We do drugs itt. - by The Alchemist
bloodyzeppelins on 22/8/2006 at 17:40
Well, while I haven't experimented with LSD or E (far too dangerous, in my opinion), I did trip on half an eighth of mushrooms the other week.
It was an overwhelmingly positive experience.
The drug has many dynamics, so it's impossible to tell you what your trip will be like, but mine consisted of extreme (and I mean *extreme*) happiness, an overall feeling of acceptance with my surroundings, and some deep personal understanding. Actually, I feel like my life has taken a turn for the better since my trip. I would recommend it to most anyone.... but make sure you're around people who you trust, and stay out of public places.
Would I ever do it again? Probably, but it's not something I would do on a regular basis.
Briareos H on 22/8/2006 at 18:46
Someone had to come up with this. This is merely a preliminary study to show how important the changes would be with new systematic scientific techniques of drug harm assessment. Unfortunately, these techniques are just in their infant state, and this chart is not based on really serious results. It should be taken more as showing the trends shaping potential drug harm and will be refined.
More particularly, it doesn't take into account any of the following points which change absolutely everything :
* The probability that what you buy is what you get. Take that into account and potential harm of ecstasy goes through the roof.
* The "social-ness" of the drug. You won't take cocaine or ecstasy in the same context as LSD or psilocybin. Chances are that on a first LSD or mushroom trip, you will be in a relatively quiet atmosphere with friends around you to watch over. Chances are that on a first ecstasy or snow white trip, they will be too busy dancing their ass off and not watching you fall from the 5th floor.
SD on 22/8/2006 at 19:33
Briareos, I recognise what you are saying (although I'm not sure your "social situations" are 100% accurate) so surely the only way to regulate the harm of these substances is to make them all legally available through licensed outlets ;)
Vigil on 22/8/2006 at 19:56
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
That's funny, because the UK Government's Scientific Select Committee has just reported that Ecstasy and LSD are among the least harmful drugs around.
Just out of interest, would this UK Government you're talking about be the same <a href="http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1489014#post1489014">neo-fascist government</a> busily spinning a <a href="http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1489046#post1489046">web of deception, hyperbole and lies</a>?
Gingerbread Man on 22/8/2006 at 20:01
I don't know what kind of criteria were used in that lovely colourful bar graph, but I have two things to say:
a) Pot more harmful than solvents lol.
b) Chronic use of Ecstasy results in clinically-verified massive cognitive deficits in linguistic ability across the board, and is in some aspects far more "harmful" than anything else.
The problem with this sort of hypersimplistic bar graph hilarity is that you cannot collapse everything down to one dimension like that. Never mind the fact that you can't use lollingly general terms like "harmful" in the first place.
But then this is what happens when things are dummied down for Joey Layman. There are only three options: Present findings accurately and have no one understand what the fuck is being said, present things for Joey Layman and potentially misrepresent the entire thing, or don't present findings at all and allow rumour and old wive's tales to rule the world.
The big concern with option 2 (the Joey Layman approach) is that simplified data presented as cute little colourful graphs can, and IS, tweaked to bolster whatever point of view the presenter wants to validate.
SD on 22/8/2006 at 21:08
Quote Posted by Vigil
Just out of interest, would this UK Government you're talking about be the same <a href="http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1489014#post1489014">neo-fascist government</a> busily spinning a <a href="http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1489046#post1489046">web of deception, hyperbole and lies</a>?
No, it's the Commons Select Committee, which has cross-party representation, and is made up of backbenchers.
Nevertheless, even assuming it was the "neo-fascists" in our government who came up with these results, I fail to see why their conclusions on this matter should not be trusted.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
I don't know what kind of criteria were used in that lovely colourful bar graph
How they calculated it was to get a whole bunch of scientists to assess the relative harm of each drug and then they averaged those ratings out. You're right that it's grossly simplified, but it does have some basis in scientific fact.
I think the only point they were trying to make was that traditional opinion on the relative danger of each drug was outdated, that some legal drugs were more dangerous than some illegal drugs, and that some illegal drugs weren't as dangerous as their classification made them out to be.
Gingerbread Man on 22/8/2006 at 22:24
Mostly I was just lamenting again (still) about how research findings get watered down, skewed, and then pre-chewed for dissemination to the public at large. And how there really isn't an alternative other than not making ongoing research publically available. Both are terrible ways to do things.
Most reasearch is really only decently understood by people in that particular field, anyway... it's not like scientists of any stripe will automatically stroke their goatees thoughfully and say "hmmm yes I see".
So the options are limited, unsatisfactory, and I just wish they'd stop parading grossly simplified bullshit around because the majority of people (laiety and priesthood both) get swayed by clear, obvious, and wrong generalisations.
Scots Taffer on 22/8/2006 at 23:54
Jesus Christ, did Stronts actually link a graph that displays a mean harm rating as subjectively decided by expert opinion?
Fucking lols, man. Please, just stop. I hate seeing statistics abused. :(
Quote:
You're right that it's grossly simplified, but it does have some basis in scientific fact.
