Hmpf. Talk about criminalizing a drug that isn't very harmful.

[lildreamer316]

(inspired from:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7221627&mesg_id=7221627
that quotes this article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/you_cant_handle_the_truth/ )



Clearer:




You'll note that on the second chart, the drugs are organized according to Schedule Class. Ecstasy is a Schedule A/Schedule 1 drug; but yet is rated less harmful than BOTH LSD and Cannabis.

Ecstasy brings on feelings of love and empathy; and has been used with many terminal patients to bring peace and understanding between family members before they pass on; as well as being studied for use for PTSD and even Parkinson's.

Yet almost no one is talking about the shameful criminalization of something that would help all of us be a little more compassionate; if so inclined to use a help with that. I mean, how horrible to have people who are loving and empathetic to one another? It must be some of those young kid's party drugs..pay it no mind. And gee..I wonder what pharmecutical and political interests stand to benefit from it being made illegal in many, many ways? Really can't have people having empathy for one another..they might actually start to have a sense of community and family. What would they use to keep us apart then?

It's also a drug that has suffered GREATLY from being made illegal...the MDMA is now almost always cut with other,much more dangerous drugs; which in turn have started to give it the bad reputation that so many think it started out with.

Not going to go into all the research here, but I just wanted to point that out. It's third from the bottom..there are only two substances tested that are less harmful. Amazing.

[LeftyMom]

1. It's not ranked third for harm, only third for dependency.

The risks associated with a drug that makes people impulsive and well, slutty are of course the usual risks associated with being impulsive and slutty. Plus, in this case, the added bonus of the risk of dying of dehydration while dancing to really, really terrible music. Nobody who isn't a complete crank ever suggested the stuff was particularly addictive- it's observable fact that most of it's users only use it socially so it's clearly not habit-forming to any significant degree.

There might be a case for legalization, but basing it on a low rate of chemical dependency isn't it. There are all sorts of delightful chemicals that aren't habit-forming but also aren't a good idea to ingest.

[JonLP24]

2. As I read it, it's #3 based on a total of social costs, dependency, and physical harm

It does in a way mask how hydrated you are but you should be aware as with any amphetamine-like substance you can become dehydrated. Caffeine and soda can also cause you to become dehydrated as well so you must be aware. Comparable with other drugs, specifically other amphetamines, it isn't as harmful and the withdrawal effects are very small.

OP hit on something I've learned about. Studying drugs and how they became illegal, there were psychiatrists testifying on how they achieved so much of a breakthrough in couples therapy in one session that compared it would take a year but they still made it illegal and gave it a designation that pretty much said there is no point in researching it for possible medical benefits.

I don't know about impulsive and slutty but I do know it can diminish fears or anxiety and generally make you feel more intimate with others which is why it has been proven useful in the past in couples therapy. One way it has shown how is you're more willing to express feelings that has been difficult for you previously.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. No there were three categories for ranking, dependency was only one of them.

[paulsby]

23. i have to agree

i've worked hundreds of drug investigations, and hung out at tons of raves.

it is true that ecstacy is not physically addictive as compared to something like heroin, oxycodone, alcohol, or caffeine.

but people forget that ecstacy is 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine. iow, it's a meth analog. and yes, i have that memorized. it's a side effect of having done scores of investigations and criminal charge sheets involving this drug.

iow, it carries the same risks as other high powered stimulants.

i'm not saying people should be thrown in jail for using it, but placing it where it is placed as an overall measure of risk is not correct, imo and ime.

i also question placing steroids as more dangerous than ecstacy. assuming we are talking non-hepatatoxic injectables, they have about the same level of risk as mj. iow, next to none. there is NO risk of death, no addictive qualities, etc.

when i was undercover i knew people who used about 1/2 dozen hits of ecstacy a WEEK. but it's true that occasional use of ecstacy (and it doesn't promote daily use like a drug like heroin), is pretty low risk.

