I'm not sure if this is political...but I had no idea where else to put it. I was watching a show about cannibals on the Hitler (History) Channel last night. Each commercial break featured one of the brand new anti-Ecstacy ads...each with a sobbing parent who had just lost their bright young daughter after they'd eaten a pill or two of E. I immedietely thought '..Here We Go Again..'. I'm extremely leery of the drug war in this country. Particularly the propoganda portion of it. It has a terrible track record of irresponsibly bending half truths and outright sensationalist lies ever since this country decided you couldn't get high anymore. Ecstacy is enemy number one right now because of the huge number of teens and young adults it caters to via the rave scene and such. And while I have personally seen the absolute havok that frequent use of the drug can wreak on it's users emotionally, I have yet to hear of an instance of MDMA actually causing death. Of three reported "Ecstacy deaths" I have read into, one death was actually caused by massive dehydration after something like 12 hours of constant dancing, one was caused by water intoxication (basically the person drank so much water they drowned), and the third death wasn't even Ecstacy (as the headline claimed) at all, it was an over dose of a date rape drug. I've been trying to find out more on the net, but all I seem to find are either ridiculously pro-E rave sites, or ridiculously anti-E drug war sites. I'd really like to find a more non-partisan source of information on the subject. (any help in this department would be appreciated). To say that "Ecsatcy Kills", one would have to syphon out the other factors... 1) is it actually MDMA found in the victims body or is it a designer duplicate? With these sort of drugs, home spun chemists often create other drugs that resemble the effects of E and then sell them as E. This represents one of the real dangers of ingesting the stuff. 2) is it simply an allergic reaction to the chemical? My friend will die if he eats shrimp or crab meat. I have yet to see a "Shrimp Kills" commerical. (and I'd bet my house that shrimp and seafood DOES kill more people every year then E) 3) is MDMA the ONLY drug found in the system. Some people like to mix all sorts of nastys. Coke and Heroin and Ecstacy in the body doesn't mean that "E Kills". And if MDMA IS fatal in combination with something else, then people need to know. 4) was the death caused by a side effect of being intoxicated (dehydration, over hydration, driving while intoxicated, jumping from a 3rd story window, ect.). I'm not trying belittle drug problems, I've seen the needle and the bottle and the damage done first hand. I'd just like to see a little more honesty out there in the information department. If anyone knows a good source {of info, not Ecstacy...can't afford the stuff } to go to let me know.
Well thank God we don't allow addictive and dangerous drugs like alcohol and nicotine to run rampant in our society. That would be awful.
the marijuana ads are the worst. the girl getting pregnant becuase she smoked weed?????? think of how many people were concieved under the influence of alcohol...... i rest my case
This is the one that really irks me. Like those current anti-pot ads. Who the hell is motivated enough to go drive a car when high? Some dude toking up in his living room with a xtra large pizza, Floyd on the stereo and Oz on the screen is not a public hazard. And that right there is over 99% of potheads.
Re: Re: New anti-drug campaign on T.V. I was with you until you got to the part about Oz. Anyone who gets baked and then feels like watching Oz is a public hazard. Unless you were talking about the Wizard of Oz. Which, apparently, has much less man-rape.
Re: Re: Re: New anti-drug campaign on T.V. My bad. I meant Wizard of Oz (no, not Zardoz) with Dark Side of the Moon. Tho The Wall would be another good choice.
Re: Re: New anti-drug campaign on T.V. Isn't this by the same people that bring us those annoying "Truth" anti-smoking ads?
Ecstasy is bad, bad news these days. The quality of the pills has hit absolutely rock bottom and the chances of finding any with actual MDMA in 'em is slim to none. Most of them are actually MDA cut with strichnine or some other mild hallucinogen. Whether that's more dangerous to you than regular MDMA is strictly up to your own biology. And FYI, the rave scene died five years ago, was buried three years ago, exhumed for a brief while in spring 2001, shot in the head shortly thereafter, and is currently six feet under. If the government had a freaking clue they'd stop worrying about "ecstasy", usage of which is on the downslope, and get back to worrying about good ol' fashioned Bolivian Marching Powder. I swear, half the snow that fell in NYC this past week was actually blow, judging by what's available in the clubs (and has been since the beginning of 2002, really). And if it's in NYC now, it'll be grabbing the rest of you lesser Americans by the throat within the next six months to a year, depending upon how many stoplights are in your town.
I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, however, I wouldn't encourage anyone to use them. I have no problem with the government or an agency teaching people the dangers of ectasy, heroin, cocaine, alchohol or cigarettes. Thats different than saying it should be illegal.
But is teaching equivalent to using irrational scare tactics or to making huge leaps of logic. Actually, that pretty much describes my teaching style. Carry on.
I'm in favor of legalizing some drugs like pot but not others like heroin or crack. It is my personal opinion that some drugs are just too addictive and destructive to be legalized. So while I wouldn't want my surgeon, the pilot of an airliner I'm in or anyone on the roads to be high (or drunk, for that matter), I also think that these drugs can be used by the majority of the population recreationally without necessarily causing addiction. I could be wrong, but I don't think the same could be said of herion, coke, meth or crack.
No. Those annoying "Truth" anti-smoking ads are paid for with money out of tobacco company litigation and designed and run by an independent group. The anti-drug ads are government funded and sponsored.
If you bought into the legalization theory (not saying I do), a good dividing line might be to legalize or regulate drugs that don't have a propensity towards physical addiction, except for making the admittedly completely illogical distinction of alcohol, only because it's been tried unsuccesfully. That would make pot and LSD okay, but leave out cocaine, heroin, and meth.
I edited it out of my post because it's completely infeasible, and thus falls in the category of alcohol (illogical but can't do anything about it). But, if you wanted to press me, I'd be more willing to make cigarettes illegal than make pot legal.
Re: Re: Say hello to my little friend I found a meth lab on my land a few years ago. I reported it to the authorities and it became the biggest pain in the ass. If I find one again, I'm burning it down and taking care of the dealer myself.
Considering that we allow legal booze and smokes, any legalization will be "arbitrary" in a biochemical sense. Hopefully, educated common sense would prevail.
Re: Re: Re: New anti-drug campaign on T.V. Not a single one since Jan 1. I haven't even chewed. Thanks for asking.
Re: Re: Say hello to my little friend Of course not. I'd have blown myself up by now. I also don't use, not because I'm some prudish square but simply because I think my money is better spent elsewhere. Like on soccer, fireworks and lap dances.