backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Nov 23 at 8:44 AM


A new study implicates ketamine, a drug prescribed for pain relief and known for its hallucinatory side effects among recreational users on the rave scene, with memory loss, paranoia, and addiction.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Ketamine is commonly snorted or ingested as a powder or in pill form, among recreational users. It is often mixed with other drugs, such as MDMA (commonly known as Ecstasy). Recreational use is a crime in the U.S. and UK as the drug is a regulated substance.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
A new story paints a much darker picture of ketamine, commonly referred to as "Special K" among club users

The drug Ketamine was developed by Parke-Davis (today part of Pfizer) in 1962 and has played an important role in human and veterinary medicine.  The drug has a variety of physiological effects on humans, significantly anesthetic (pain blocking), analgesic (pain relieving), and hallucinatory effects. 

Because of its hallucinatory effects, the drug also became a popular club drug among recreational users under the names "K", "Ket", "Special K", and "Vitamin K".  Most of the illegal ketamine coming into the U.S. comes across the Mexican border, according to recent studies.  The drug has risen greatly in popularity over the last decade and is taken by itself or in mixes with other drugs.  One common mixture is Ecstasy (MDMA), Ketamine and other additives; names for these kind of mixes include "Strawberry" and "Sitting Duck".

While the effects of recreational ketamine have remained mostly unknown, a new study by the University College London has linked the drug to memory problems and has raised concerns both about its legal and illegal uses.  Previous studies had implicated the drug with kidney and bladder damage, but hadn't shown significant evidence of mental effects.

The new study involved psychological tests being performed on 120 people, some of which were frequent users.  Researchers found that the users had difficulty with memory-related chores, such as recalling names, conversations and patterns.  While it was possible that the results were skewed by the use of other drugs (e.g. MDMA), there appeared to be a clear link between ketamine abuse and memory problems.  The study helped reduce false positives based on other usage by splitting the participants into five groups -- those who used ketamine every day, recreational users who took the drug once or twice a month, former users, those who used other drugs, and people who did not take any drugs.

Frequent users of the drug made as many as twice as many mistakes on the test, and a followup which took place a year later.  The users' performance worsened from the initial study to the followup, indicating the drug was deteriorating brain function.  The other groups, including those that used other drugs (which presumably included MDMA) did not show significant differences memory problems.  Intriguingly, those on ketamine also showed growing signs of unusual beliefs or mild delusions, such as conspiracy theories in their psychological evaluations.

The study also showed signs that the drug was addictive.  Hair tests showed that users were taking twice the amount of ketamine they initially were, a year later.  The need to increase the regularity or amount of drug dosing is a hallmark sign of addiction to a substance.  Lead researcher Dr Celia Morgan comments, "Ketamine use is increasing faster than any other drug in the UK, particularly among young people, and has now become a mainstream club drug.  However, many young people who use this drug may be largely unaware of its damaging properties and its potential for addiction. We need to ensure that users are informed of the potentially negative consequences of heavy ketamine use."

Ketamine can be purchased illegally at lower prices, thanks to falling prices in the U.S., UK, and elsewhere.  A gram is estimated to cost approximately £20 in the UK ($33), less than half the price of a gram of cocaine.  With abuse on the rise, both the U.S. and UK have recently moved to class the drug as a controlled substance, making it a crime to purchase the drug without a prescription or to try to sell it outside the medical system.  In the U.S. the United States Controlled Substance Act of 1999 classed it as a Schedule III drug -- the same class given to codeine/hydrocodone.  In the UK it similar was made illegal for recreational use three years ago and classed as a Class C drug.

Unfortunately, some patients legally rely on the drug for pain relief.  The results raise greater questions about whether ketamine prescription is wise, though, versus alternatives.

The new research was published in the advance copy of the Addiction journal, a psychological journal published on the behalf of the Society for the Study of Addiction.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This stuff seems harmful
By MrPoletski on 11/19/2009 8:40:47 AM , Rating: 4
They have actually managed to demonstrate degraded brain function after continued use.

Yet this drug is 'less illegal' (class C vs class B) than cannabis - of which no such evidence has ever surfaced.

Can somebody please explain this imbalance to me?




RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Samus on 11/19/2009 8:57:23 AM , Rating: 5
Because cannabis isn't manufactured by a pharmaceutical company.

Everytime I hear about a drug being pulled off the market or new negative side-effects a drug has on people (most recently ritalin) just makes me wonder why we have half this shit in the first place.

People are ever-looking for a cure to an artificial illness.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By TSS on 11/19/2009 10:07:55 AM , Rating: 5
bullshit. People are simply trying to take the easy way out.

Simply because people don't want to deal with their own shit anymore, so they take a pill which sedates them and they go on beeing happy little drones. And psychiatrsist don't have a clue what will actually work so they are more then happy to start trying medications out.

Take it from a guy who's been seeing shrinks since he was 3 years old, these guys will get you hooked on drugs faster then your local dealer on the corner. But they never prescribe a solution, only more problems.

The only expert on your mind, is you. Never forget that.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Sazar on 11/19/2009 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 1
You've been seeing shrinks since you were 3? That seems awfully young.

And I agree with most of your post.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By redbone75 on 11/19/2009 12:44:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
People are simply trying to take the easy way out.

In many cases (as it seems to have been with yours) it is parents trying to take the easy way out instead of actually parenting. A 3 year old on meds? Seriously, folks. This is part of what's wrong in society.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By William Gaatjes on 11/19/2009 1:44:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But they never prescribe a solution, only more problems.


