the original Beatniks (the dopefiend grandaddy-os of the Hippies) and a drug user so hardcore that he is the only one who can go hit for hit with Keith Richards (Burroughs lived 'til he was 83, mind you). If you don't have Naked Lunch: The Restored Text, I suggest looking up the article, "Letter from a Master Addict to Dangerous Drugs," reprinted for the British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 53, No.2.

I thank you for this read, it is indeed very interesting and easy understanding of the different effects of drugs (unlike just some listing of symptoms).
However, I was more asking of an actual medical report of succesfully using apomorphine for treating opioid dependance or withdrawal symptoms, instead of somebody's personal experience in 1956. People can't be just treated with apomorphine without official instructions for it, because if something goes wrong you go to jail. No wonder I never read it anywhere officially published, however that sounds like good grounds for further research.

Something tells me that you must be a psych major, what with the fact that you are so adamantly defending this patent pseudoscience, but to keep from hijacking this thread about the "Evils of Psychiatry," let me bring it back to the illegality of drugs.

For all the reasons why marijuana was criminalized, a huge reason was due to a murder committed by a schizophrenic in the 1930's. He took an axe to his entire family and then was later arrested by the police. Now, because "marihuana" (as it was spelled) was found at the scene, the connection became clear that marijuana clearly causes insanity. It was not until an article in the local paper revealed the murderer's schizophrenia that it was argued the marijuana was for the mitigation of the disease. But films like Reefer Madness only gave further credence to the notion that smoking "reefer" causes insanity, along with rape, murder, and suicide. Strangely enough, even though the American Psychiatric Association supported a rescheduling of marijuana into Schedule II for medical purposes, that hasn't stop forced treatment for marijuana use at all.

As far as that article to which I referred you, you seem to have overlooked that it was printed in the "British Journal of Addiction," which certainly sounds like a medical journal, that is, if I'm not mistaken. Furthermore, as I pointed out, William S. Burroughs was huge drug user, so I would say that article of his was downright authoritative. And why the hell couldn't you find anything on apomorphine on fucking Google of all places?

At 12/25/09 11:22 AM, TokingFire wrote: And why the hell couldn't you find anything on apomorphine on fucking Google of all places?

All I found was about it's properties for erectile dysfunction and Parkinson's disease, among other minor stuff, but nothing about treatment of drug dependance.

On a side note, I actually dislike psychiatry but it's a necessary area I must learn anyway, luckly only a fraction of it.

At 12/25/09 12:26 PM, Fuoco wrote:

At 12/25/09 11:22 AM, TokingFire wrote: And why the hell couldn't you find anything on apomorphine on fucking Google of all places?

All I found was about it's properties for erectile dysfunction and Parkinson's disease, among other minor stuff, but nothing about treatment of drug dependance.

On a side note, I actually dislike psychiatry but it's a necessary area I must learn anyway, luckly only a fraction of it.

I know Wikipedia does not necessarily know all, but look what I found anyway:

"Apomorphine (Apokyn, Uprima) is a type of dopaminergic agonist (agonist of the D1 and D2 type dopamine receptors), [1] historically a morphine decomposition product by boiling with concentrated acid, hence the name. It does not actually contain morphine or its skeleton, or bind to opioid receptors. Apomorphine is a relatively non-selective dopamine receptor agonist, having possibly slightly higher affinity for D2-like dopamine receptors.

"...It was also successfully [italics mine] used in the treatment of heroin addiction, a purpose for which it was championed by the author William S. Burroughs..."

Now, if we can't add anymore meaningful conversation to this thread, then may it die like a crack addict on the street.

They make drugs illegal so no one ends up
fuckin up there life and then end up
killing them selfs

At 12/25/09 09:46 PM, erenahmed wrote: They make drugs illegal so no one ends up
fuckin up there life and then end up
killing them selfs

fail troll is fail