Good narcotics, or bad?

[Ganoderma]

Well the deate goes a ways back I'm sure. what are your thoughts. I think many people in todays culture willa gree things like alchol and tobacco are much more dangerous than things like marijuana or mushrooms. here are a couple links that talk about the subject. i think it would be neat to have an LD50 chart to compare (thats what they use for narcotics right?)

 

My personal stance is legalize, as it goes against my countries constitution (canada). That said, if we are going to penalize people for smoking marijuana, for example, then why is our government selling things like alcohol (referring to BC liquor stores specifically). To me this is hypocricy, although we are pretty used to it.

 

what are your thoughts?

 

American Scientist Online - The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs

The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs

Alcohol is more lethal than many other commonly abused substances

Robert S. Gable

 

click for full image and caption

A worshipper smokes...

 

The Shuar tribes in Ecuador have for centuries used native plants to induce religious intoxication and to discipline recalcitrant children. By comparison, most North Americans know little about the mood-altering potential of the wild vegetation around them. And those who think they know something on this subject are often dangerously ignorant. Over a three-week period in 1983, for example, 22 Marines wanting to get high were hospitalized because they ate too many seeds of the jimsonweed plant (Datura stramonium), which they found growing wild near their base, Camp Pendleton in southern California.

 

 

Tobacco and alcohol 'are more dangerous than LSD' - Independent Online Edition > Health Medical

Tobacco and alcohol 'are more dangerous than LSD'

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Published: 23 March 2007

 

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs including the hallucinogen LSD and the dance drug ecstasy, according to a new scale for assessing the dangers posed by recreational substances.

 

Drug specialists say the current system for ranking drugs - class A for the most dangerous to class C for the least dangerous, as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act - is irrational, arbitrary and "lacking in transparency".

 

Scientific evidence shows that heroin and cocaine are correctly ranked as class A drugs as they do cause the most harm. But LSD and ecstasy come close to bottom of the league in terms of harm caused, yet they are also labelled as class A.

 

 

The Daily Dish: Drugs and Toxicity

[CraigD]

I agree with, and have little to add to Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic article, or Robert Gable’s New Scientist article, which it cites. I think the provided table makes a compelling point, and that educational information like it should be encouraged, while the verbal hyperbole often distributed under the heading of “drug education” should be discouraged.

 

One complaint I have with the table and the analysis behind it is that it doesn’t take into account the concentration of the various drugs in their typical form. For example, a drug that requires one to consume a fair stomach full of substance to get an effective dose may be less dangerous than one in which an effective dose is had from a small pill, even if the former has a lower lethal/effective dose ratio.

 

I have questions about how the data for the table was obtained. For example, both the lethal and effective dose ration of N2O is, to my knowledge, not well established or known, it’s uptake is unpredictable, and its physiological mechanism not well understood. The lack of a predictable effective dose is one of the reasons for its decline in popularity as a surgical anesthetic: some people inhaling a “standard” dose N2O become very insensitive, or even unconscious, while others can effectively hyperventilate with it, yet feel almost no analgesic effect.

 

The credibility of this graph would be enhanced if citations to its sources were provided.

 

 

I dissagree with the claim in Jeremy Laurance’s Independent article that

... LSD and ecstasy come close to bottom of the league in terms of harm caused ...

While this is to the best of my knowledge true of LSD (which, per the table, has an lethal/effective dose of over 1000), it is not of MDMA (ecstasy), (with lethal/effective dose of 16). Although lethal doses of MDMA are rare (though death and serious injury due to behavior and environmental factors associated with its use, particularly dehydration, is less rare), they still pose a significant risk to public safety. In addition, MDMA, specifically in its common pill form, has been known to be tainted with very dangerous, typically non-psychoactive toxins.

 

Despite these disagreements with the details of the article, I believe legalization of MDMA and many other currently illegal drugs would reduce the risk they pose, by permitting label warnings and reducing the risk of counterfeiting or tainting.

[Queso]

The only thing that's scary is that some of these people drive.

 

Any psychonaut should KNOW NOT to drive while in nonordinary reality. You can kill someone. Kill yourself. . . And you'd barely even realize it. While all the buildings are melting, and whispering the most divine wisdom you've ever heard . . You forget about life and swerve out of control pinning a baby and her mama to a brick McDonalds.

