Hard News: The Perfect Drug
73 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Sorry to start with trivia, but I'm awfully impressed the Police are sending poor recession-stricken media folks pictures of drugs they can no longer afford for reals. That's just mean.
-
Man those pillmongers are tidy with their ziplocs.
-
I looked at all those pretty pastel pills and thought they were crying out to be arranged in an hombre order and instagramed.
-
That looks like the beginning of a great weekend...
-
I like the fact you can either have a bag just with your favourite, or a selection, like the mythical 50c lolly bag of my youth.
As to benzodiazepates: What the fuck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam#Adverse_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam#ContraindicationsNext up: Benzedrine is the perfect pick-me-upper, and medicine-grade heroin will help your evening soiree run without a hitch.
Got to go, I hear the footsteps of the Ford on the stairs...
-
Apparently “bath salts” have been held responsible for some cannibalistic “zombie” attacks of late. While relatively harmless marijuana remains boxed in by neo-superstition.
-
Pete Sime, in reply to
That looks like the beginning of a great weekend…
Or Hunter S. Thompson's leftovers.
-
I was thinking just a couple of nights ago that it was a shame there was not an evening tipple that might make me feel nice and warm and relaxed after dinner without the implications for personal health involved in few single malts.
We'll always have Clayton's.
-
I have a friend who is an alcoholic but he goes to great pains to spin his alcoholism as some sort of high cultural experience. He doesn't get rool pissed as, he imbibes, even though there is no difference between the two states.
And I think, what would happen to him if suddenly he wasn't addicted? What if alcohol was just another beverage, like orange juice or Ribena or milk? Would he still have the obsession and the ritual around it? Would he still spend as much money on it? Or, as he partly uses booze to kill his troubles, would he just find another numbing substance to fill the gap?
-
Nutt's a very impressive (and sweet! I've met him) man. He was the UK Govt's chief drug advisor until they sacked him from the post for saying that alcohol was more dangerous than ecstacy and LSD.
He also pointed out that more people are killed riding horses than die due to taking ecstacy/MDMA.
Apparently, the UK government's devotion to 'evidence led policy' was devotion in name only...
Anyhoo, you can find more of his work at http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/. I think what I like most about it is that it's evidence-based, not ideology-based. Huzzah for the scientists :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
We'll always have Clayton's
roflnui
-
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
Nutt's pretty much my hero. I interviewed him for PA Radio a while back, great man.
-
Plus introducing more drug choices allows governments to say "Hello, unrealised taxation stream". All the positive effects and none of the negative of raising the rate of GST.
-
Mr Magoo, in reply to
As to benzodiazepates: What the fuck?
Errr...that list looks very similar to the one for alcohol. (possibly smaller) Of course alcohol is not a restricted substance so they have not made a list...hypocrites.
For example: Would you suggest someone suffering depression or having suicidal tenancies get plastered??Except of course that the symptoms listed are in a small minority of people.
Remember that if ANYONE has a symptom during trials they are legally required to list it. The list is long because it has been in use for so long I would guess.
Valium (a crude form nowadays) was and is (incl. newer flavors) handed out like candy in the US. Safe as houses pretty much.So this is a bit of a straw man.
-
I thought the AK-74 with the modified stock was more interesting than the drugs. Not sure how useful one of those would be in drug dealing though - it's kinda big to conceal.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
He also pointed out that more people are killed riding horses than die due to taking ecstacy/MDMA.
Gotta love that kind of stat. My only worry is that a lot of people will see that and think "yeah, we have to put a stop to all this horse-riding". It's the basic problem with all harm minimization arguments - if you can find any harm whatsoever in X, then minimization of harm means that X can't be taken. The great philosophical irony is that these ideas sprang from utilitarianism, which in its earlier forms at least took account of the actual pleasures, enjoyments etc, and balanced harms against them. But they the time that school of thought reached J S Mill and a reasonable level of sophistication, it was entirely about harm. This is mostly because the idea of actually making use of a moral system as a basis for laws structurally can't take account of enjoyment - it's only about prohibiting some things. You can't absolve yourself from a crime just by really liking breaking the law.
It's kind of sad that liberalism has ended up mostly being about preventing harm, when the main point of it was the maximization of happiness, and harm minimization is only one small part of that. It's lost its way when harm reduction is what life is all about.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It’s kind of sad that liberalism has ended up mostly being about preventing harm, when the main point of it was the maximization of happiness, and harm minimization is only one small part of that. It’s lost its way when harm reduction is what life is all about.
Quite. It's very difficult for the prevailing philosophy to permit the use of a potentially harmful substance just because people like it. Unless, of course, it's already permitted.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It's the basic problem with all harm minimization arguments - if you can find any harm whatsoever in X, then minimization of harm means that X can't be taken.
only if you also apply black and white thinking.
-
Well, this is interesting …
A certain mole tells me that the Ministry of Health is quietly moving towards a new and very different perspective on drug regulation, at least as regards new substances – driven by the knowledge that playing whack-a-mole runs the very considerable risk of what you hit with the ban-hammer being less harmful than the thing that replaces it in the market.
Things could get a bit lively.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Well, this is interesting …
A certain mole tells me that the Ministry of Health is quietly moving towards a new and very different perspective on drug regulation, at least as regards new substances – driven by the knowledge that playing whack-a-mole runs the very considerable risk of what you hit with the ban-hammer being less harmful than the thing that replaces it in the market.
Things could get a bit lively.
So people are finally starting to understand that attacking the symptom doesn't work. We hope.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
a new and very different perspective on drug regulation
Bet that doesn't get past Dunne.
Something I notice about the drug regulation debate is that there are many people who believe that if they marshal their arguments well enough and make a sound case for a science-based policy, government will change. It doesn't work like that - illegal drugs are illegal in order to enable government to pose as the friend and protector of the non-drug-taking majority.
It's an othering strategy - same with child abuse. Paula Bennet doesn't give a stuff about abused kids - she wants her white (lower) middle class support base to be able to feel superior to those nasty ferals.
-
merc,
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It doesn’t work like that – illegal drugs are illegal in order to enable government to pose as the friend and protector of the non-drug-taking majority.
It’s an othering strategy – same with child abuse. Paula Bennet doesn’t give a stuff about abused kids – she wants her white (lower) middle class support base to be able to feel superior to those nasty ferals.
Or to put it succinctly, Two Minute Hate.
-
JUST SAY YES!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.