I agree. Although cases exist through genetic variation where it might help when compared to a life without drugs, it usually is a loose cannon approach.

With out doing actual research on the body about subjects such as blood , allergies, diet, living conditions a shrink cannot be sure. Some people are depressed all there life only to find out one day that certain ingredients can cause the depression. Your brain gets it's nutrients from your body. It is not for just a reason that during puberty when hormones start raging conditions can get worse. Or think about chemicals at work or home etcetera...

quote:
The only expert on your mind, is you. Never forget that.


Very true indeed. It is your logical mind that can conquer everything. Mood swings, memory black outs, sleeping disorders, No inner peace, extreme agression, always tired while having to much energy to name just a few.

I never knew this, but i always thought that the neurotransmitter serotonine was only made in the brain. It turns out that 90 percent of the serotonine in your body is
located and produced in your digestive system to control the movement of your bowls. The other few percent left is for as far as i know used in your brain. A lot of people benefit from a carefully controlled diet. I know i do.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By xmichaelx on 11/19/2009 7:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Take it from a guy who's been seeing shrinks since he was 3 years old


No, thank you.


By bubbastrangelove on 11/20/2009 10:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
They tried to make me console a shrink at age three. I ate his liver with some fava beans and apple juice from my sippie cup.

fupfupfupfupfupfup


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 12:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ketamine:

Indications for use as an anaesthetic:
Paediatric anaesthesia (as the sole anaesthetic for minor procedures or as an induction agent followed by muscle relaxant and endotracheal intubation)
Asthmatics or patients with chronic obstructive airway disease
In emergency medicine in entrapped patients suffering severe trauma[19]
Emergency surgery in field conditions in war zones
To supplement spinal / epidural anaesthesia / analgesia utilizing low doses


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Xerstead on 11/19/2009 7:36:30 PM , Rating: 3
Ketamine can also be used in patients who have allergic reactions to other anaesthetics. It is also effective in conditions where the patient needs to retain consiousness during a procedure.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Xenokyn on 11/19/2009 8:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't it also used as a substance to put sickly animal down? Everyone I know who got ketamine said it came from some type of veterinarian clinic.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Xenokyn on 11/19/2009 8:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the Wikipedia does confirm it is used as a veterinary anesthetic, even showing pictures of it in its liquid form as it is used in such. From my experiences in the "drug scene", this was its primary route from legal use to illegal recreational use.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Smilin on 11/19/2009 9:27:01 AM , Rating: 5
Easy..Marijuanna was placed in class I status without any science behind it. The AMA has recently suggested that this be revisited.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Proxes on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 1:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Neither LSD or marijuana are addictive or cause cancer. There is tar buildup in the lungs with prolonged smoking of marijuana, which is obviously unhealthy.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By fic2 on 11/19/2009 3:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's why you should only ingest mj through brownies!


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By jimhsu on 11/19/2009 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
Smoked marijuana does produce tar buildup, causing alveoli cells to function less efficiently/die. This induces alveoli stem cells to differentiate more rapidly, introducing more mutations, hence cancer. (This is the generally accepted model of how lung cancer develops).

Ingestion however is unlikely to directly influence cancer development, and if it does, only indirectly -- as a psychoactive, by encouraging habits that could lead to an increased risk of death (decreased concentration > decreased attention to health > less attention to diet, etc).

That is what I understand about it, at least.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By jimhsu on 11/19/2009 3:51:14 PM , Rating: 3
As a side note, inhalation of most organic smoke based products (cigarettes, marijuana, burning coal, etc) is the most harmful route of entry, simply because of the massive surface area of your lungs.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 1
No doubt, there are some correlations with excessive smoking of marijuana and lung problems, sometimes even cancer. Though there are very few documented cases of people getting lung cancer from it. Part of the reason tobacco is the leading cause of lung cancer is because it contains over 60 types of carcinogens.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By mindless1 on 11/19/2009 10:59:02 PM , Rating: 1
... and the other part is that it's smoked, you're burning myriad compounds that are not only naturally occurring but in the soil used. Marijuana can cause cancer if smoked and really, of marijuana users who is likely to ingest it some other way that doesn't also smoke it?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By MrPoletski on 11/23/2009 8:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
There has been no established link between cannabis and cancer.

If you think there has, please show me the evidence.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Spivonious on 11/19/2009 9:29:42 AM , Rating: 1
My personal opinion is that no drugs should be illegal. If you commit a crime while using a drug, then the penalty goes up.

However, your post really comes across like a rant from a pothead.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Jackattak on 11/19/2009 6:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you got rated down. I agree nearly wholeheartedly with your opinion (although I don't think meth or crack should ever be made legal...that's where I draw the line).

Most drugs have recreational uses. Crack and meth do not.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By mindless1 on 11/19/2009 11:05:32 PM , Rating: 1
That seems a bit backwards, if drugs aren't illegal then last thing that's reasonable is an increased penalty if on drugs.

How about, certain drugs are legalized and others left illegal, and as always the penalty fits the crime, we just reassign many of the officers formerly occupied with drug related arrests to do things more important to society?

It won't happen though, at least in the US we are becoming more and more a society where Big Brother watches out for you. If you can't even emit carbon, use lead solder or soon enough have a hassle buying incandescent light bulbs, how likely are they to repeal drug laws?

They need to demonize anything that cuts against the worker productivity and spending on mainstream goods and services since it is a capitalist economy. If there were more legalized drugs it would only be a further tax revenue to waste as always.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By XtremeM3 on 11/20/2009 12:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That seems a bit backwards, if drugs aren't illegal then last thing that's reasonable is an increased penalty if on drugs.


