Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

[KnightersRevenge]

Ah yeah, turn on, tune in, drop out. A lot of ridiculous beliefs survive to this day concerning the reasons LSD was banned. It was banned because it has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, and there are no clinical trials demonstrating it is safe to use under medical supervision (despite it being around for nearly 30 years before the ban). The term "acid casualty" exists for a reason - ask a doctor who was around back in the day about the numbers of people who wound up in psych wards and never made it back to the real world.

Sure but that applies to lots of "legal" substances and lots of legal activities. We created a divide between child and adult so as to improve fairness - to stop them being exploited for cheap labour etc - and it has since become a way to regulate liability. People that qualify as "adults" are responsible for themselves, in most cases. So we don't let children do things or take things ("we", as in, "society"), but we do let adults. But then we don't let them do everything. We constrain them in certain ways as "agreed to" within our society. I am simply saying that these categories are more arbitrary than scientific in the case of the drugs we are discussing.

I've have heard anecdotes - yes Dr. Karl and many others tell us that the plural of anecdotes is not data - of people who have to come to great creative or life changing decisions on acid. Likewise I have heard people talk about the overwhelming feeling of love and peacefulness associated with MDMA. The labels "drugs" and "druggies" are used pejoratively in many discussions as though it is obvious that the drugs themselves have some intrinsic evil in them. I rail at this. Treat the human. Humans have sought out chemical interventions for thousands of years. Not only because they were medicinal. Sometimes simply because they feel good. There are examples all around the world of chewing leaves and bark of different trees and shrubs just to get high. Humans like to get high. That doesn't necessarily make them a spaced-out, long-haired, loser. It just makes them human. I don't see why adult humans should prevented from getting high legally. Of course there is a danger of addiction but in most cases the danger is in the human, not the drug. Treat the human.

 

[spook]

Well said, Knighter.

 

[bullus_hit]

Well said, Knighter.

x2

And just my 2 cents, just about every human on the planet ingests chemicals & substances to alter their mood & perception. It's highly hypocritical to label someone a druggie based purely on legality.

 

[Baloo]

x2

And just my 2 cents, just about every human on the planet ingests chemicals & substances to alter their mood & perception. It's highly hypocritical to label someone a druggie based purely on legality.

Labels in general are wrong. But if we need one for druggies then maybe we have iDruggies for those addicted to illegal drugs and pDruggies for those hooked on prescription.

 

[Rosy]

You can buy 100's of toxic chemicals down the paint shop. I wouldn't recommend drinking them and doing so would likely be fatal. Should they be sold only by prescription?

No. And neither should they be marketed, provided and promoted as safe for human consumption.

 

[Rosy]

... It's highly hypocritical to label someone a druggie based purely on legality.

Has anyone here labeled someone a druggie based purely on legality? I don't recall it ever happening in my life let alone in this discussion. Not sure why terms like that are brought up, Same as things like long haired losers.

 

[Rosy]

Thought this was an interesting perspective. Each time I ask about private users getting jailed and having criminal records as claimed it's met with silence.

Greg Kasarik, an LSD user pushing for Victorian government regulation of drug

Adam Cooper

Greg Kasarik is a drug user who is probably too honest for his own good.

This week, when he had a charge dismissed by a magistrate after pleading guilty, he volunteered to Melbourne Magistrates Court that he was again breaking the law by possessing a drug of dependence.

Even if his push results in a conviction or jail.

"The reality is some bastard has got to be bunny and I'm happy to make that sacrifice," he told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

An LSD user for a decade, Mr Kasarik has been so open about his"tripping" that he outed himself online, and has five times taken tabs on the steps of Parliament House - each time accompanied by supporters and a sandwich board advertising the fact.

It was the fifth time, in April last year, that Mr Kasarik was arrested, and so got to advance his cause before a magistrate.

On Tuesday, he told magistrate Paul Smith that the state's laws around LSD were incompatible with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which promotes freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

Mr Kasarik, who uses LSD for "spiritual reasons", asked that Mr Smith refer the matter to the Supreme Court.

His request was refused, but Mr Kasarik hopes one day to be sent to the higher court (he says he doesn't have the funds to initiate the fight) to challenge the state government's position the drug remain illegal because it is dangerous and addictive.

The former army tank driver believes alcohol and tobacco cause far more harm on society, and that LSD is safe and non-addictive provided it is used in controlled settings.

"The analogy I use is that if I put you on a Japanese superbike for the first time you'd probably be dead before you were around the first bend," he said.

"You need to treat it with respect."

After a 15-year career in the army, Mr Kasarik counselled students on careers, and worked with the unemployed and homeless, but has only had two (brief) jobs since publicly admitting his LSD use in 2010.

Using it every couple of months, he said, lets him reach a level of "mystical transcendence" and feel connected to the universe. Explaining what he feels is difficult, he concedes, and he acknowledges his reasoning could make him sound like he's "completely full of s---".

Whatever it does for him, Mr Kasarik plans to keep using LSD, and keep pushing for its regulation.

He said the stigma associated with drug use meant he had spent stints without a home, been all but unemployable for seven years and had friends who feared being seen associating with him.

"I was afraid to tell the truth about myself," he said."But after a while I just got tired of lying about it."

 

[Rosy]

......
I've have heard anecdotes -... of people who have to come to great creative or life changing decisions on acid. Likewise I have heard people talk about the overwhelming feeling of love and peacefulness associated with MDMA. ........

