Decriminalize meth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2013, 02:28 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
What you need is to compare the number of people who use alcohol to the alcohol related problems, and then do the same for meth.

Friday night Sydney.... thousands and thousands people use alcohol, and several hundred end up in hospitals and in prisons. 1% ? 2%? 5 even?
Compare that to the % of meth users that end up in hospitals and in prisons.

The thing is, you can have 1-2 bears or a glass of vine every single night for years , and never ever suffer any consequences , medical or otherwise.
And you can't do that with meth. Take any amount of meth on daily basis, in two months you'll be sucking dicks on parking lots to get a fix.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 03:24 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 02:28 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  What you need is to compare the number of people who use alcohol to the alcohol related problems, and then do the same for meth.

Friday night Sydney.... thousands and thousands people use alcohol, and several hundred end up in hospitals and in prisons. 1% ? 2%? 5 even?
Compare that to the % of meth users that end up in hospitals and in prisons.

The thing is, you can have 1-2 bears or a glass of vine every single night for years , and never ever suffer any consequences , medical or otherwise.
And you can't do that with meth. Take any amount of meth on daily basis, in two months you'll be sucking dicks on parking lots to get a fix.

Nutt et al (2007) was published in The Lancet--one of the world's most prestigious medical journals. That study took account of all the factors that you refer to (and many more) in calculating the harm scores. It also sought out the opinions of multiple inpedendent addiction specialists. Alcohol is more harmful--i.e. in terms of the composite score--than amphetamines.

[Image: 5uimbs.png]

What you claim about methamphetamtine--which is based on nothing more than anecdote--is demonstrably false. Methamphetamine is used to treat ADHD, narcolepsy and obesity and all of the data from those applications as well as data from its military usage indicates that it can be used safely. Just because some tweaker that you know (or know of) self-destructed because of methamphetamine abuse doesn't negate data obtained from clinical trials and long-term studies such as those from the military. Anecdotes don't count for much. It was on the basis of anecdote ("Barry smoked a pack a day and he lived to 85") that smoking was believed to be benign.

Of course meth can be abused, that isn't in question. Alcohol too can be abused. Nutt et al (2007) shows that methamphetamine is not worse than alcohol in terms of potential for physical or psychological dependence (look at the table). The clinical data is consistent with these results. And for what its worth since you are impressed by anecdotes Nutt et al (2007) also agrees with my first-hand experience.

In terms of health-care costs and social harms alcohol is way ahead of amphetamines. Your position is completely without evidence.

Also, don't project your ignorance upon others. I've read the Nutt et al (2007) paper and other papers related to drug policy. You appear to have read nothing on the subject. But rather than concede that you attempt to drag me down to your level of ignorance and uninformed opinion. Some people still graduate from universities and read books and papers. Don't try and pardon your own ignorance with the implicit claim that everyone is as ignorant as you are. Since you appeal to "common sense" where then is the common sense in that idea?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
23-12-2013, 04:42 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 03:24 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 02:28 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  What you need is to compare the number of people who use alcohol to the alcohol related problems, and then do the same for meth.

Friday night Sydney.... thousands and thousands people use alcohol, and several hundred end up in hospitals and in prisons. 1% ? 2%? 5 even?
Compare that to the % of meth users that end up in hospitals and in prisons.

The thing is, you can have 1-2 bears or a glass of vine every single night for years , and never ever suffer any consequences , medical or otherwise.
And you can't do that with meth. Take any amount of meth on daily basis, in two months you'll be sucking dicks on parking lots to get a fix.

Nutt et al (2007) was published in The Lancet--one of the world's most prestigious medical journals. That study took account of all the factors that you refer to (and many more) in calculating the harm scores. It also sought out the opinions of multiple inpedendent addiction specialists. Alcohol is more harmful--i.e. in terms of the composite score--than amphetamines.

[Image: 5uimbs.png]

What you claim about methamphetamtine--which is based on nothing more than anecdote--is demonstrably false. Methamphetamine is used to treat ADHD, narcolepsy and obesity and all of the data from those applications as well as data from its military usage indicates that it can be used safely. Just because some tweaker that you know (or know of) self-destructed because of methamphetamine abuse doesn't negate data obtained from clinical trials and long-term studies such as those from the military. Anecdotes don't count for much. It was on the basis of anecdote ("Barry smoked a pack a day and he lived to 85") that smoking was believed to be benign.

