Originally Posted By: MiSt
I've never tried MDMA, but im a little surprised to say the least that you don't like the effects :-S could you elaborate?


Certainly. The euphoric phase, often described as being 'loved up' is something my brain fought against, as it is not my nature to believe everyone I am surrounded by is good, likeable and worth my time. This caused a conflict in my brain chemistry and an agitated state. I also found the downer to be quite pronounced. Add to that that we are talking about the early 90's before the rave bubble burst, and there was a real, almost religious cult attitude amongst regular users where the E high was talked about in spiritual terms, something which I found pretentious, self justifying and insufferable.

Quote:
However my logic DOES hold up, on paper. The outcome is not always the same, sure everyone dies but the kind of problems and risks you are most likely to encounter vary from drug to drug (like you say).


But as all drugs have some inherent risk, no matter how small, to accept the concept that pleasure is more important than safety, must encompass acceptance of all drugs, or you are guilty of the same hypocrisy as the govt. over alcohol.

Quote:
I don't think you can deny that some drugs quite frankly do there job better than others, try getting high of nutmeg! For example I'd have to drink a fair bit of vodka for it to help me sleep anywhere near as much as one spliff.


and spliff is inferior to jellies for this purpose, but the majority don't use spliff as a sleep aid, they use it as part of a social situation. Much like drinking, sharing a bong with friends at a house party, or while watching lynch movies together is a world away from sitting alone at 1am on a work night skinning up just so you can get some sleep. Use and abuse. Pleasure and dependancy. Its not the substance that changes, but your relationship with it that is the problem.

Quote:
The outcome of booze in a pub enviroment is to be social right? if mkat does indeed become an accepted social drug and is proven to be less neurtoxix than booze, then surely it makes more sense to take that?


No. Because effect and neurotoxicity are seperate issues. Being drunk is a completely different experience to being stoned which is different to being wired which is different to being on a trip which is different to being in a K-hole.

If I want to watch a horror movie, I am not going to be satisfied by a comedy, and if I want to get drunk, I am not going to be satisfied by anything other than alcohol.

Quote:
I realise my own predijuce against booze showed (love the drug itself, just hate the fact if certain people saw me having a spliff before bed they'd judge me for it, whilst the same people would think nothing of it if I were to have a stiff drink)


Hate the players dont hate the game

Quote:
also I'm sorry but
Quote:

Its not an either/or situation. You can legalise drugs, offer safety and help with less financial burden to individual and state, and STILL point out to people that rotting their nose away with chemical fertiliser is a really stupid thing to do. Which it is.


also displays a hell of a lot of predjice, an attitude you simply don't adopt concerning your own mates rotting their teeth down the pub


No it doesnt. Its a simple statement of fact. Booze is legal, yet we as a society accept that it has its risks, and we do not criminalise or marginalise those who lose control of their use of the drug, and real help is available with little stygma, for them.

I merely propose that this should be the same for ALL drugs. Legalisation should not be seen as justification, or condonement of dangerous drugs, it should be about the safety of those who choose to use them regardless of the risks.
_________________________
Don't let the door hit ya' where the good lord split ya'
http://cord.mybrute.com