Thai Woman Nabbed At Suvarnabhumi Airport With 4Kg 'ice'

[sysardman]

No negative judgement from me regardless if escaping or altering one's reality but will say there isn't anybody who doesn't escape be it through drugs or something else. Just have to be sure to return when needed.

There is very little correlation between legal status of drugs and their level of harmfulness. It is fallacious to categorize all drugs into one "bad" category; each drug is unique and so should be considered individually. Crystal methamphetamine ("ice") is quite harmful from what I've researched, so I am not at all an advocate for it as I am for cannabis and MDMA. But I am against prohibition of drugs in general as many other problems have arisen from it. Education with factual information is better, but unfounded propaganda has bred mistrust in authorities, so that mistrust may need to be repaired first. Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs. That would be much better than the situation that we have now - relatively harmless drugs prohibited leaving people little choice but to either comply with the law and take harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or take the illegal route and be offered both harmful and relatively harmless drugs from the same dealer.

Just to add to the observations about harmful drugs, it's actually the governments attempts to prohibit the well know substances (cannabis, heroin, LSD, cocaine) that all these designer drugs have sprung up. Every time new legislation includes another drug then some enterprising person whips up a batch of some new drug to circumvent the law for a short period before that too is added to the growing list. The problem then is that these new drugs are unkown and therefore untested before they are pushed on to an eager market seeking a high. The Mr Bigs are not some shady guys on a street corner but businessmen who know how to market the stuff by giving them fancy names and also how to increase profits by cutting the drugs with bulking agents.

Just read the Brad Pitt (Yahoo News) article and I hope his endorsement doesn't fall on deaf ears

[FarangTalk]

I would like the laws to be changed though or at least for there to be more tolerance of soft drugs like Cannabis or MDMA like in Netherlands.

Aren't they now trying to reverse that trend in the Netherlands?

Recently they banned tourists from using the famous coffee shops.

[simple1]

@hyperdimension: I've noticed you have mentioned the use of MDMA in a few other topics. From the sounds of it you are a fairly regular user. I might be wrong, but I very much doubt you are acquiring pure MDMA, so be careful of the longer term effects. Whether you care or not is obviously "up to you". Hopefully you are not buying in Thailand as you cannot trust anyone in Thailand regards this activity, even your "best friend"

I've taken MDMA plenty of times (outside of Thailand), and based on the amazing and fun experiences that I've had, most were good quality (the effects I experienced were almost exactly the same as those listed here: MDMA). I used a test kit before ingestion to ensure that what I got contained MDMA (MDMA turns purple or black, methamphetamine turns orange). Only occasionally it turned out to be methamphetamine. I'm aware that there is very little tolerance to illegal drugs in Thailand, despite the scientific evidence that shows that many of the illegal drugs are much less harmful than legal and common drugs like alcohol or tobacco; so I avoid illegal drugs here and do not condone their use whilst in Thailand. I would like the laws to be changed though or at least for there to be more tolerance of soft drugs like Cannabis or MDMA like in Netherlands.

Please forgive if the followings sounds pedantic. But for those who don't know there is no tolerance in Thailand for illegal drugs. e.g. if during a roadside check a Thai person is found to be positive during a urine test it's an automatic minimum 10,000 baht fine (one month income for an average Thai), cannot pay go to rehab/prison. Procession of even a single YaBa tablet is a significant fine for a Thai or if cannot pay, prison/rehab. Obviously the fine amounts are negotiable with the police. If no cash Thai's will sometimes borrow on the black money market with crippling interest rates.

[sunshine51]

Geeze...MDMA (ecstacy), Yaba, Crack Coke etc...etc...

Doesn't anybody simply smoke a nice doobie anymore?

And if so...why not? In my reckoning, these days one would

have to be extremely stupid to take a tablet, capsule or

powder from somebody who says "it's good shit". Just

read the papers or do a Google search on adulterated

"recreational" drugs and see for yourself. At least if you

light up a joint and the stuff been stepped on...you'll

know it before it can do any damage to you.

[meom]

Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs.

I don't think so.

Most people that take drugs are very well aware that what they're taking ain't exactly healthy in the long run.

Every drug is different but everybody's brain is differently wired as well which is the main reason why people choose the drug that they favor.

For example personally I don't mind some of the "harder" drugs but I couldn't care less about some of the softer "less hsrmfull" drugs simply because they don't do anything for me.

The same applies to alcohol where people choose their drink on their preference such as beer or vodka. One might be less harmfull than the other but most people would't care about that.

[hyperdimension]

Geeze...MDMA (ecstacy), Yaba, Crack Coke etc...etc...

Doesn't anybody simply smoke a nice doobie anymore?