Of course meth can be abused, that isn't in question. Alcohol too can be abused. Nutt et al (2007) shows that methamphetamine is not worse than alcohol in terms of potential for physical or psychological dependence (look at the table). The clinical data is consistent with these results. And for what its worth since you are impressed by anecdotes Nutt et al (2007) also agrees with my first-hand experience.

In terms of health-care costs and social harms alcohol is way ahead of amphetamines. Your position is completely without evidence.

Also, don't project your ignorance upon others. I've read the Nutt et al (2007) paper and other papers related to drug policy. You appear to have read nothing on the subject. But rather than concede that you attempt to drag me down to your level of ignorance and uninformed opinion. Some people still graduate from universities and read books and papers. Don't try and pardon your own ignorance with the implicit claim that everyone is as ignorant as you are. Since you appeal to "common sense" where then is the common sense in that idea?

Your arrogance and self worth delusion combined with your social ineptness far outweighs the benefits of anything smart you have to say.

Don't you try to pardon your arrogance with "I've read shit and you didn't"

If you think someone is wrong about something, there is a way of saying it without being an asshole.
Being ignorant about a subject is not nearly as bad as being an pathetic bastard about everything you do.
I can take some time an read about it and get knowledgeable on the subject, but you will still be an insufferable bastard.

In short...despite all the things you know and stuff you've read, is not worth a shit because you are an idiot.
Fuck you. Smile

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 04:42 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Your arrogance and self worth delusion combined with your social ineptness far outweighs the benefits of anything smart you have to say.

No it doesn't and it can't. I don't create truth I just report it. The truth of something is not dependent on me.

Quote:Don't you try to pardon your arrogance with "I've read shit and you didn't"

That is a legitimate "pardon". On a substantive topic all that really matters is truth versus falsehood. Your ignorance does not warrant special handling. If you don't want your ignorance exposed then don't aggressively enter an argument on just a hope that all of the participants are as ignorant and incompetent as you are.

Quote:If you think someone is wrong about something, there is a way of saying it without being an asshole.

Yes there is but you voided that privilege with your initial response.

Quote:Being ignorant about a subject is not nearly as bad as being an pathetic bastard about everything you do.

Being ignorant about a subject you choose to pontificate upon--which is what you did--is "being an (sic) pathetic bastard".

Quote:I can take some time an read about it and get knowledgeable on the subject, but you will still be an insufferable bastard.

No, I don't think you have the brains to become knowledgeable about pharmacology and public policy. You haven't even got the basics of clear thinking nailed down. Also, it appears your ignorance is protected, you are apparently impervious to knowledge even when it is thrown at you. That is "being an (sic) pathetic bastard".

Quote:In short...despite all the things you know and stuff you've read, is not worth a shit because you are an idiot.
Fuck you. Smile

It's actually worth much and in quantifiable terms since my income is linked to my knowledge. It is your opinion of my knowledge which is "is not worth a shit".

Regarding idiocy, you have demonstrated it in spades. You get into an argument on a subject you know nothing about on the basis of an unfounded projective assumption that everyone else is (for some reason) as ignorant as you are about the subject. That's two idiotic actions. Your silly argument is thoroughly contradicted but instead of conceding your error you resort to some self-therapeutic illogic. That too is idiotic.

You just had your ignorant ass handed to you. So fuck you, ignorant idiot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 08:10 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
Chippy, making friends as usual. Big Grin

Decriminalize math, I keep reading. But I'm not torn on the issue. Fuck no, is the answer. I used to do boatloads of that shit, and since learned that most people cannot. Not even once, the meme goes, and the meme ain't really lying.

But if opium, cocaine, and cannabis were legalized, I feel that all those other things would be a minor issue.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
23-12-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 08:10 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Chippy, making friends as usual. Big Grin

Decriminalize math, I keep reading. But I'm not torn on the issue. Fuck no, is the answer. I used to do boatloads of that shit, and since learned that most people cannot. Not even once, the meme goes, and the meme ain't really lying.

But if opium, cocaine, and cannabis were legalized, I feel that all those other things would be a minor issue.