another consideration is that for cultural reasons, ecstacy is used by people who are much less likely to have chronic health (and heart) conditions, and this significantly lowers the risk. a major risk of stimulants is thus generally avoided in young, healthy people.

i guess if you had to categorize it by (which drug would you rather your kid used), i'd rather my kid was an occasional user of mj or ecstacy than most other drugs. that's partly because i know that in either case, he's not going to get addicted (although mj can be pretty habit forming). alcohol is fine, even healthy, if used in moderation. the problem is it is so often NOT used to moderation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. FYI, the 2nd chart is slightly out of date

Controversially, the government reclassified cannabis as 'Class B' (which it had orginally been, some years ago) from Class C, at the start of this year - against the advice of the panel that produced the grpahs above.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7850342.stm

[TexasObserver]

4. Oh, no. The "Recommenders" are pushing this one.

I'm just kidding you. I agree with the tenor of the article, but disagree with their assessments of everything below tobacco.

I just put that subject line because the reverse has become so common ("the unreccers are attacking this one already!!1").

[JonLP24]

7. Ah I agree with you everything you post here

but now every time I see you I have see that sig line :banghead:

I own one that is NOT violent and IIRC you used to have Jon Stewart as an avatar? If so please realize he owns two pit bulls named Monkey and Shamsky.

[TexasObserver]

8. happy now?

[JonLP24]

15. Ah I didn't mean for you to change it

I don't know why I brought it up and should have ignored it. Everything else I usually find myself in agreement with you. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

17. I was due to change it, anyway.

I'm not married to my signature. I change it whenever.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Damn them. Can't we abolish the reccing feature?

[TexasObserver]

14. Isn't it obvious they have an agenda?!

Oh, wait. I recommended this one.

[Fumesucker]

5. Solvents rate below cannabis?

From the few huffers I've known I find that really hard to believe..

[TexasObserver]

6. Looks like Lloyd Bridges picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I thought that was odd too.

Then again there is a ton of woeful misinformation out there about the horrors of drug abuse.

[jmowreader]

16. I don't like the chart, but you're right...

solvents should be WAY above cannabis.

The chart isn't really applicable to the US drug scene--who the fuck does KHAT in the US? It would also be very easy to argue khat should be near the top of the list--it's one of the biggest problems in Somalia, for instance--rather than all the way at the bottom.

I would put Meth at the top of the list, followed by cocaine, heroin and alcohol. I don't know if I would have put steroids on the list at all--very addictive, potentially devastating to the user, but limited in their scope.

[TexasObserver]

18. They seem to have weighted the ratings to reflect widespread usage.

So, huffing is really not a huge problem in terms of numbers of people who do it regularly compared to the number who abuse alcohol, for example. That's the only way huffing ends up lower than alcohol.

[JonLP24]

19. I slightly disagree with your ranking

I'd put it in this order--Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, then Alcohol. I put Heroin on top because of it's strong addictive attributes and cocaine above meth because it's much easier to overdose on cocaine. Many can use meth for 2-3 days straight and still live.

However I too have issues with some of the drugs ranked below cannabis especially steroids(though I know very little about steroids so perhaps it's my ignorance talking).

[TexasObserver]

20. I view drugs as which do the most harm

I view drugs as which do the most harm - to their user, to the family of the user, to the life of the user. The most destructive drugs are alcohol, cocaine, meth, heroin, and prescription pills. Those five create most of the drug problems in America.

[JonLP24]

21. I agree there about those 5 n/t

[deaniac21]

24. My prescription pills are pravachol and diovan.

[sendero]

11. Meth is less harmful than alcohol?

In what fantasy land?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. read chart before commenting

'street meth' - more harmful than alcohol.
'amphetamines' - not so harmful.

as usual it is prohibition itself that amplifies the harm factor.

[defendandprotect]

22. kick

[anarch]

25. now see here! anybody who says alcohol has "no class"

has clearly never tasted a martini made with fine Bombay Sapphire gin. "No class" indeed. Rubbish!