And if so...why not? In my reckoning, these days one would

have to be extremely stupid to take a tablet, capsule or

powder from somebody who says "it's good shit". Just

read the papers or do a Google search on adulterated

"recreational" drugs and see for yourself. At least if you

light up a joint and the stuff been stepped on...you'll

know it before it can do any damage to you.

Generally there is an element of trust as well as business principles when it comes to illegal recreational drugs. Drug dealers are found through friends, and drug dealers do not want their customers to be dying or getting sick as it's more difficult to maintain a steady income from continually finding new customers than to keep existing regular customers. Unsatisfied customers can be bad for business (and can even lead to death) due to word-of-mouth, whilst if you provide good quality products, customers are more likely to return to buy more and also good words of your reputation can spread.

In Thailand however, there is a large flow of tourists coming in and out who want to have a good time whilst visiting the country. Since they are only going to stay temporarily, there is no point for drug dealers to try to keep them as regular customers. So this can lead to more incidence of scams or lack of concern as dealers try to snatch whatever money they can from tourists who are passing through. Legalization of illegal drugs would eliminate this as well as all other criminal drug activity, and users would be able to purchase drugs knowing that they are getting exactly what they asked for.

I have read that there are stalls on the Thai islands that sell buckets of alcohol mixed with other stuff (possibly insect repellant), and people still buy and drink them without knowing what's in them. It is idiotic, but it happens.

Edited October 17, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs.

I don't think so.

Most people that take drugs are very well aware that what they're taking ain't exactly healthy in the long run.

There is some truth in that, especially when you see so many people smoking tobacco; but many people smoke tobacco because they are addicted. For whatever reason they do it, at least they are (hopefully) aware of the health effects and are making an informed choice. The law gets in the way of making informed decisions and stifles free choice, such that many people think, with the help of unfounded propaganda, that all illegal drugs are bad, which is too simplistic and misinformed.

Every drug is different but everybody's brain is differently wired as well which is the main reason why people choose the drug that they favor.

For example personally I don't mind some of the "harder" drugs but I couldn't care less about some of the softer "less hsrmfull" drugs simply because they don't do anything for me.

The same applies to alcohol where people choose their drink on their preference such as beer or vodka. One might be less harmfull than the other but most people would't care about that.

Of course people will prefer to take whataver makes them feel good, but they should at least be informed of both the good and bad short-term and long-term effects. When it comes to illegal drugs, most people are taught that all illegal drugs are bad and should all be avoided, and never taught about the positive effects. Some people may one day try an illegal drug and realize that it makes them feel so great; since they were never taught about specific negative effects and how to prevent them and handle them, they are at risk of harming themselves, such as become addicted (e.g. to heroin or cocaine) or die from dehydration (e.g. MDMA). They may also realize that everything that they were taught about illegal drugs could all be lies, and this breeds mistrust in authorities and makes the person feel like they are being treated like children who can't think and make decisions for themselves.

I personally would avoid harmful drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, as I am health conscious, and I prefer MDMA because the effects are perfect enough and in around 30 years of its prevalence it has not been shown to be anywhere near as harmful as the aforementioned substances. The key point is that people should be informed of the scientific facts, then let them make their own decision. I think many people would gravitate to the less harmful drugs and away from alcohol and tobacco if they were well-informed.

Edited October 17, 2012 by hyperdimension

[connda]

Death penalty or life in prison. Next?

[sunshine51]

Once people know which drugs are extremely harmful and which aren't, they are likely to avoid the most harmful drugs and instead take the least harmful drugs (after legalization) if they so choose to take drugs.

I don't think so.

Most people that take drugs are very well aware that what they're taking ain't exactly healthy in the long run.

There is some truth in that, especially when you see so many people smoking tobacco; but many people smoke tobacco because they are addicted. For whatever reason they do it, at least they are (hopefully) aware of the health effects and are making an informed choice. The law gets in the way of making informed decisions and stifles free choice, such that many people think, with the help of unfounded propaganda, that all illegal drugs are bad, which is too simplistic and misinformed.

Every drug is different but everybody's brain is differently wired as well which is the main reason why people choose the drug that they favor.

For example personally I don't mind some of the "harder" drugs but I couldn't care less about some of the softer "less hsrmfull" drugs simply because they don't do anything for me.

The same applies to alcohol where people choose their drink on their preference such as beer or vodka. One might be less harmfull than the other but most people would't care about that.

Of course people will prefer to take whataver makes them feel good, but they should at least be informed of both the good and bad short-term and long-term effects. When it comes to illegal drugs, most people are taught that all illegal drugs are bad and should all be avoided, and never taught about the positive effects. Some people may one day try an illegal drug and realize that it makes them feel so great; since they were never taught about specific negative effects and how to prevent them and handle them, they are at risk of harming themselves, such as become addicted (e.g. to heroin or cocaine) or die from dehydration (e.g. MDMA). They may also realize that everything that they were taught about illegal drugs could all be lies, and this breeds mistrust in authorities and makes the person feel like they are being treated like children who can't think and make decisions for themselves.