If we can agree that people should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies so long as:
(a) they have private health insurance; and
(b) they don't hurt anyone else;
then the pharmacological properties of methamphetamine are irrelevant. There are many ways I can destroy my health permanently that aren't illegal. The central issue here is whether any form of self-regarding behaviour should attract criminal prosecution.

Even if it is true that most people can't manage their meth usage--and the evidence doesn't show that--it is irrelevant. What moral calculus are you using that shows that liver failure due to at least one bottle of wine a night for 20 years is ok but methamphetamine induced psychosis is bad? They are equally bad as far as I can tell and because they are self-regarding they are also not my business.

Would a criminal record and time in jail been good for you? Did you need to be criminally prosecuted when you were using?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 08:25 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 08:10 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Chippy, making friends as usual. Big Grin

Decriminalize math, I keep reading. But I'm not torn on the issue. Fuck no, is the answer. I used to do boatloads of that shit, and since learned that most people cannot. Not even once, the meme goes, and the meme ain't really lying.

But if opium, cocaine, and cannabis were legalized, I feel that all those other things would be a minor issue.

If we can agree that people should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies so long as:
(a) they have private health insurance; and
(b) they don't hurt anyone else;
then the pharmacological properties of methamphetamine are irrelevant. There are many ways I can destroy my health permanently that aren't illegal. The central issue here is whether any form of self-regarding behaviour should attract criminal prosecution.

Even if it is true that most people can't manage their meth usage--and the evidence doesn't show that--it is irrelevant. What moral calculus are you using that shows that liver failure due to at least one bottle of wine a night for 20 years is ok but methamphetamine induced psychosis is bad? They are equally bad as far as I can tell and because they are self-regarding they are also not my business.

Would a criminal record and time in jail been good for you? Did you need to be criminally prosecuted when you were using?

So if they're not your business, what business you got telling me what's what? Big Grin

And the local evidence from being a user is that far more people can handle their alcohol than their meth. Besides, it's fucking gross. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 12:35 PM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 09:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 08:25 AM)Chippy Wrote:  If we can agree that people should be able to do whatever they like with their bodies so long as:
(a) they have private health insurance; and
(b) they don't hurt anyone else;
then the pharmacological properties of methamphetamine are irrelevant. There are many ways I can destroy my health permanently that aren't illegal. The central issue here is whether any form of self-regarding behaviour should attract criminal prosecution.

Even if it is true that most people can't manage their meth usage--and the evidence doesn't show that--it is irrelevant. What moral calculus are you using that shows that liver failure due to at least one bottle of wine a night for 20 years is ok but methamphetamine induced psychosis is bad? They are equally bad as far as I can tell and because they are self-regarding they are also not my business.

Would a criminal record and time in jail been good for you? Did you need to be criminally prosecuted when you were using?

So if they're not your business, what business you got telling me what's what? Big Grin

And the local evidence from being a user is that far more people can handle their alcohol than their meth. Besides, it's fucking gross. Tongue

You're just a bigoted methaphobe. Angry

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
(23-12-2013 05:45 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No it doesn't and it can't. I don't create truth I just report it. The truth of something is not dependent on me.

Of course you don't create the truth or take part in discovering it, you are a simple delivery boy trying to take credit for other peoples research in order to appear smart on an internet forum.
How sad.

Quote:That is a legitimate "pardon". On a substantive topic all that really matters is truth versus falsehood. Your ignorance does not warrant special handling. If you don't want your ignorance exposed then don't aggressively enter an argument on just a hope that all of the participants are as ignorant and incompetent as you are.


Yes there is but you voided that privilege with your initial response.

Like you did the first time you posted on this forum?

And no, it's not a legitimate pardon. You think that your ability to use a search engine or your imagined competence can compensate for all shortcomings you exhibit as a person. It doesn't.
You are just an empty shell, devoid of any value as a human being, no amount of information you gather and redistribute can make up for that.


Quote:Being ignorant about a subject you choose to pontificate upon--which is what you did--is "being an (sic) pathetic bastard".
Everything you "know" about any subject is just a google search away, but any time you offer your own opinion abut the subject shows that you are an idiot incapable of comprehending the issue in hand.

Quote:No, I don't think you have the brains to become knowledgeable about pharmacology and public policy.

Like I said, stick to what you can google. Again you confuse the intellect of people whose researches you are using with your own. They are smart, not you.