Alcohol isn't illegal...however get in a car accident while under the influence and watch your penalty increase. Same theory...


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By mindless1 on 11/20/2009 1:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no, separate charges.

BTW, DUI is illegal. You can't have it both ways, if the drugs are legal you can't then claim doing something legal is a cause for more punishment, that goes against all common sense.

So to put it plainly, if you have an accident after one drink, for example, no you are not going to have a penalty increase. You might instead have zealots trying to persecute you, and rightly so if you had prior drunk driving convictions, but generally speaking no, it's not subject to whims and categories, it's a matter of law and the law does not state that unless above the legal limit.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Spivonious on 11/20/2009 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
It all comes down to the hurting yourself or hurting others principle. If you're smoking pot/snorting cocaine/whatever in your house, then it should be perfectly legal. It might be stupid, but it's your choice. And don't expect public healthcare to pay for treating your overdose.

But if you get high and drive your car into someone, or are convinced that everyone around you are now aliens and you must defend Earth, then that's illegal.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By TSS on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: This stuff seems harmful
By weskurtz0081 on 11/19/2009 10:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
A good documentary from a fictional TV show? I am not saying you are wrong, but I think calling something from the TV show "Weeds" a "good documentary" is pushing it.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Leper Messiah on 11/19/2009 10:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
I believe it was Hurst who stood to profit the most from marijuana being illegal in the united states.

Anyways, K isn't very fun to take in the first place, and falling into a K hole is straight up scary. I recommend avoiding it.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By vailr on 11/19/2009 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Officers of the DuPont Corporation was involved in criminalizing Marijuana. DuPont scientists had recently invented Nylon, and so they wanted to remove the competition of industrial Hemp fiber from the marketplace. Which worked for a few years, until the Phillipine Islands, where most of the Navy's Hemp rope was made, was captured by the Japanese.
So the U.S. Department of Agriculture then encouraged industrial Hemp growing within the U.S. for military use, through the end of WWII.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Motoman on 11/19/2009 10:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
No. No one can explain that. There is not the slightest bit of rational thought behind why marijuana is illegal while other things like alcohol are legal.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 5:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
A rather broad sweeping statement, don't you think? Not saying I agree or disagree, just pointing out the irony in that your statement isn't terribly rational in and of itself.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Motoman on 11/19/2009 8:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
...that's because it's a statement, not an argument. A statement is just that...something you say. An argument involves (hopefully) a rational discussion of why you believe your position is correct.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'll give you that. My apologies for the accusation...


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By amanojaku on 11/19/2009 12:08:08 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is historical. Drugs became illegal nationally starting around 1930 with the creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was overseen by Harry J. Anslinger. Prior to that state-specific anti-drug laws passed as early as 1875 were largely ignored by the public as opium was the most widespread drug and largely used by the Chinese. It was a colored-people problem, so no one cared. When white people started using opium it suddenly became a problem, and San Francisco passed the Opium Den Ordinance.

Once opium saw a decline as other drugs came in vogue, such as morphine and heroin (both opiates) and marijuana. Opiates found use in the medical community, although they were known to be drugs and were controlled substances. Prior to the FBN several prohibition agencies were found to be quite corrupt, and a young Anslinger was promoted to the head of the newly created FBN because of his "pure" public image.

Now step back a second. You're young, recently promoted, and running one of the largest agencies in the country. If your boss says "down with drugs" you're probably going to do just what your boss says, or definitely get fired and risk a smear campaign. Since opium use was pretty much dead, morphine was used by the medical community and alcohol prohibition was recently lifted the only target left was marijuana.

Anslinger then went on to recite passionate, and false, stories demonizing marijuana. These stories played on the public's generally racist views, for example describing young white girls hanging out with people of color and getting high. It was left unsaid what families were REALLY afraid of, like caramel babies. He also went on to claim that honest young white males became violent and killed people because of pot. Anyone who knows anything about pot will tell you that potheads are too lazy to do anything but go to the store for munchies. Worse, no one actually did medical studies on marijuana until AFTER the drug was illegal.

Cut to today where the American public is a drug-addicted hypocrisy. Sewage water samples taken across the country in the last few years show +60% of the country's population abuses narcotics and prescription drugs. That means many of the people (I'm looking at you, Rush) vehemently against drugs ARE drug "addicts". These same people refuse to even examine marijuana and its effects, which is ridiculous. Alcohol and cigarettes are known to damage the body, yet they are legal. Marijuana has no known long-term effects, other than the usual lung cancer from smoking. I use the term "known" purposely, as there COULD be long term effects, but no one knows due to the lack of study. Marijuana is not known to dramatically alter behavior, either, while it is common to find drunk drivers who otherwise know better than to drive drunk. You think cigarettes don't alter a person's behavior? Try to stay around a person who just quit...


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 12:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
1918.

Anyway, it has been widely known for years that dissasociatives like ketamine cause Olney's Lesions in lab mice. Meaning, parts of the brain can cease to function. It is not known, yet, if the same effect is true in humans. But it is likely, perhaps on a smaller scale.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By darkpuppet on 11/19/2009 12:59:45 PM , Rating: 3
Got some bad news for the hemp-heads, but there ARE long term side effects to using marijuana. They have been studied, just like other drugs out there, and most findings agree that that the long term effects of THC use affects the brain very similarily to other illicit drugs.

marijuana was also shown to consist of more chemicals than cigarettes - including more tar than the usual cancer sticks.