I personally would avoid harmful drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, as I am health conscious, and I prefer MDMA because the effects are perfect enough and in around 30 years of its prevalence it has not been shown to be anywhere near as harmful as the aforementioned substances. The key point is that people should be informed of the scientific facts, then let them make their own decision. I think many people would gravitate to the less harmful drugs and away from alcohol and tobacco if they were well-informed.

MDMA...Ecstacy...is not harmful? BS. Ask any cop about trying to subdue a perp under

it's influence and you'll ha ve an answer you won't like. MDMA also used to mixed with

crap pot about 40 years ago to boost its potency and a lotta people literally freaked

out after a single joint...or less. Perhaps it also has something to do with what the MDMA

may be cut with but I seriously doubt it is the only cause. There is no such thing as a

"pure" illicit drug either...the chemicals used in the manufacturing process aren't

the same as Big Pharma use in terms of purity or quality. Just go to Columbia and

poke your nose around in the hills to get a whif to understand what I mean. If

Columbia is too hot for you try Bolivia or Peru...less internal problems there these

days.

Heroin...Afghainsian & the Golden Triangles #1 export substance....grade 4 smack

isn't pure either; if it was people would be dropping like Agent Oragne sprayed

vegetation. BTW,,,grade 4 heroin is the purest form there is available and it's only

about 70% pure from the factory. When it hits the streets it's down to around 10%.

Cocaine...my favourite topic...Toot cannot be 100 % pure in Earths atrmosphere,

only in a vacuum. The best that used to come outta "South America" was around

80% in purity...by the time it hit the streets that would be about the same as heroin

was and why it was usually cut with methamphetamine sulphate. Nearly pure cocaine

doesn't burn your nose nor taste like poop when it rolls down your sinus tubes into

your throat. All that happens because of what it's cut with. Cocaine...by itself is not

physically addictive as long as it is in it's purest form. It is psychologically addictive

though and that's the main reason why the price of it went from around $40USD

per ounce back in 1970 to whatever it is today. All I know about the price for an

ounce of coke is a 30 year old figure....$2500-$2800 back in 1980. It did gain quite

a popularity in 10 years.

There is no such thing as "methamphetamine"...but there are salts of this substance

...namely methamphetamine sulphate or methamphetamine nitrate. One kills qick

while the other makes one get a lotta sores while slowly killing themselves. Just

Google for the photo's...they're all over the place. Gotta remember that old Canned

Heat song...Amphetamine Annie....Speed Kills.

I'm not going on with this any more save to say that I also agree with you that

legalisation & taxation will solve one of the worlds largest problems and assist

in deficit relief of many countries...without producing a planet of drug crazed

lunatics. Sadly...the world isn't quite ready to legalise the drugs that are deemed

illegal today...why?...there's mega money to be made that's why.

[sysardman]

Death penalty or life in prison. Next?

So you're all for legalisation or did a politician tell you to say that.

Edited October 17, 2012 by sysardman

[hyperdimension]

MDMA...Ecstacy...is not harmful? BS.

I didn't say not at all harmful, as everything can be harmful depending on how much is taken. But in relative terms it is less harmful than other drugs. So would you disagree with the findings of the following two scientific studies that rank the harmfulness of various drugs?:

Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis:

Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse: results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland:

I'd be genuinely interested to read any other scientific studies that compare the harmfulness of various drugs with each other that you know of.

Ask any cop about trying to subdue a perp under it's influence and you'll ha ve an answer you won't like.

MDMA produces intensely euphoric feelings and so does not cause feelings of anger or aggression, so a user is unlikely to do anything violent. Methamphetamine is not as euphoric and instead produces extremely energetic feelings, so the user may feel powerful and may be more likely to be violent if there is some trigger. Bit I think alcohol is still far more likely to cause violence than either or almost any other drug.

MDMA also used to mixed with crap pot about 40 years ago to boost its potency and a lotta people literally freaked out after a single joint...or less.

I don't know how true this is as I think MDMA is more expensive to produce than cannabis and so would not make economical sense. I also think MDMA cannot be smoked, as if it could then so many people who take it would be doing it. MDMA can be taken orally or snorted or "plugged" (inserted into the anus), but I haven't read or heard of anyone smoking it and who prefers such a route. Methamphetamine, however, can be smoked, and that is how "ice" is often taken. The few accounts of people claiming to have felt effects from smoking MDMA could be due to other ingredients (such as methamphetamine) and not the MDMA, so I agree when you said "Perhaps it also has something to do with what the MDMA may be cut with".