Can you give some examples? Have you heard any negative anecdotes too? Has there been further info shared about the cost of substance induced life changing decisions? From my experience there are plenty but you seem to want to paint a picture of rainbows and light.

......
.......... I don't see why adult humans should prevented from getting high legally. Of course there is a danger of addiction but in most cases the danger is in the human, not the drug. Treat the human.

Provide the drug. Create problems. Then try to fix the damage. Something doesn't add up for me.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Can you give some examples? .

Paul Erdos was one of the most prolific mathematicians of all time, publishing over 1500 papers, more than any other.

He used to use amphetamines for inspiration, and after being convinced by a friend to give them up for a month, he did, but then said that mathematics had been set back by a month.

He actually said, while being forced to try to compete proofs sober, "Before, [on amphetamines] when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper."

As soon as the month was over, he went straight back.

 

[Rosy]

Knighters said on acid.

 

[bullus_hit]

Has anyone here labeled someone a druggie based purely on legality? I don't recall it ever happening in my life let alone in this discussion. Not sure why terms like that are brought up, Same as things like long haired losers.

It was in the context of Knighters erudite post, and yes, plenty of people use the term druggie in a demeaning manner. Those locked up in the US for drug taking and possession has reached epidemic proportions, most of whom are black. Usually when a policeman shoots a person who has traces of illegal drugs in their system they get off with a slap on the wrist.

 

[Rosy]

...... plenty of people use the term druggie in a demeaning manner. .......

IMO that is more based on the fact they use drugs rather than the "legality" of the drugs.

 

[bullus_hit]

IMO that is more based on the fact they use drugs rather than the "legality" of the drugs.

Never heard a person labeled that for taking Xanax, something which is highly addictive, common and freely available. I also lived in St Kilda at one stage, users there were treated like animals and turfed from street corner to street corner. When it comes to stigma, illegal drugs push you to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to public empathy & understanding. You may well get away with it if you're Ben Cousins but for blacks & other minorities it's a free pass for authorities to exploit basic civil rights.

 

[Rosy]

Never heard a person labeled that for taking Xanax, something which is highly addictive, common and freely available. I also lived in St Kilda at one stage, users there were treated like animals and turfed from street corner to street corner. When it comes to stigma, illegal drugs push you to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to public empathy & understanding. You may well get away with it if you're Ben Cousins but for blacks & other minorities it's a free pass for authorities to exploit basic civil rights.

Wandering off the track a bit there. Alchos are called that because of their habit rather than based on the legality of the drink. I think the same applies to druggies. It's a reference to the drugs rather than the legality of them.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Can you give some examples? Have you heard any negative anecdotes too? Has there been further info shared about the cost of substance induced life changing decisions? From my experience there are plenty but you seem to want to paint a picture of rainbows and light.

Rainbows my arse. Very few issues are black and white. Drugs bad/ rainbows good. As in everything, there is nuance.

Anecdotes are almost pointless and they are never data. Adding negative ones doesn't even the score. Scientific medical testing generates data. The previous poster provided an anecdote and I reciprocated as much to make the point that they don't really mean anything. Humans like to get high. Some humans like to take risks. I think we should be less judgey and puritanical about how they choose to do it. And maybe regulate it so as to provide some measure of safety and a revenue stream.

Provide the drug. Create problems. Then try to fix the damage. Something doesn't add up for me.

That's because you have your arguments backwards.

Have a problem. Use a drug to mask/cope/escape.

Treat the problem and maybe you alleviate the need for the drug.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Labels in general are wrong. But if we need one for druggies then maybe we have iDruggies for those addicted to illegal drugs and pDruggies for those hooked on prescription.

I'm with you Baloo. I think the best prescription for too many labels is more labels.

 

[Willo]

I wonder how those people promoting legalising drugs would feel if their children became addicts.

There are lots of addictions. Many of them destroy lives without any chemical help. Gambling, risk seeking.

Not talking about other addictions pre se. The topic is drugs

Addiction is complex and rarely just the result of the actual chemical in the drug being taken. Would I want my kid addicted to anything? No. But how is that an intelligent question? It's just more emotive language that treats drugs like they are magical addiction-making machines. The blood-brain barrier is called that for a reason and is very hard to cross. Research labs spend decades trying to find ways to defeat it. Drugs aren't "magic". One try and you're hooked is pretty much a myth.

Surely anyone can see that it is an intelligent question.
Apart from you, not too many others wanted to answer it though. Maybe it doesn't fit their narrative.
And of course it's emotive. Ask any parent or person who has a family member or friend who is addicted to drugs. I've seen first hand the effect it can have, on people, on the community.


Are people that are talking about legalising drugs suggesting that "ice" is legalised?

 

[Giardiasis]

I wonder how those people promoting legalising drugs would feel if their children became addicts.

Bad? Wouldn't change my opinion though if that's the point you're trying to make?

 

[Giardiasis]

Are people that are talking about legalising drugs suggesting that "ice" is legalised?

I for one am.

 

[Rosy]

That's because you have your arguments backwards.

Have a problem. Use a drug to mask/cope/escape.

Treat the problem and maybe you alleviate the need for the drug.

Interested to read the data that shows my comment is backwards. I think in many cases it may well prove accurate and in many cases you may well be the one who has it backwards. It's a very infividual thing.