 

It takes a while for people to understand that some of these drugs are entheogenic sacraments, and should only be taken in a ritualistic, and a safe environment with a shaman, or a guide.

 

It's true. "Ecstacy" is MDMA cut with something else. A lot of the times caffeine, sometimes methamphetamine. I've heard of cocaine and heroin also but . . What kind of dealer would want to waste that expensive product on some cheap pill?

 

I personally do not trust MDMA, nor Ecstacy. I've witnessed people who take that stuff and they remind me of zombies. I don't like those kind of eyes.

 

A psychedelic person would NEVER harm someone else. Only on accident, with a car. (I'm sure there are minor loopholes . . always is)

Nor would somebody who just smoked a big ol' spliff of cannabis indica.

 

A drunk is definitely dangerous. Alcohol makes the monkey confident, loose, cool. Yeah man, I can drive. . .

Also, DRUNK people are just so stupid! Poisonous liquid to numb my nervous system?? Ahhh . . Wonderful.

And no I'm not calling everyone who drinks, dumb.

The majority of Americans down their television with alcohol because it's legal, and they have no desire for anything else out of fear. Propaganda. Poppa Chongo.

 

Now let's see here, as for psychedelics like Mescaline, Psilocybin, and LSD . .

The american government is terrified of these substances. They spent so much money, and decades researching these chemicals. Theye experimented with interrogation, dosing people at random.

They thought they had found the key to the universe!

(See MK-ULTRA)

 

Wasn't until 10 years after the CIA found out about it the Amry started testing it out. They even made an LSD missle!!

 

Now . . Imagine that. LSD will tear you apart @ 500 micrograms

and they were trying to spray that on people???

 

I'm sure some people turned into vegetables, and lived in alice in wonder land for the rest of their lives.

 

Anyone who wants to dive deep into the myesteries of the universe, you can use your mind, and you can turn your minds sensitivity up with psychedelics. It's true. That is why they are so special, and have been a divine sacrament ever since the first monkey saw god.

 

Oh yeah, and tobacco.

 

Americans and their feeble stimulents . .

COFFEE TOBACCO RUSH RUSH GO HOME ALCOHOL ZZZ COFFEE

 

Everyone has their own rituals. And everyone should respect another ones rituals, unless they are physically harming you, like a serial killer and his rituals . .

 

Rare.

 

Beware, that's all.

 

It doesn't matter if psychedelics are illegal, becase the seekers will always find the keys.

 

In a society where every one drives, and most people are dumb, psychedelics should be illegal.

 

:)

 

These are my observations from the underground.

[Queso]

p.s.

 

I find it funny that they don't even mention DMT.

 

Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), also known as N,N-dimethyltryptamine, is a psychedelic tryptamine. It is not to be confused with 5-MeO-DMT and is similar in chemical structure to the neurotransmitter serotonin. DMT is created in small amounts by the human body during normal metabolism[1] by the enzyme tryptamine-N-methyltransferase.

 

So, like I've said in the past, I'd like to remind you all that we are in possession of an illegal substance at all times.

 

And not just any illegal substance! We are DMT factories! Like the colorado river toad! like the caapi vine! Like all of these other sources

 

traces back to one source.

 

:hyper: :) :)

[InfiniteNow]

p.s.

...

traces back to one source.

 

Your last post impressed me, Orby. You were thoughtful, coherent, and expressed yourself in a manner that other consciousnesses could associate with... then you serial posted this above garbage. Come on, dude. Stick with the focus...

[Queso]

I flow, man. I find that quote that just popped outa me hella Zen.

 

"Remember, YOU are a buddha . .

Return to the source"

 

p.s. Please don't tell me how to write :)

 

Carry on.

[Queso]

You're scientific. Think of the source as the big bang. Now do you get it?

 

I can't believe you would call my sutra garbage! That's so rude, but I know you don't care. KEE AH!!!

 

Ahem, right. So please, carry on . .

[InfiniteNow]

You're scientific. Think of the source as the big bang. Now do you get it?

Constant creation. Constant now. Source of existence. We could wax on this topic for hours...