Edited October 18, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

There is no such thing as a "pure" illicit drug either...the chemicals used in the manufacturing process aren't the same as Big Pharma use in terms of purity or quality.

I agree. One of the dangers of taking illegal drugs is that there is a risk of taking impurities that are more harmful than the drug itself. Legalization and regulation would rectify this.

Sadly...the world isn't quite ready to legalise the drugs that are deemed illegal today...why?...there's mega money to be made that's why.

Alcohol producers want to keep their monopoly in the legal recreational drugs market. But I think "big pharma" should consider challenging them by lobbying for legalization of MDMA.

Edited October 18, 2012 by hyperdimension

[meom]

MDMA produs intensely euphoric feelings and so does not cause feelings of anger or aggression, so a user is unlikely to do anything violent. Methamphetamine is not as euphoric and instead produces extremely energetic feelings, so the user may feel powerful and may be more likely to be violent if there is some trigger. Bit I think alcohol is still far more likely to cause violence than either or almost any other drug.

It does not cause feelings of anger or aggression while you're euphoric but once you come down and the drug wears off it tends to cause depressive feelings which in itself tend to lower your threshold of becoming aggressive.

What goes up must come down and unfortunately not everyone can handle the down specially when it takes you lower than you're normally used to.

[hyperdimension]

MDMA produs intensely euphoric feelings and so does not cause feelings of anger or aggression, so a user is unlikely to do anything violent. Methamphetamine is not as euphoric and instead produces extremely energetic feelings, so the user may feel powerful and may be more likely to be violent if there is some trigger. Bit I think alcohol is still far more likely to cause violence than either or almost any other drug.

It does not cause feelings of anger or aggression while you're euphoric but once you come down and the drug wears off it tends to cause depressive feelings which in itself tend to lower your threshold of becoming aggressive.

What goes up must come down and unfortunately not everyone can handle the down specially when it takes you lower than you're normally used to.

A comedown is comparable to a hangover after a night of alcohol intoxication. The comedown is probably the only reason to why I would not call MDMA the perfect party drug, but I think it comes closest to perfect than any other substances - the experience of "coming up" and then the 3 or 4 hour peak is definitive bliss. I'd rate alcohol poorly as a party drug even though it is the most commonly used drug for partying / celebrating, as the experience even before the hangover is not so pleasurable. Alcohol diminishes activity in the brain that controls restraint, so users are more likely to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do or say, which is why fights (both verbal and physical) are common when people are drunk. On MDMA users feel joyful and feel as if everyone around them is a friend; it sounds cheesy but great fun when everyone around you is also on MDMA.

I think during a comedown a user would be feeling fatigued, so apart from the possibility of verbal arguments the motivation to get into physical fights wouldn't be as high as during the time when a user is experiencing alcohol intoxication.

Edited October 18, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Nisa]

Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse: results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland:

Do you have a list of the criteria and scale weigting they used in what they classified as "harm" especially when it comes to others. Also not really clear if this is per population or per user. In other words is alcohol the worst in some respects because it is the most used drug or are they saying anyone who drinks alcohol is likely to have more harm to themselves than somebody who does Meth? The the same question applies to the effect of others, is it skewed because of a particular drug being more prevalent or are the only looking at the average person exposed to a person who uses a specific drug.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Nisa

[meom]

MDMA produs intensely euphoric feelings and so does not cause feelings of anger or aggression, so a user is unlikely to do anything violent. Methamphetamine is not as euphoric and instead produces extremely energetic feelings, so the user may feel powerful and may be more likely to be violent if there is some trigger. Bit I think alcohol is still far more likely to cause violence than either or almost any other drug.

It does not cause feelings of anger or aggression while you're euphoric but once you come down and the drug wears off it tends to cause depressive feelings which in itself tend to lower your threshold of becoming aggressive.

What goes up must come down and unfortunately not everyone can handle the down specially when it takes you lower than you're normally used to.

A comedown is comparable to a hangover after a night of alcohol intoxication. The comedown is probably the only reason to why I would not call MDMA the perfect party drug, but I think it comes closest to perfect than any other substances - the experience of "coming up" and then the 3 or 4 hour peak is definitive bliss.

It might be comparable to a hangover in the short-term but longterm with repeated use apparently serotonergic changes take place in the brain which are not exactly healthy.

These changes have to do with oxidative stress which most probably is caused by MDMA metabolites.

This cause nerve axons to damage or degenerate which has the potential to cause all sorts of psychiatric and behavioral problems in future.

I'm all for legalisation and people should be free to make their own decision but I don't buy into your argument that MDMA is less harmfull.

In the end when people take recreational drugs they don't take therapeutic doses but more often than not they take quantities which are of the scale and this makes it quite unpredictable what the future consequences will be.

[hyperdimension]

Do you have a list of the criteria and scale weigting they used in what they classified as "harm" especially when it comes to others.

