4 ms·

> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many p

> Is it creating violence or exacerbating violence? Depends on the substance, depends on the market, depends on the reason for using. I haven't seen too many people on MDMA become violent or impoverished through addiction, though their incessant hugs and platitudes can lead to a violent response if they don't have enough to go around. It's complex, but not that complex. We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally, what can be considered substance abuse, which substances often lead to abusive behaviour, which socio-economic factors lead to use in the first place, factors in the marketplace that lead to violence and crime, how we can monetarily/socially/legislatively abate the negative factors...and yet here we are with our proverbial junk in our hand wondering what to do. Start being objective, use methodologies that we've used for years for other problems that aren't taboo. We've travelled to the fucking moon. My non-objective opinion: Drugs are interesting. Drugs take the edge off of a less-than-stellar life. Drugs help the mind momentarily escape the trap set by forces who care little for your happiness and wellbeing. You can fix the latter, which is unlikely in our lifetime, or reduce the burden of being a drug user in the interim.

idonthaveaname 11y ago
> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally... Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13] Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9. Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily. Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.

idonthaveaname 11y ago

> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally... Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13] Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9. Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily. Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.