 

This is the medical forum though... Remember context. Place yourself in your environoment. Don't just be selfish and place yourself in the moment.

 

Just a suggestion. No commands here. Hella now.

 

Trying, hard...

[InfiniteNow]

To me this is hypocricy, although we are pretty used to it.

 

Hypocricy? Yes. But, control of the masses? That's what is "important," right? World is changing. People are anxious. Think of all of the societies which have come and gone. As they grow, the interaction of the members of said societies grow increasingly complex. Although each individuals, when taken in aggregate, we are but Brownian motion… buffeting personalities, motivations, and desires. Alcohol helps maintain coherence. Those other Hubble like issues applied to the mind? Not so much…

 

I’d rather go to the grocery store than murder my neighbor because he has a garden and I’m hungry.

[Queso]

Alcohol helps maintain coherence.

 

I agree and disagree.

 

I am glad that America has some sort of drug. I am not glad that it's alcohol and tobacco . .(and all of those mysterious prescription meds...)

 

There are many people who are glad, though. They smoke and drink all day.

 

:doh:

 

I'm not against alcohol or tobacco. I occasionally drink and smoke tobaco out of my hookah. Mass produced cigarettes are absolutely wretched.

Upon impulse, a drink and a smoke sounds nice . .

 

And for the impulsive ones, it is.

 

Science is showing us the truth, it's gleaming before us,

and how many people listen?

 

The ones who don't. . their genetics are obsolete.

:evil:

 

I know the long term affects of both substances, and I know probably all of you do too, but sometimes some people aren't compatible with anything else, and they NEED something... Just to feel different. Some people's brains are not wired psychedelics. Some aren't wired for any drugs at all.

 

There needs to be this balance among us.

 

And there also needs to be truth.

 

:eek2:

[sanctus]

There are two points I have to add:

1) Maybe health problems are no associated with an LSD trip, but there is the risk to have a horror-trip...my father used to work with handicapped people, a woman was there because she threw herself out of a window during a trip...If you ask me this is already enough to make it a dangerous drug, but there is more: the risk of not getting down anymore.

 

2) Altough I'm in favor of legalization of marjiuana, I think it is by far more dangerous than alcool and this for the following reason: it can cause you to get schizophrenic, usually it is the case if you would have had anyway a high chance to become schizophrenic before you die, but smoking a lot can accelerate it, like you get it before you turn 20. I know well two persons to who that happened.

The consequences of alcohol are less strong, if you become an alcoholoc all the consequences you have if you manage to stop is that you have to resist to any single drop of alcohol for the rest of your life, nothing compared to schizophrenia.

[Queso]

#1

 

Set and setting, folks. NEVER ingest a psychedelic when you're in a hotel room way high up. That's just asking for it.

(from my observations, psychedelic people like to play in nature. they like to smile, and laugh, and talk about crazy theories. I've never ever seen anyone flip out and want to jump out of a window...)

 

And also, the effects from LSD wear off after 24 hours MAXIMUM, no matter how much the dose.

Although, I do wonder what would happen if someone ate an entire crystal of pure LSD. Aproximately 10,000 hits? That wouldn't be lethal, but I'd imagine your brain would just freeze like an overloaded PC.

 

you can use Thorazine to stop the "trip"

 

 

The only danger are the people themselves!!

 

 

 

#2 Marijuana does not directly cause someone to become schizo.

Usually, the person is already mildy schizo, and their interaction with drugs just spins them off into their own crazy world.

 

Know your body and your mind and your entheogens. They aren't for everybody.

[Queso]

Also, I know we aren't supposed to be discussing drugs on the forum, but when a thread comes along like this I HAVE to jump in.

 

I believe everybody needs to know the truth about these powerful, sacred keys that are found around the Earth.

 

I am not advocating their use, I am stating my observations as well as providing True information, rather than the propoganda that is imprinted in most peoples' brains.

 

Truth, that's all. This area of research happens to be my niche.

 

:eek2:

[Queso]

In U.S.legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivatives, and their semi-synthetic or fully synthetic substitutes "as well as cocaine and coca leaves," which although classified as "narcotics" in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), are chemically not narcotics. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not a narcotic.