Did you have a look at the reports?

From Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis, here are the 16 evaluation criteria organized by harms to users and harms to others:

Here are the definitions of each evaluation criteria:

Drug-specific mortality: Intrinsic lethality of the drug expressed as ratio of lethal dose and standard dose (for adults)

Drug-related mortality: The extent to which life is shortened by the use of the drug (excludes drug-specifi c mortality)—eg, road traffic accidents, lung cancers, HIV, suicide

Drug-specific damage: Drug-specific damage to physical health—eg, cirrhosis, seizures, strokes, cardiomyopathy, stomach ulcers

Drug-related damage: Drug-related damage to physical health, including consequences of, for example, sexual unwanted activities and self-harm, blood-borne viruses, emphysema, and damage from cutting agents

Dependence: The extent to which a drug creates a propensity or urge to continue to use despite adverse consequences (ICD 10 or DSM IV)

Drug-specific impairment of mental functioning: eg, amfetamine-induced psychosis, ketamine intoxication

Drug-related impairment of mental functioning: eg, mood disorders secondary to drug-user’s lifestyle or drug use

Loss of tangibles: Extent of loss of tangible things (eg, income, housing, job, educational achievements, criminal record, imprisonment)

Loss of relationships: Extent of loss of relationship with family and friends

Injury: Extent to which the use of a drug increases the chance of injuries to others both directly and indirectly—eg, violence (including domestic violence), traffic accident, fetal harm, drug waste, secondary transmission of blood-borne viruses

Crime: Extent to which the use of a drug involves or leads to an increase in volume of acquisitive crime (beyond the use-ofdrug act) directly or indirectly (at the population level, not the individual level)

Environmental damage: Extent to which the use and production of a drug causes environmental damage locally—eg, toxic waste from amfetamine factories, discarded needles

Family adversities: Extent to which the use of a drug causes family adversities— eg, family breakdown, economic wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, future prospects of children, child neglect

International damage: Extent to which the use of a drug in the UK contributes to damage internationally—eg, deforestation, destabilisation of countries, international crime, new markets

Economic cost: Extent to which the use of a drug causes direct costs to the country (eg, health care, police, prisons, social services, customs, insurance, crime) and indirect costs (eg, loss of productivity, absenteeism)

Community: Extent to which the use of a drug creates decline in social cohesion and decline in the reputation of the community

Also not really clear if this is per population or per user.

It is both, depending on which of the above criteria is being looked at. e.g. "Drug-specific damage" concerns only the user. "Economic cost" concerns the country.

[hyperdimension]

A comedown is comparable to a hangover after a night of alcohol intoxication. The comedown is probably the only reason to why I would not call MDMA the perfect party drug, but I think it comes closest to perfect than any other substances - the experience of "coming up" and then the 3 or 4 hour peak is definitive bliss.

It might be comparable to a hangover in the short-term but longterm with repeated use apparently serotonergic changes take place in the brain which are not exactly healthy.

These changes have to do with oxidative stress which most probably is caused by MDMA metabolites.

This cause nerve axons to damage or degenerate which has the potential to cause all sorts of psychiatric and behavioral problems in future.

The damage may be temporary; from what I've read, the brain recovers from it. This of course would mean that users should allow time for the brain to recover and not take the drug too frequently. This should be part of the factual and safety education about the drug (or any other recreational drug), instead of simply prohibiting it and saying "just don't do it". Personally I'd keep at least a one month period between MDMA doses. Each drug would have its unique optimal range of dosage amount and frequency that balances out enjoyable effects and safety.

Here's some news from around 4 months ago: Pure ecstasy can be 'safe' for adults, health official says. Here's a quote:

The medical establishment widely agrees MDMA is not addictive. But new research suggests some of the drug's long-stated ill effects are exaggerated.

Using MDMA does nothing to impair cognitive functioning, found one U.S. government-funded study published in the journal Addiction in February 2011.

[hyperdimension]

I'm all for legalisation and people should be free to make their own decision but I don't buy into your argument that MDMA is less harmfull.

So do you disagree with the scientific findings that MDMA is less harmful than alcohol and many other drugs, both legal and illegal?

Here is an excellent in-depth 516-page report on the health effects of alcohol: 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health HIGHLIGHTS FROM CURRENT RESEARCH June 2000

In the end when people take recreational drugs they don't take therapeutic doses but more often than not they take quantities which are of the scale and this makes it quite unpredictable what the future consequences will be.