Don't get me wrong -- I consider potheads not much worse than regular smokers, but at least the average smoker don't necessarily delude themselves into thinking their habbit is healthy.

I've seen first hand the long-term side effects of heavy marijuana use, and it's not pretty. People can become physically dependent on weed, they get all nice and paranoid, and begin to experience degradation of cognitive abilities.

It's not any better than alcohol abuse, that's for sure.

Throughout this thread, I've seen two extremes, those who think everything can be solved without medication (who obviously have never suffered a REAL mental illness), and those who think any argument that promotes weed is a good one, even if it ignores ALL of the established research out there.

there's both a real need out there for some of this stuff, and there's real side effects to using it.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 1:19:38 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody can become physically addicted to marijuana.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 5:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the fact that your name is ClownPuncher and that you pose a staunch pro-marijuana view with absolutely nothing to back it up, I'm just going to throw this out there...

You're a pothead.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 5:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
No, a part time drug counselor. As far as nothing to back my statements up? Try the American Medical Association and even the DEA.

Thank you for playing the game!


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 6:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm a part-time superhero, because it's the internet and nobody can prove me wrong. My point is that you still haven't backed up your statement with any hard evidence to the contrary. At least darkpuppet put in the time to write up an argument more than seven words in length...

I'm not arguing your viewpoint, I'm throwing it out entirely.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 6:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yessa massa, and what have you contributed? Please, provide links to back up what you're saying too. Otherwise, can the sociopath attitude.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Hea...

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/...

And so on.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 7:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
To be perfectly frank, my contribution isn't necessary. Marijuana use is illegal. It's not my battle to fight and I've got no personal stake in it. That's part of the reason I originally questioned your statement... You do seem to have a personal stake in it, else you wouldn't make such wild claims.

That said, neither of those links support what you said. Unless I'm missing something, neither of them talk about physical addiction whatsoever, and I've read both of them twice. Furthermore, while both articles focus on the ADA's position, the only pro-marijuana statements in either of them come from the CEO of Cannabis Science Inc., not the ADA.

Hearsay isn't evidence. At least the ADA has the balls to say that they don't have enough evidence either way. Meanwhile this Kubby guy is busy creating a cannabis-based lozenge to fight H1N1. Based on what we know about H1N1, there is absolutely no way this guy could have scientific evidence to justify the production of such a product. Then again, that seems to be the basis of most claims for medicinal marijuana today... What's the best, easiest way we can get legalized pot? Exploit cancer patients and the disease-of-the-day, H1N1.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 7:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_addiction

quote:

Drugs that cause physical dependence
nicotine[6]
opioids[7]
barbiturates
benzodiazepines (see benzodiazepine dependence and benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome)
nonbenzodiazepines, such as zopiclone[8]
ethyl alcohol (alcoholic beverage)[9]
GHB[10]
methaqualone (Quaalude)
caffeine[11]
blood pressure medications such as beta blockers[12][13]
androgenic-anabolic steroids[14][15]
glucocorticoids[16]


Nowhere have I said anything about cancer or H1N1.

Anyway, like you said, your contribution isn't necessary.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
From the same page you linked to...

quote:
Drugs like cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines, and hallucinogens can be associated with minimal physical dependence but can still cause withdrawal or rebound symptoms.


Your previous links were a better argument in that they referenced a professional organization (the AMA) stating simply that we don't know enough to say much about it at all, which I take to include whether or not it causes physical addiction.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 6:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignorance on a subject does not show a lack of knowledge on my part.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ssjwes1980 on 11/20/2009 11:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry guys but Ive been smoking weed for 10+ years and in the last 2 years very heavly. Just stopped 2 weeks ago with 1/2 pound still left. For that whole time Ive almost not been able to eat anything and my stomach is always upset but never feeling the hunrgy or the need to eat. Sleep problems also occured cold/hot flashes and sweats at night only able to get 2-3 hours of rest. Im one of the people that always used to say "your full of it theres no side effects from quiting" But now I know better. Im feeling a ton better now but from what Ive read of others accounts it can be 1-3 weeks of these symptoms if they start. But that doesnt always happen to everyone. It only seems like its more for long term heavy users that this happens to. Not the "O I smoke on the weekends!" or "I smoke every other day". Im talking 4-5 joints a day for long long periodes of time.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By MrPoletski on 11/23/2009 8:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, I smoked about 5 times that amount a day when at uni, quit every summer for about 8 weeks and never ever felt any side effects, cravings or anything.

I still smoke it but have to 'give up' due to circumstance for usually a month at a time. Again, enerv any side effects (though I don't smoke anything like as much as I used to now).

Are you smoking ciagrettes at the same time, weed+tobacco in your joints or what?

I'm willing to bet that if your smoking it with tobacco and not smoking ciagrettes then you are experiencing nicotine withdrawl.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By crleap on 11/19/2009 5:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
aj28, you might not have noticed, but your 3 posts in this topic aren't exactly laden with facts or substance either, just equally staunch in an opposite opinion to those you're calling out. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 5:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
And again, there is no possible way to become PHYSICALLY addicted to something that has no addictive properties. Psycological addiction is always a risk, though, but that can be said about alot of things, including usage of the internet.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ssjwes1980 on 11/20/2009 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
so the hot and cold flashes and not being able to sleep or eat was all in my head for the past week?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By William Gaatjes on 11/20/2009 6:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
They can get mentally. And since your mind is partially based on your genes it is still physically addictive.

When you are unhappy and you smoke a lot to stay relaxed, you will find it very hard to stop smoking weed.
Weed by the way helps in the process where your brain is forgetting traumatic memories. This one side effect can be enough to be addictive. And it is all happening in the physical world of chemistry.