 

So heroin and cocaine are narcotics.

Title of the thread: Good narcotics, or bad?

 

My answer is Bad.

 

Marijuana is a depressent (muscle relaxer)

 

psilocybin, mescaline, lsd are psychedelics

 

DMT is a psychedelic and a tryptamine

 

methamphetamines are ALL bad.

Many names and catagories for many pills...

 

Alcohol is a....What is alcohol?

 

Cocaine is also a stimulant.

Nicotine is too,

and caffeine.

 

MDMA just recently found a new home in the "Empatheogen" or Empathogen (one of the two) catagory.

[Ganoderma]

#1. I agree with that, physically perhaps there is little risk. but as with any mind altering chemical (alcohol included) there is risk of psychological damage/alteration.

 

#2. i disagree. in a purely physical sense i find alcohol to be a far far more dangerous drug. we just need to look at hospital logs and death records to prove that. on a psychological note i also think alcohol is more dangerous. look at its effects and look at marijuana’s effects. everyone is different but in general the drinker is the fighter and the stoner is the sleeper. alcohol is a serious depressant and many many people will get very depressed, agitated, emotional or flat out irrational. this can happen with anything, but i don't think it even comes close when comparing weed and booze.

 

 

There are two points I have to add:

1) Maybe health problems are no associated with an LSD trip, but there is the risk to have a horror-trip...my father used to work with handicapped people, a woman was there because she threw herself out of a window during a trip...If you ask me this is already enough to make it a dangerous drug, but there is more: the risk of not getting down anymore.

 

2) Altough I'm in favor of legalization of marjiuana, I think it is by far more dangerous than alcool and this for the following reason: it can cause you to get schizophrenic, usually it is the case if you would have had anyway a high chance to become schizophrenic before you die, but smoking a lot can accelerate it, like you get it before you turn 20. I know well two persons to who that happened.

The consequences of alcohol are less strong, if you become an alcoholoc all the consequences you have if you manage to stop is that you have to resist to any single drop of alcohol for the rest of your life, nothing compared to schizophrenia.

 

 

 

as for driving...well that is just common sense. you shouldn't drive if your tired, never mind if the road is changing colours and talking to you.

 

I also agree that the graph is a little misleading as MDMA can be pretty damaging. I think this report is more looking at physical damage associated with recreational use. not so much psychological damage.

 

No one can deny that many many many people die from tobacco and alcohol. in fact you don’t need a whole lot of alcohol to become poisoned, perhaps fatally. why do we get sick when we drink too much? its toxic and our body says no. that article says that roughly 20 shots of 40% alcohol, in a few minutes, is considered to be a fatal dose. perhaps its a lot, perhaps not. I too am glad that america has a drug, unfortunately i find that drug to stimulate violent/irrational behavior more than certain others. I think as far as a social narcotic, alcohol is very poor. As far as a healthy narcotic, alcohol is a poor choice. physically, psychologically and socially it kills many people every day.

 

i am not against alcohol, buyer beware like said. I am against such a dangerous drug being sold by governments and have safer drugs (in my pinion safer) controlled often with stiff penalties.

 

as far as physically dangerous i have yet to see a report of mushrooms, weed, or lsd killing someone by itself. certainly stupid behavior will kill people, but i haven't seen proof of the drug doing so.

 

Edit: a note on mushrooms. As far as i know there are no deaths due to psilocybe mushrooms. that said a lot of people mis-identify mushrooms and die from ingesting a very toxic mushroom. These mushrooms are illegal in many countries. Ironically a legal hallucinogenic mushroom, fly agaric (amanita muscaria), is responsible for deaths. Amanitas are famous for being fatally toxic and even if prepared right can prove very..."uncomfortable". Just thought i would add a note that the legal hallucinogenic mushroom sends many people to the hospital (or grave) while the illegal ones rarely if ever do so.

[Ganoderma]

orbsycli: In a way i agree with you. Time and setting. That said people need a baby sitter like a drunk needs a DD. In a social sense i personally think many people are too unprepared/stupid/unstable whatever to act properly. frankly some plants are too powerful to allow people to act properly, daturas, salvia, dmt etc come to mind. dangerous or not physically, some may be a serious concern to society (ie some crazy football player going whacko on datura). perhaps controlling such chemicals is worth it? but that is a touchy subject. on one hand, its nice to be free to simply grow a beautiful plant and enjoy its nature. on the other hand i dont want some loony killing my family cause he took too much after his divorce...

 

Or perhaps things like controlling but not criminalizing is a way to go. like several places in the USA with salvia. Its like alcohol you must be "18" or whatever years to buy it.

 

Understanding the plant is rather simple in comparison to understanding society. True, Shamans in south america perhaps can handle administrating brugsmania, where as a teenage living on the street in LA who sees a murder a month type of situation may not be mature enough and ready for such an experience. In addition certain drugs also take considerable time/energy to make. DMT for example will take many years (taking into account growing the various plants, unless you got toad hunting I guess) and frankly Mr I wanna get high won’t care enough. So in general people who are into those drugs are generally more educated a they spend much time growing and researching the steps needed to make it. Others such as meth/coke/heroin/weed/mdma etc are available on every street it seems and need a closer look at, especially their actuall safety.

 

How does one define the line? It's nice to be free and grow what you will, and some seem rather clear cut (ie marijuanas safety is rather good, whereas meth and heroin are rather dangerous) but how does one define all the in betweens such as in that table.

 

I guess the last thing I want to add as you know is many psychedelics are not addictive. In fact their trip is often so intense it may take days just to get used to reality again. Between that and physical tolerance it is not likely to become a burden on society as say tobacco and alcohol already are. I don’t like paying taxes for people to get a new liver/lung when they drank/smoked for 30 years. As cold as that sounds.

 

Hopefully we are not breaking any forum rules with this. Not encouraging usage, just discussing effects on people/society.

[CraigD]

methamphetamines are ALL bad.

I disagree.

 

For a minority of patients suffering from severe narcolepsy, methamphetamine is the only effective treatment drug. Severe narcolepsy can be very dangerous, because its sufferers can suddenly lose consciousness and be killed in accidents. The use of pharmaceutical-grade methamphetamine under the guidance of a physician is a life saver.

 

For this reason, Methamphetamine is on schedule II of the US CSA, as a drug with a high potential for abuse, but having an accepted medical use.

Alcohol is a....What is alcohol?

Simply put, alcohol is a central nervous depressant, so it would be fair to term it a narcotic, or “sleep drug”, though it is not termed this under US law. Unlike many psychoactive drugs, alcohol is not directly taken up by specific neuroreceptors, but increases the action of endogenous (“occurring within”) neurochemicals, primarily dopamine and various opioids. One might reasonable call alcohol “indirect morphine”.

 

Surprising for a drug that has been so long known and studied, the precise pharmochemistry of alcohol is not well-understood, but it is believed to act primarily by facilitating the function of a major neuroinhibitor, GABA (source: Alcohol: Neurobiology and Pharmacology)

MDMA just recently found a new home in the "Empatheogen" or Empathogen (one of the two) catagory.

Though empathogen (“causes empathy”) is an apt descriptive category from MDMA and similar drugs, it’s a symptomatic, not pharmacological one. MDMA is a phenethylamine, making it a chemical cousin to drugs such as ephedrine, mescaline, and the important endogenous neurotransmitter dopamine

#1. I agree with that, physically perhaps there is little risk [in using LSD]. but as with any mind altering chemical (alcohol included) there is risk of psychological damage/alteration.

Although diagnoses of long-lasting “drug induced psychosis” are accepted by some in the medical community, and widely accepted when resulting from excessive use of amphetamines, whether such a risk should be associated with LSD is a source of long-standing controversy. Emperical studies are complicated by the difficulty of determining if an experimental subject has not already or was not going to exhibit clinical psychosis without the use of LSD, and the legal status of LSD, which has largely halted credible research into it since 1970.

 

”This wikipedia article” has a short but accurate discussion of this controversy, with some citations and links.

 

Pharmacologically, the effect of LSD is fairly well understood, and appears to offer no risk of long-term mental illness. I’m unaware of any data supporting the claim of moderate or infrequent consumption of alcohol causing long-term mental illness.