This is where factual harm reduction education can help, instead of just saying "just don't do it". With MDMA, I've read that taking much more than the normal dose can increase toxicity whilst not improving the experience. I even think half a dose could be optimal in terms of safety and enjoyment. Edited October 19, 2012 by hyperdimension

[simple1]

@hyperdimension. As already stated by a few posts in this topic, the risk to the majority in taking MDMA is that it is impure. The various stats you have quoted will no doubt be carried out by researchers using pure MDMA. You have stated you are able to acquire relatively pure MDMA - your choice. But please stop harping on about the joys of MDMA on this forum as I can just about guarantee any MDMA/ecstasy bought in Thailand will not be pure & heavily cut and manufactured with the equivalent of YaBa that is dangerous, physiologically addictive and very destructive within Thai society. Illegal drug manufacturers/distributors in Thailand and on the borders use murder (regularly) and corruption as tools of their trade.

Fine for you in the relative safety of a western country, but again as you well know major illegal commercial scale drug manufacturers & distributors in Western countries also use murder and intimidation as a standard business practice. Your personal friendly local dealer may not do so. If this is fine by you, OK. However, I recommend you need to take a long hard look in the mirror regards a trade that you seem to be supporting. Just like I did when I was involved in illegal drugs, when a friend of mine was murdered during a drug deal a number of years ago in the U.K. I came to the realisation that I had been extremely naive regards the illegal drug industry and stopped taking illegal drugs.

[hyperdimension]

@hyperdimension. As already stated by a few posts in this topic, the risk to the majority in taking MDMA is that it is impure.

I have stated exactly that fact before - that due to the illegality of the drug, there is a risk of taking impurities that can be even more harmful than the drug itself.

You have stated you are able to acquire relatively pure MDMA - your choice.

I have never stated that, only that in the past, outside Thailand, I have been able to acquire good quality MDMA based on my experiences whilst on it; there was definitely MDMA in there, but I don't know what else was in them. That is the risk that I took, and this risk is borne from the fact that it is illegal.

The various stats you have quoted will no doubt be carried out by researchers using pure MDMA.

That's correct. I think scientific research should be done on both pure drugs as well as "street" substances. The web site ecstasydata.org tests the contents of street substances, but much more should be done and in more depth.

But please stop harping on about the joys of MDMA

I've only been stating facts about the MDMA experience, and it truly is nothing less than joyful. I do not condone its use, particularly in Thailand where there are many risks as I have already covered in previous posts. Edited October 19, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

Fine for you in the relative safety of a western country, but again as you well know major illegal commercial scale drug manufacturers & distributors in Western countries also use murder and intimidation as a standard business practice. Your personal friendly local dealer may not do so. If this is fine by you, OK. However, I recommend you need to take a long hard look in the mirror regards a trade that you seem to be supporting.

The problem is with the criminalization of drugs. Criminalization, particularly of relatively safe drugs, does more harm than the drug itself. I do not support the criminal elements of the illegal drug trade; blame the authorities for bringing them into existence via criminalization. We saw it with alcohol during prohibition and we are seeing it now with the current batch of illegal drugs.

a friend of mine was murdered during a drug deal a number of years ago in the U.K.

I'm sorry to hear about the murder of your friend. I assume he was not just a user, so he should have known what he got into and the risks involved. If whatever drug he was dealing with was legal he could still be alive today (also dependant on what drug he was taking).

I came to the realisation that I had been extremely naive regards the illegal drug industry and stopped taking illegal drugs.

It may have been your friend who was naive when he decided to be more than just a user. If the illegal drugs were legal, would you have continued taking them?

Edited October 19, 2012 by hyperdimension

[simple1]

@hyperdimension: The use of drugs for different experiences of "Reality" no longer interests me, so legal or otherwise I don't do drugs anymore. Regards your other comments regarding the illegal drug industry, your choice if you wish to carry on contributing, as a user, to such a destructive industry. Yes I know alcohol and the tobacco industries have a major negative impact on society, but at least they are not deliberately targeting & murdering their competition, debtors and law enforcement officers. Of course some of the damage to society is offset by government taxes on the alcohol and the tobacco industries.

Human being will always be seeking some form of pleasure by the use of stimulants/depressants, but as I said the illegal drug industry activities are just over the top. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree

.

Edited October 19, 2012 by simple1

[Nisa]

Do you have a list of the criteria and scale weigting they used in what they classified as "harm" especially when it comes to others.

Did you have a look at the reports?

From Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis, here are the 16 evaluation criteria organized by harms to users and harms to others:

Here are the definitions of each evaluation criteria:

Drug-specific mortality: Intrinsic lethality of the drug expressed as ratio of lethal dose and standard dose (for adults)

Drug-related mortality: The extent to which life is shortened by the use of the drug (excludes drug-specifi c mortality)—eg, road traffic accidents, lung cancers, HIV, suicide

Drug-specific damage: Drug-specific damage to physical health—eg, cirrhosis, seizures, strokes, cardiomyopathy, stomach ulcers

Drug-related damage: Drug-related damage to physical health, including consequences of, for example, sexual unwanted activities and self-harm, blood-borne viruses, emphysema, and damage from cutting agents

Dependence: The extent to which a drug creates a propensity or urge to continue to use despite adverse consequences (ICD 10 or DSM IV)

Drug-specific impairment of mental functioning: eg, amfetamine-induced psychosis, ketamine intoxication

Drug-related impairment of mental functioning: eg, mood disorders secondary to drug-user’s lifestyle or drug use

Loss of tangibles: Extent of loss of tangible things (eg, income, housing, job, educational achievements, criminal record, imprisonment)

Loss of relationships: Extent of loss of relationship with family and friends

Injury: Extent to which the use of a drug increases the chance of injuries to others both directly and indirectly—eg, violence (including domestic violence), traffic accident, fetal harm, drug waste, secondary transmission of blood-borne viruses

Crime: Extent to which the use of a drug involves or leads to an increase in volume of acquisitive crime (beyond the use-ofdrug act) directly or indirectly (at the population level, not the individual level)

Environmental damage: Extent to which the use and production of a drug causes environmental damage locally—eg, toxic waste from amfetamine factories, discarded needles

Family adversities: Extent to which the use of a drug causes family adversities— eg, family breakdown, economic wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, future prospects of children, child neglect

International damage: Extent to which the use of a drug in the UK contributes to damage internationally—eg, deforestation, destabilisation of countries, international crime, new markets

Economic cost: Extent to which the use of a drug causes direct costs to the country (eg, health care, police, prisons, social services, customs, insurance, crime) and indirect costs (eg, loss of productivity, absenteeism)

Community: Extent to which the use of a drug creates decline in social cohesion and decline in the reputation of the community

Also not really clear if this is per population or per user.

It is both, depending on which of the above criteria is being looked at. e.g. "Drug-specific damage" concerns only the user. "Economic cost" concerns the country.

I didn't look at the report because the link you provided appears to require signing up. To be clear I wasn't questioning the accuracy and was just trying to understand the data as it didn't make sense to me. It is possible they have broken out the data within the report but the overall graphs you provided don't seem to serve a lot of purpose in my mind in determining what drugs are the most harmful to a user.. Consider Alcohol rating at the top. This makes absolutely no sense because the overwhelming vast majority of people who try alcohol or even use alcohol on a regular basis are casual (what we call social) drinkers and will not run into problems themselves or to others around them with alcohol in their life but clearly this cannot be said about most people who use crack, meth and heroin. Of course because of the legality of alcohol and it being consumed by such huge portions of the poplulation, clearly there is going to be more incidents of harm.

Maybe my disappointment was my misunderstanding in terms of this actually being a rating of what drug is most dangerous on equal levels... such as comparing somebody who drinks regularly compared to somebody who smokes or takes heroin regularly.

[meom]

I'm all for legalisation and people should be free to make their own decision but I don't buy into your argument that MDMA is less harmfull.

So do you disagree with the scientific findings that MDMA is less harmful than alcohol and many other drugs, both legal and illegal?

Yes I disagree because you cannot really compare the harmfulness of drugs without taking into account the state of mind of the person taking the drug.

As explained earlier drugs and specially recreational drugs have a different effect on people meaning not everybody has the same reaction to a given drug and because of this a blanket statement that says drug-A is less harmful than drug-B doesn’t really mean anything.

Take for example weed which by many people is considered less harmful than cigarettes. Physically cigarettes probably cause more damage to the body than weed but mentally? I’ve known several people that became completely psychotic on weed and needed psychiatric help and I’ve never heard people getting these effects from cigarettes (unless they run out).

I agree that you can probably compare individual parameters of harmfulness such as physical harm, addiction potential etc. but how much weight you add to each parameter in order to come to an overall harmless score seems to me to be subjective.

[hyperdimension]

I didn't look at the report because the link you provided appears to require signing up.

OK try this link: http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/~mmiller/espanol/Variedades,%20politica/drogas_Journal.pdf

Consider Alcohol rating at the top. This makes absolutely no sense because the overwhelming vast majority of people who try alcohol or even use alcohol on a regular basis are casual (what we call social) drinkers and will not run into problems themselves or to others around them with alcohol in their life but clearly this cannot be said about most people who use crack, meth and heroin.

You are basing your statements on stereotypes. Many people who use methamphetamine don't have problems. It's only the ones who do get problems that make news headlines and accompanying dramatic video and scary pictures. That's not to say that methamphetamine is relatively safe, but try to focus on statistics and science and not stereotypes that are borne from propaganda and media sensationalism. Casual use of alcohol may not be very harmful, but casual use of methamphetamine may not cause much problem either, we just don't hear about it. Without hard statistics, we can't know for sure.

[hyperdimension]

Of course because of the legality of alcohol and it being consumed by such huge portions of the poplulation, clearly there is going to be more incidents of harm.

Simply counting incidents of harm of each drug would be obviously flawed. Something like a percentage of incidents of harm across the entire user base of each drug would be a better figure to use to compare harm, as well as considering metrics like "safety margin". From the article Not All Drugs Are Created Equal:

For alcohol, the safety margin is 10 (330 divided by 33 equals 10). In other words, it takes 10 times as much alcohol to kill you as it does to give you a buzz.

the safety margin of recreational substances as normally used is: 6 for heroin; 10 for alcohol; 15 for cocaine; 16 for MDMA; 20 for codeine; and 1,000 for LSD or marijuana

I think the drug experts who contributed to the 2010 UK study would have had these in mind in addition to many other things based on their professional experience when they did the scoring.

Edited October 19, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Nisa]

I didn't look at the report because the link you provided appears to require signing up.

OK try this link: http://www.fcaglp.un...gas_Journal.pdf

Consider Alcohol rating at the top. This makes absolutely no sense because the overwhelming vast majority of people who try alcohol or even use alcohol on a regular basis are casual (what we call social) drinkers and will not run into problems themselves or to others around them with alcohol in their life but clearly this cannot be said about most people who use crack, meth and heroin.

You are basing your statements on stereotypes. Many people who use methamphetamine don't have problems. It's only the ones who do get problems that make news headlines and accompanying dramatic video and scary pictures. That's not to say that methamphetamine is relatively safe, but try to focus on statistics and science and not stereotypes that are borne from propaganda and media sensationalism. Casual use of alcohol may not be very harmful, but casual use of methamphetamine may not cause much problem either, we just don't hear about it. Without hard statistics, we can't know for sure.

First you need to understand that I am for legalization of drugs but most of what you are saying is absolutely wrong or misleading at best. The FACT without any rational question what-so-ever is that Meth is significantly more harmful to a user than alcohol. Any trying to dispute this is beyond the realm of reality. Alcohol may have a much worse effect on people and society because it is so much more prevalent but if you took all meth users (regular users - not tried it once) and all regular alcohol users you will find a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher rate of harm being done by Meth, Crack and Heroin to users. If you find data that suggests different than it is wrong or your are misunderstanding it.

Bottom line is the overwhelming vast majority of people who use alcohol do it in a manner that doesn't harm themselves or others but the same is not even close to being a reality for heroin, crack and meth users. On the other hand, I do know Heroin has very little negative impact physically on the body but it is the very strong, easy and almost instant addiction around it (that is MUCH MUCH greater than alcohol) that harms most users lives and impacts those around them so greatly.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Nisa

[simple1]

Re heroin: I had a good friend in the corporate world who was a regular heroin user & you would never notice any physical effect in his working life; used it for years. One night when he was interstate on business he scored from a street prostitute. He was found dead, overdosed, the next morning in his hotel room.

[sunshine51]

@hyperdimension....We'll also have to agreee to disagree too if you don't mind.

A good friend of mine is a cop & I tend to beleve what he says whenever he comes

out here and we chat about cop things. Reference to my Ectasy bit...he put 8 rounds

of 9mm into the chest of a ectasy crazed black man in Los Angeles...the first 7 rounds

slowed the guy down, the 8th stopped him. Blood work at the morgue said MDMA

levels were "way off the charts" Whether or not he was in the down phase or high

phase made no difference.

When I was in Vietnam I did a lotta speed (methamphetamine sulphate) on LRRP's

simply to stay awake. Our medic made up "combat cocktails" for each of us in case

we were wounded with non mission critical wounds...i.e. ...wounds which were not

going to kill you or you had to be immediately medivaced. These mixtures were

simply morphine sulphate and methamphetamine sulphate, both in liquid form

and measured by body weight...and pre-made into small syringes. A wounded

troop could still carry the fight and remain alert until mission completion. I was

strung out on these for a while after being wounded...it was more the morphine

high than the speed.

You have some neat & fancy charts & graphs and I do agree with the one which

states that alcohol is the main cause of most drug related problems however it's

listing with the illicit drugs is misleading. True but misleading as it is legal in

most countries...even in some Muslim nations where non Muslims reside also.

I've also had friends get killed in the drug trade when deals went sour and have

had friends OD on a drug they have been using for ages. It's not pretty ODing.

To me...if you wanna use stuff in pill or powder or liquid form then so be it...

whatever blows your skirt up...enjoy it...I personally think you're stupid though

because the people you get your shit from don't know the trail of the new

batch they're flogging and what's actually in the product they're flogging.

To them it's either good or not on the streets.

Remember...you could end up like simple1's friend from the corporate world.

Anyway...doobies are all right with me...I'm happy with that.

Edited October 20, 2012 by sunshine51