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13601.sh...


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By phattyboombatty on 11/19/2009 2:24:41 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I've seen first hand the long-term side effects of heavy marijuana use, and it's not pretty.

I've seen first hand the long-term side effects of heavy eating, and it's not pretty.

Seriously, just because some people can't control themselves is no receive to deprive all of the responsibility people the option to enjoy a guilty pleasure in moderation. I mean, we don't outlaw twinkies just because some fat asses can eat themselves to death off them.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 5:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, just because some people can't control themselves is no receive to deprive all of the responsibility people the option to enjoy a guilty pleasure in moderation.


The majority of America can't be trusted to take care of themselves and we should not suffer, be it as individuals or as a society at large, because "some people" can't find anything better to do with their time.

quote:
I mean, we don't outlaw twinkies just because some fat asses can eat themselves to death off them.


Everything can kill you. That is not the primary rational for marijuana's illegality.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By phattyboombatty on 11/19/2009 6:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everything can kill you. That is not the primary rational for marijuana's illegality.

What is the primary rational? I'd love to know, and I guarantee you I can make an analogous argument with respect to twinkies.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Since, I'm pretty sure the usual copy-and-paste would break some sort of comment length limit, here's a link to the DEA's position, along with citations...

http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html

Do a search for the word "kill" and let me know what it pulls up. There is no statement in their entire position that states "smoking marijuana will kill you" or anything directly to that effect.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By phattyboombatty on 11/19/2009 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
As you mentioned, there's a lot there, so let me just address each of the DEA's arguments supporting its claim that marijuana is addictive:
quote:
Adolescents are at highest risk for marijuana addiction, as they are "three times more likely than adults to develop dependency." This is borne out by the fact that treatment admission rates for adolescents reporting marijuana as the primary substance of abuse increased from 32 to 65 per cent between 1993 and 2003.

The DEA's evidence for marijuana addiction is based on admissions into treatment centers; however, this is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Marijuana users convicted of possessing/using marijuana are commonly required to undergo treatment as part of a plea bargain or sentence, especially juveniles, which is why the adolescent rate of admission is higher. If it wasn't illegal, nobody would be forced to attend treatment.
quote:
"[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence. Some heavy users of marijuana develop withdrawal symptoms when they have not used the drug for a period of time. Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association."

Does the DEA cite to any actual medical research or studies? Nope, it cites to the White House drug policy website.
quote:
Of the 19.1 million Americans aged 12 or older who used illicit drugs in the past 30 days in 2004, 14.6 million used marijuana, making it the most commonly used illicit drug in 2004.

So, just because it is a popular drug, that is evidence that it is addictive? Using that logic, if Doritos are more popular than Fritos, than Doritos must be more addictive.
quote:
Among all ages, marijuana was the most common illicit drug responsible for treatment admissions in 2003, accounting for 15 per cent of all admissions -- outdistancing heroin, the next most prevalent cause.

Nothing more than a restatement of the above points with the same flaws in logic.
quote:
In 2003, 20 per cent (185,239) of the 919,833 adults admitted to treatment for illegal drug abuse cited marijuana as their primary drug of abuse.

A single use of any illegal substance qualifies as abuse. Thus, if I fill out a medical chart at my doctor and state that I use marijuana, I will be classified as a drug abuser. This is, yet again, an example of the circular reasoning the government uses to validate the drug laws. "Drugs should be illegal because look at all the kids illegally using drugs!"


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not arguing the DEA's position, just pointing out that the primary rationale (thanks ClownPuncher) isn't that marijuana will directly kill you.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 6:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
First, use a spell/grammar check. Most browsers have them. The word is rationale . Speaking of medicine, how does your own taste?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, you got me on that one. In my defense though, at least I followed it up with an argument. Ironic, given I'm taking the trouble to make this post which adds absolutely nothing to the larger discussion but... I'll stop before I spread any more hypocrisy.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Xerstead on 11/19/2009 7:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...individuals or as a society at large,

Found this amusing. Was the pun intended?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 10:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
"Collective society" or just plain "society" would have been a much better way for me to phrase it.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Lord 666 on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 4
Actually most violent, and other felony crimes, are commited by people under the influence of alcohol.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Assimilator87 on 11/19/2009 1:55:32 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, this article makes me want to get some ketamine. Enjoy everything in moderation folks. Who gives a shit if someone gets high, shoots up, powders their nose? As long as they're having fun and it's not ruining their lives, I could care less. Also, I can't stand people who give the "You're retarded for using a drug that's used on animals" argument for ketamine. You need to realize that it was used solely for humans before veterinary use even came into play and if it's so evil and dangerous, why is it okay to use on your beloved pets?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By HrilL on 11/19/2009 3:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
As a Medical patient I think you have no idea what you're talking about. I also happen to work at a medical facility that provides Marijuana to medical patients. While some people are using the medical system to gain access to the drug legally the same is done by people wanting many different pharmaceutical drugs. Some people have a real need for medical marijuana because other drugs don't solve the problems they just mask them. Marijuana is proven to help cancer patients because chemo makes you nauseated, lose your apatite thus leading you to lose weight at a time when losing some has a negative effect on your life. Marijuana solves these problems, it makes people not nauseated and makes them hungry. I've seen people that looked frail and like they were just days away from falling apart to them looking healthy because of Marijuana.