Quote:You haven't even got the basics of clear thinking nailed down. Also, it appears your ignorance is protected, you are apparently impervious to knowledge even when it is thrown at you. That is "being an (sic) pathetic bastard".
What is protected is your delusion about your intellectual abilities and your importance .


Quote:It's actually worth much and in quantifiable terms since my income is linked to my knowledge. It is your opinion of my knowledge which is "is not worth a shit".
Your income?
So you'll be moving out of your mom's basement soon then?
I suggest you use your income to pay a good therapist, you need one desperately.

Quote:Regarding idiocy, you have demonstrated it in spades. You get into an argument on a subject you know nothing about on the basis of an unfounded projective assumption that everyone else is (for some reason) as ignorant as you are about the subject. That's two idiotic actions. Your silly argument is thoroughly contradicted but instead of conceding your error you resort to some self-therapeutic illogic. That too is idiotic.
Again, with all the time and effort you invested in researching the subject you fail to recognize the real issues of legalizing meth, and I am the stupid one?
You are stupid enough to compare the worst case scenario of alcohol abuse to the best possible application of meth. Instead of comparing the effects on average user of alcohol to an average user of meth you compare the backstreet dumpster digging alcoholic to a military personnel or medical patients getting meth in a controlled environment administered by medical stuff.

Hint:
Most people who drink
[Image: r6z5ag.jpg]

"Same" people years latter
[Image: 35l5kll.jpg]

on the other hand , average meth user

[Image: 260qtyd.jpg]

And you think you made a good point and that you proved something. Weeping


Your claim that is less harmful for people and the society to take meth on friday nights then to have a beer, and that a party with 50 teens taking meth is less harmful then the same 50 teens having a few drinks. Frusty

You also assume that if something is prescribed to soldiers it must be all right.
On top of it you try to justify legalizing one bad thing with the fact that another bad thing is legal.
You stupid fuck.

Or perhaps you are a former/current user and suffer consequences?

Quote:Meth can cause users to become delusional, paranoid and suffer from hallucinations. It can also lead to psychotic behavior even months after a user has stopped using. In other words, meth can make you act crazy.

You fail to mention that meth is highly addictive, to the point that it can hardly be
called a "recreational drug".

Quote:Meth is a highly addictive drug that stimulates the central nervous system by causing chemical reactions in certain areas of the brain. The presence of this drug in the brain tricks the body into believing that it has unlimited energy supplies. Meth use destroys much of the wiring in the pleasure centers of the brain; thus, making it difficult to experience pleasure at all in the absence of the drug. Meth use has also been reported to alter the functioning in certain areas of the brain, which can lead to some very disturbing or even potentially violent behavior. Even after meth use has ceased, brain dysfunction has often been reported to last for up to several months.

You fail to mention the risk of meth overdose, and how easy is to overdose with it for the first time user or the experienced one.

Quote:A meth overdose, unlike with most other types of drugs, gives the user no immediate symptoms; thus, a person can ingest a lethal dose of the drug and not even realize it. Because of the rapid onset of the drug, meth overdose deaths have often been reported to occur quite suddenly and unexpectedly. The reason that it is not difficult to overdose on this particular drug is because meth is made up of various poisonous substances, and no single batch is formulated in exactly the same way; thus, an individual risks a meth overdose every time that they use the toxic drug.


Quote:You just had your ignorant ass handed to you. So fuck you, ignorant idiot.
Lol, you wish. A pathetic little peace of shit like you is not capable of that. You are again showing how deluded you are and how much your ego runs away with you.
While sometimes dysfunctional individuals can hold my interest for some time, you are way to annoying to interact with so I will leave you to your sad existence.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Decriminalize meth?
Alcohol:
Before:
[Image: nnolte.jpg]

After:
[Image: noltemug.jpg]

(23-12-2013 12:41 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  on the other hand , average meth user

I've only known two meth users. One was architect, and neither one would you know they were on something. Just curious how many meth users you interviewed to get stats on what the "average" meth user is like?

Regardless, imo, much of the reason why meth is so bad is because it's illegal, therefore only a seedier crowd takes it, it lacks acceptance, and people taking it are getting impure, deadly stuff cooked in someone's kitchen. If it were reversed, and meth was legal and alcohol was not, I imagine we'd also see people drinking nasty, dangerous moonshine, and meth users would look more like those in your pictures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: