Poll
80%
20%
Why not actually give the thread some context and mention that this is in the UK news today because government scientific advisors recommended that ecstacy be downgraded and the government are refusing to do so on political rather than scientific grounds.
I did find it a rather bad judgement call that one of the main advisors said that taking ecstacy is less dangerous than horse riding.
Originally posted by jaden101
Why not actually give the thread some context and mention that this is in the UK news today because government scientific advisors recommended that ecstacy be downgraded and the government are refusing to do so on political rather than scientific grounds.
Politicians made a politically based decision when deciding policy?
Originally posted by lord xyzThat's what I said when I founded the "Bee Extinction Comittee"...
More people die from swallowing a bee than swallowing an ecstacy pill.How about making bees class A?
We did disband once we realized we kinda like honey, though, but, for what it's worth, it was some of the best 15 minutes of my life.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Politicians made a politically based decision when deciding policy?
Politicians commissioned a huge scientific investigation into the affects of ecstacy, at huge expense to the taxpayer, and then completely ignored the advise of that commission because they knew the daily mail would go t1ts about it.
Originally posted by jaden101
Why not actually give the thread some context and mention that this is in the UK news today because government scientific advisors recommended that ecstacy be downgraded and the government are refusing to do so on political rather than scientific grounds.I did find it a rather bad judgement call that one of the main advisors said that taking ecstacy is less dangerous than horse riding.
Because the sock isn't that clever.
What is the reason(s) for said downgrading of the drug?
Oddly, there are probably more documented cases of death by horse than death by XTC, but I agree.
Originally posted by Robtard
Because the sock isn't that clever.What is the reason(s) for said downgrading of the drug?
It's currently graded the same as heroin and crack cocaine. The logic is that it isn't as socially destructive or has the negative health effects that either of those drugs do. Their reasoning is that if someone taking ecstacy has no negative effects and it is class A...then they will think that other class A drugs will also have no negative effects.
Stupid logic to employ, i know, but it doesn't change the fact that ecstacy isn't as physically or socially destructive as heroin or crack
Originally posted by jaden101
It's currently graded the same as heroin and crack cocaine. The logic is that it isn't as socially destructive or has the negative health effects that either of those drugs do. Their reasoning is that if someone taking ecstacy has no negative effects and it is class A...then they will think that other class A drugs will also have no negative effects.Stupid logic to employ, i know, but it doesn't change the fact that ecstacy isn't as physically or socially destructive as heroin or crack
All Betts are off.
Originally posted by jaden101
It's currently graded the same as heroin and crack cocaine. The logic is that it isn't as socially destructive or has the negative health effects that either of those drugs do. Their reasoning is that if someone taking ecstacy has no negative effects and it is class A...then they will think that other class A drugs will also have no negative effects.Stupid logic to employ, i know, but it doesn't change the fact that ecstacy isn't as physically or socially destructive as heroin or crack
XTC is fairly new in regards to it's widespread use, correct? So it could be possible that the [negative] affects of long term use haven't begun to become evident?
Isn't it also as lethal in regards to overdosing and death as heroine?
Originally posted by Robtard
XTC is fairly new in regards to it's widespread use, correct? So it could be possible that the [negative] affects of long term use haven't begun to become evident?Isn't it also as lethal in regards to overdosing and death as heroine?
It's methylenedioximethamphetamine which has been around since about 1912...Although Alexander Shulgin published the 1st paper on its psychotropic effects in 1978...I have a couple of his books PIHKAL and TIHKAL which are some of the best pieces of work done on drug effects.
It's been a street drug since the 70's as well so it's had long enough to be studied (longer than crack)
Originally posted by jaden101
It's methylenedioximethamphetamine which has been around since about 1912...Although Alexander Shulgin published the 1st paper on its psychotropic effects in 1978...I have a couple of his books PIHKAL and TIHKAL which are some of the best pieces of work done on drug effects.It's been a street drug since the 70's as well so it's had long enough to be studied (longer than crack)
Oh, knew MDMA was created back in the day, didn't know it's had widespread use since the 70's though, thought it had become popular in the early 90's.
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, knew MDMA was created back in the day, didn't know it's had widespread use since the 70's though, thought it had become popular in the early 90's.
The current trend started with clubs like the Hacienda in Manchester through all the early rave and acid house stuff as well as all the 1st UK indie/brit pop stuff like Joy division and new order... in the early 80's but it had been around before that...just not known as ecstasy....known as Adam in the US club scene before that too.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosNeither is a white willow bark which is aspirin, nor Valerian flower or root, which is Valium, or poppy which is heron, cocoa leaves which is cocaine, echanasia, which is a purple cone flower and serotonin from turkey.
Bees aren't a chemical.
All synthetics come or some does come from nature.
BTW I do believe that abuse of anything including food is harmful.