On a social level I find it more acceptable for someone to smoke pot than it is to drink alcohol. People don't get high and beat their families. But every day people get drunk and do. Alcohol is socially far more harmful than Marijuana ever will be.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 5:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Marijuana is proven to help cancer patients because chemo makes you nauseated, lose your apatite thus leading you to lose weight at a time when losing some has a negative effect on your life.


First off, spell check. Built into your local browser.

Second, invoking cancer patients as an excuse to legalize marijuana for any purpose doesn't make you the rational intellect, just a bleeding heart. You expect people to sympathize because of the terrible nature of the disease, and yet I think what you fail to realize is that you're abusing these people to forward your own interests, essentially making you twice as monstrous as those who choose not to hear your sob story.

quote:
People don't get high and beat their families.


Be that as it may, assault isn't legal just because alcohol is. Alcohol is indeed a problem, it's just too engrained in our culture to ban. Marijuana is something that needs to be stopped before it becomes a part of our culture.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 5:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
Unless of course, you like the Constitution or Bill of Rights. In which case, you have no legal or moral grounds to stand on.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 6:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
Point me to the section of either of those documents which justifies the legalization of marijuana. Not the part that says that it could be legalized, but the part that says that it must be legalized. That's what you're accusing me of, right?

quote:
In which case, you have no legal or moral grounds to stand on.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/19/2009 6:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Surely you can understand this...

quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Meaning the Federal Government can NOT enact such laws, and such states that did would be in violation of personal liberty.

The Bill of rights says that the government has no right to deny its people life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

quote:
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's all fine and great if you ignore the other 7 articles and 27 amendments... Fact of the matter is, societies demand order.

If they can't restrict your right to produce and consume marijuana, how is it that they've restricted so many other rights over the years? If you're going to oversimplify to that level, I think there are a lot more important things you ought to be in an uproar over.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By HrilL on 11/19/2009 7:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not hiding behind anything. Nor am I a monster because I support a medication that helps people deal with and recover from and horrible disease and has many other medical benefits as well.

Why do you hate it so much? Because big corporations don't gain massive profits from it like they do with other pharmaceutical drugs?

Just because you don't see the benefits this drug has for sick people don't give you the right to deny people their medical rights in my state.

My own interest you say? What would those be?


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 10:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying you're a monster, unless of course you fit my description, in which case that's essentially the message, yes.

That said, there is no solid evidence of marijuana curing cancer. There not even any solid evidence that it helps cure cancer... No more than, say, Vitamin C, but you can take as much of that as you want and, who knows, an overdose might cause cancer. Perhaps the aftereffects (i.e. increased appetite, as cited earlier in the thread) will lead you to do things that will help your condition (such as eating more), but then that's the food that's helping you, not the drug. All the drug does is make you high so you either don't feel or don't care. It's a pain reliever, in a sense, and if you want to use that twisted sense as your definition of a functional prescription drug then it's a damn good one, but it comes with far too many consequences to justify making it legal.

The system of medicinal marijuana as it exists today is abused far more often than it is used for its intended purpose. Yes, other prescription drugs are abused too, but that doesn't mean we should add to the list.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By kmmatney on 11/19/2009 11:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
No one said anything about "curing" cancer. Marijuana is just used to provide a much better quality of life during chemo (and being able to eat is a good thing during that time). Seems to work better than any drug available - its as simple as that.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Lord 666 on 11/20/2009 12:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
Listen, my father is dying of cancer and not once was medical marijuana even discussed. Back in June he was given until end of the year, but it looks like he's going to be around a little bit longer.

During the two treatment rounds of IL2, the most effective palliative drug was Demerol in large quantities. Even being in a research trials under the care of NIH, marijuna was never suggested, offered, or condoned.

The number of pot heads are by far greater than the amount of cancer patients. Yet, the argument for "medical" marijuna makes it sound like a cure-all like aspirin.

Take this challenge for the people who feel marijuna should be legalized or any other drug for that matter; write down what you value/interested in now and try to remember back to the time before trying drugs. Might have to ask your parents for help on this one since it is a memory exercise.

Second challenge; get a picture of yourself now and compare it to the time before drugs. Notice a change like eyes a bit droopier, skin color change, or maybe face a bit puffier? Back in the day and 10 years ago when I tolerated other's drug use during my college years, my girlfriend at the time was big into weed, Ecstasy, and moved onto coke. She became pregnant and we were very excited and looking forward to the kid and family. She miscarried and we both blame the drug use and lifestyle. We broke up due to the devastation. Anyway, was bored one night and saw her picture on Facebook. Compared to 10 years ago, she now has a crackhead look.

Clown Puncher can relate to what I am saying; much of the drug counciling material has before and after pictures showing the progression. As people come clean, he probably also sees improvement in appearances as well.

As I teach my four year old; the best way to avoid getting into trouble is avoiding it. Marijuna is nothing but trouble.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ClownPuncher on 11/20/2009 11:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
No doubt about it, there are negatives involved with substance abuse. You're very right about peoples appearance too, once people clean up their act they become almost different people.

As much as I may seem like an advocate, I am not, though I do support citizens rights to free choice. I find proper education on these subjects the best defense, and there is alot of propaganda and many "white lies" about it.

One problem I have is that people will shy away from this drug in medical cases, and opt for a highly addictive opiate, like Demerol. Until you have seen an opiate detox, I don't think you will understand the gravity of the situation.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Lord 666 on 11/20/2009 11:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed about education and people will only hurt themselves since they do not know any better. There is much propoganda concerning weed in the past 10 years. However, I have always felt society is long overdue (in a bad way) for a new synthetic drug; one like Mist of Prayer of the Rollerboys or D from Scanner Darkly. In economic times like this, it seems a new one comes about. Crack in early 80s during recession, E early 90's (even created in 30s), and the meth resurgance of past five years.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed detox and withdrawls as friends/ex-friends have gone down that path and with some family friends buried in the process. The part of NJ I grew up in, it was the epicenter of heroin and E in the late 90s. Plus, my wife has worked as a medical nurse at several addicition rehab facilities. We have shared notes on this topic and enjoyed watching the show Intervention.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By HrilL on 11/20/2009 11:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most doctors don't seem to recommend Marijuana because they know so little about it. They think of it as this hippy drug. And the fact that it is federally illegal puts a lot of them off on it. Demerol is far worse for someone than smoking and all it really does is sedate you. It doesn't really help you at all. I recommend your father looks into natural alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs. You don't have to smoke anything. There are many ways to ingest. Also you're medicating not getting high so you only take a dosage that will make you hungry and make you feel more relaxed. I don't support smoking bong loads after bong loads so you get into a vegetative state.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By fic2 on 11/19/2009 3:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Marijuana isn't a starter drug. If anything is a starter drug it is alcohol. Everyone I know drank way before they tried pot. I know quite a few people who occasionally use pot and they are quite high achievers. On the other hand I know a few people who don't use pot and have never achieved anything (see I can generalize, too).

If you want to get really down to it the true starter drug is life.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Etsp on 11/19/2009 5:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of the hazards of Marijuana are related to the fact that it is illegal. Because it's illegal, they avoid the authorities, and socialize with those who avoid the authorities.

1. Cigarettes are a starter drug.

2. Alcohol is Darwinism reintroduced to the masses (with collateral damage).

2a. Zoloft is a pacifier to the masses as it reduces the desire to think unhappy thoughts.

3. By legalizing the most commonly used illegal drug, you've made a lot of former 'criminals' no longer criminals. These people who no longer have need to fear the police would probably be able to provide a great deal of information about crimes.

4. Yes, yes it is.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 5:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Since we're on a roll here with the little post organization scheme y'all have going...

1. Which justifies marijuana how?
2. Again, you use the same logic... So we should ban alcohol and Zoloft?
3. "Provide a great deal of information about crimes." That's a joke, right?
4. Which is exactly why those arguments are invalid and ignored. Anyone with half a brain sees right through it... Sad that a community which claims it isn't addicted to a drug has gone to such great lengths to push for its legality.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Etsp on 11/19/2009 6:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
My logic on the first two points is that the OP's reasoning isn't valid, as the same things can be said about other drugs that are legal and in common use. To say that the supposed negatives of marijuana should not be put into the perspective of legal drugs is hypocrisy.

I say "supposed" negatives, relating only to the OP's original opinionated claims. I'm not denying the fact that there are negatives.

As far as the crimes are concerned, the people who avoid the law because of a minor habit are more inclined to be around those who avoid the law for other reasons. "Us vs Them" becomes the mentality of that part of the community. Them being the police. I'm not saying that this will happen overnight, or that it would happen en masse, but it will help lower the crime rate(after factoring out the lack of marijuana arrests) in the country over time, at least, for a time.

For my last statement, I should clarify that there are legitimate medical reasons for the use of marijuana. Cancer Patients getting Chemo is one such example. However, that fact is overshadowed by the fact that 95% of medical marijuana users don't have real medical justification for it.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By fic2 on 11/19/2009 6:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
1. You were using the fallacy that marijuana is a gateway drug as one of your justifications as to why it should be illegal. He was pointing out that cigarettes are more of a gateway drug and are perfectly legal. As is alcohol.
2. Since alcohol and zoloft are not banned what justifies banning marijuana?
3. That is usually the excuse (tenuous as it is) for not arresting illegal aliens... But, yeah, that seems to be a joke.
4. Let's see - even heroin is legal as a prescription drug, but marijuana is not? Yeah, that makes since.

Oh, I haven't indulged in mj in about 20 years. I just think my tax dollars could go to better use. I think the Dutch system has proven quite effectively that if you make marijuana legal then some people will indulge and some won't - just like alcohol but without the possible addiction. BTW, I lived/worked there for 6 months about 10 years ago and even though it was legal really didn't have a desire to partake.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By aj28 on 11/19/2009 8:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
1. I actually wasn't the originator of that list, so I can't take much credit for using that "fallacy" in the first place. Smoking marijuana puts you in close proximity with people who do harder drugs just as much as buying it puts you in close proximity of real criminals, a fact your side seems to readily accept and use as justification for its legalization.
2. Exactly my point. It's poor logic and it can go both ways, which is exactly why it's not a good argument on Etsp's part.
3. Glad we can agree on that.
4. That goes back to much the same logic as #2, which is generally pretty poor and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

That said, I think the effect that it would have on America is something that no study could tell us, and certainly looking at the Dutch couldn't tell us either. That could only come from experience, and I for one would rather we not go forward with that particular experiment. As I mentioned earlier, no matter how strong the argument, we can't ban alcohol because it's ingrained in our culture. I'd rather marijuana not get a chance to become a part of our culture in the same way that alcohol is, because we won't be able to stop it later on down the road.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By Etsp on 11/19/2009 9:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're confusing the focus of my argument.

I wasn't arguing for or against the legalization of marijuana as a whole, I was arguing that the OP's logic was wrong on four individual points.

While I certainly am for the legalization and taxation of marijuana, I am not taking that position for any of the points I listed.

You're taking my post and putting my points into a broader issue for which they aren't appropriate or relevant.

Based on your last statement, it sounds like you are against the legality of any recreational drugs. That stance has no bearing on the merit of your statements, but it would put into perspective on how futile this thread is, akin to someone arguing the merits of Socialism to someone on the far right.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By ssjwes1980 on 11/20/2009 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
I dont argee with marijuana is a starter drug Ive never used anything else besides pot I dont even like to drink alcohol all that much. I have frineds that also (alot of friends) have never used anything but pot and some that have used other things (cocaine, LSD, lean aka surp, pills ect) and never touched pot. If the gateway you speak of is the fact that you have to go to a dealer that might try to get you to do other things and you falter and try it then yes I can see what you mean. But if you took pot out of theres hands and made it legal there wouldnt be as much of a chance to be around the other substances.


RE: This stuff seems harmful
By zinfamous on 11/19/2009 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
because we need it to euthanize animals.

I think that if your dumb enough to snort a known, and very prevalent poison to get high, then I don't really see the problem with regulating it.

Just doing our part to select stupidity out of the gene pool?


Well this explains alot..
By Dean364 on 11/19/2009 8:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
I am soooo screwed!




RE: Well this explains alot..
By dani31 on 11/19/2009 9:11:24 AM , Rating: 5
Don't worry, you'll forget that in no time.


RE: Well this explains alot..
By Dean364 on 11/19/2009 12:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
Forget what?

(like you didn't know it was coming...)


Well Duh!
By Bateluer on 11/19/2009 8:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ketamine is an animal tranquilizer. Was there ever any doubt that its impact on human biology was negative?




RE: Well Duh!
By Truxy on 11/19/2009 9:01:17 AM , Rating: 3
I need to start a testing lab.

"Drugs is bad, mkay? They'll make you forget things, mkay?"
Bam, a couple hundred thousand right there.


RE: Well Duh!
By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 12:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
In small doses it seems to have a use on humans. See my post above.


surprise surprise
By RjBass on 11/19/2009 8:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
Special K was rampant in the clubs in Kansas City just a few years ago. I always wondered why people would voluntarily ingest a drug that was designed for veterinary use.

I am curious to see what the long term effects, if any, will be for those who used it a lot.




RE: surprise surprise
By mikeyD95125 on 11/19/2009 10:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously.

"Hey guys lets score some cat tranquilizer before we go to the club tonight!"

It just sounds nasty. Emotional appeal aside I was under the impression this stuff was fairly difficult to get your hands on. I have never seen it in person or heard of anyone I know using it.


wait..., what were we talking about?
By aguilpa1 on 11/19/2009 9:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
I seem to have lost track




By Sazar on 11/19/2009 11:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to bring a towel.


Haha
By BruceLeet on 11/19/2009 11:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
I only took it once and that was it because I haven't been able to get my hands on any more of this stuff.

Guess I'm sort of lucky then.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/19/2009 1:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
So you have this group of people, some of whom are drug users of various frequencies, and some who do not do drugs of any kind.

I think there is a lot to be said for studying the mental capacity of the groups before they even started taking drugs. It is my contention that the people who never took drugs are probably more mentally capable than those who do take drugs since many drug users are self-medicating mental and emotional deficiencies in the first place.

Therefore the "decreased" capacities of the drug-user group was probably there in the first place, and the fact that they are taking drugs is just a flag that they have decreased capacities.

It may sound like I am mouthing off, but this is a critical distinction when you are trying to study the long-term pharmacological effects of this substance.

Perhaps the study should focus on those patients who have been prescribed the medication, and not the nit-wits who self-medicate themselves (oooh, what a give-away!)




Addiction v Tolerance
By phattyboombatty on 11/19/2009 2:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The study also showed signs that the drug was addictive. Hair tests showed that users were taking twice the amount of ketamine they initially were, a year later. The need to increase the regularity or amount of drug dosing is a hallmark sign of addiction to a substance.

Requiring more of a substance to obtain the same effect is a result of increased tolerance. Tolerance does not equal addiction.




Special K. Why are you loved so much?
By HrilL on 11/19/2009 3:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
When I was into the rave/club scene this drug was all the rage though I never tried it and never plan to. I don't see the point when other drugs have similar effects when they are far less damaging. I had read a lot about it and found out its one of the most physically damaging drugs out there. Now its also believed to be mentally damaging as well.

Just the way its made put me off. Take animal tranquilizer and boil it down into a powder and then snort the damn stuff. That's not even close to the drugs intended use.




By chunkymonster on 11/20/2009 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, just what the title says; I support recreational drug use. I would support it even more if it were run and/or controlled by a government agency and any profits then used for the good of the people (education, infrastructure, paying down the national debt) including paying for any health care costs due to drug abuse. The joke is that drugs, legal and illegal, have never been about saving people or improving quality of life, drugs have always been about money! SO, why not get past the skewed sense of puritanical morality and negative attitude towards recreational drug use and embrace the potential profit and tax benefits of legalized drug trade? Other countries have proven that a legal recreational drug trade can and does work. With TRILLIONS in national debt, an economy in a slump, and no real relief in sight, it's time to reconsider non-traditional revenue streams.

Of course, it will never happen, as much of an opportunity as it is. The fact remains that much like switching from fossil fuels to alternative fuel sources, the impact on the established economics would cause too great a paradigm shift and prevent the profiteers from adding another Audemar Piguet for their collection. That and the fact that there is no political will or testicular fortitude to actually make it (both alternative fuels and legalized recreational drugs) happen.




This is a tech article?
By Bonesdad on 11/19/2009 9:04:14 AM , Rating: 1
really?




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki