Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Drugs aren't illegal because they're harmful Watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They're illegal because people are prejudiced against the idea of being "high".
    The goverment would rather let you take dangerous medicines with harmful side effects, rather than let you take a medicine which is more effective but gets you high.

    Take cannabis for example, it has been found to be more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy, whilst at the same time far less harmful and with less side effects.

    It's also found to be more effective at preventing Alzheimers than commercial drugs prescribed by doctors, and can treat things like multiple sclerosis.

    Believe me cannabis is just one of many many examples (albeit the best known) of medicinally superior drugs which are banned simply because they get you high, not because they are harmful.

    For example hydrocone is used for post-surgical pain relief, however they add acetaminophen to prevent people taking enough hydrocone to get high off. However acetaminophen is toxic and causes serious liver damage leading to thousands of emergency room visits and deaths per year and less dangerous than taking just Hydrocone.

    If psychoactive drugs are illegal because they're harmful, then why is it legal to take more harmful non-psychoactive drugs?

    This leads me to the conclusion that the government would rather kill you or force you to take far more dangerous medicines than let you get high...

    Read more here:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-the-war-drugs
    You have no evidence to support these claims at all, leading me to think most (if not all) are untrue. Cannabis, for example, is used as an analgesic to relieve the pain of cancer, not to treat it, meaning 'more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy' is almost certainly wrong.

    Please provide the medical studies which show this is true. Even if the government is perversely against getting 'high', science won't be and the evidence will be out there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Not really no. They're prohibited for a number of reasons, from the possible negative effects that can have on an individual, on society and/or the exploitation of people linked to their manufacture and sale. Whether that's something you or I agree with or not it has nothing to do with some sort of insidious government conspiracy.
    Please, such thinking is completely naive. With most mainstream recreational drugs there is little threat to society, and little harm to the individual. The harm is equal, if not less, to huge variety of perfectly legal, and even encouraged, activities.


    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    That is a very bold statement, do you have any evidence for that?

    Certainly there is some evidence that cannabis may be beneficial in some forms of cancer however it is by no means definitive nor is this a universal rule for all forms of cancer.
    The point is that the government would rather totally ban a drug because it gets you high than accept it has medicinal qualities. Medical marijuana is still illegal in this country, however medicinal or not there is no REAL reason for it to be illegal.

    The idea of any drug high other than drunkness is alien and suspicious to a lot of people. I believe this is the real reason for why many substances are banned, not the official "logical" one. It's simply prejudice.

    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    As mentioned in that article Paracetamol/acetaminophen only causes serious liver damage in cases of overdose or pre-existing liver damage or failure. Used properly (ie; not abused) and there is little or no risk of negative side effects.
    The point is that the acetaminophen serves no medical purpose, is it not illogical that they insert potentially harmful chemical in a medicine to prevent people from getting high off another less harmful one? If their true motive is to prevent harm.


    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    Cannabis is not a universal panacea.

    In the case of cancer chemotherapy drugs they tend to be very toxic because it is very difficult for a drug to differentiate between cancerous and non cancerous cells. The main method is by targeting highly mitotic cells because in the early stages of a cancer it grows very rapidly however other rapidly diving cells include those found in your gut, bone marrow, etc, hence the side effects.
    I'm not saying it is, however in some medical circles it is rightly considered a wonder-drug. The point is that the potential benefits of marijuana far outweigh the perceived negatives. Someone as knowledgeable as yourself must agree with this.

    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    As we have seen with multiple other drugs if you make them more accessible and/or legal they become more prevalent and we see more problems linked to this which costs society more in the long run.
    Claiming prohibition makes drugs less accessible is a complete fallacy, if anything it makes them much more accessible.

    Prohibition makes drugs far more accesible to children (no this is not a "think of the children" argument). At the age of 14 I had access to speed, MDMA, cannabis and cocaine within 15 minutes of a phone call. Getting access to alcohol was far more difficult as you needed the cooperation of a compliant adult, leading to the abuse of cannabis rather than alcohol in my age group (probably a good thing). Recently in the news were two 8 year olds who had marijuana in the playground, I doubt they could have got access to alcohol in the same way, what adult is going to buy them alcohol?

    Think about the millions spent on enforcing drugs laws and putting recreational drug users through the justice/criminal system. It's not worth it and does not benefit society in the slightest.

    Also what is illogical is that you are claiming that if banned substances were legalised such as marijuana, it would cost society because it costs society so much to keep alcohol legal. So you are comparing alcohol with less harmful drugs non-addictive drugs, and claiming other drugs should not be legalised because alcohol is so harmful and costs society so much!!! But yet they are keeping alcohol legal! And alcohol is more harmful and also addictive!

    Drugs such as Cannabis, MDMA, ecstasy, ketamine, LSD and magic mushrooms have no real reason for being illegal, apart from a prejudice against the "high".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Cannabis is used for medicinal purposes. I highly doubt that smoking pot is an effective treatment for cancer. If it was, it would be more widely known and would have resulted in allowing for its use to treat cancer.

    We live in the age of internet where anyone can publish to mass audiences from their living room. I don't believe in conspiracy theories where the government is hiding research proving cannabis as a cure for cancer.

    I call bull**** on your claim that it cures cancer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)

    Please provide the medical studies which show this is true. Even if the government is perversely against getting 'high', science won't be and the evidence will be out there.
    You are correct, the science is out there. The government ignores it and the public is ignorant of it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    Are you making an argument or do you want me to make it for you :curious:
    Can you not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Cannabis is used for medicinal purposes. I highly doubt that smoking pot is an effective treatment for cancer. If it was, it would be more widely known and would have resulted in allowing for its use to treat cancer.

    We live in the age of internet where anyone can publish to mass audiences from their living room. I don't believe in conspiracy theories where the government is hiding research proving cannabis as a cure for cancer.

    I call bull**** on your claim that it cures cancer.
    The government isn't hiding anything, the information is all published.

    Where did I say smoking pot is an effective treatment for cancer? Don't put words into my mouth, you are attacking a straw man. Chemicals in cannabis have been found to be effective in treating cancer is all I said, without the negative side effects of chemotherapy.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You are correct, the science is out there. The government ignores it and the public is ignorant of it.
    Indeed we are - threads on forums like this seem not to be providing them...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Where did I say smoking pot is an effective treatment for cancer? Don't put words into my mouth, you are attacking a straw man.
    Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for cancer, and thus, saying that cannabis is more effective you are threby saying that cannabis is an effective treatment for cancer. You said it here:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Take cannabis for example, it has been found to be more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy, whilst at the same time far less harmful and with less side effects.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Can you not?
    'Fraid not kid
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Funny but I find that I'm a lot more productive when high. I am of course talking when on amphetamines, downers obviousley not.

    I think the main argument FOR legalisation should be that then we could control the ingredients, make sure they're pure and hence cause less damage due to unknown constituents.

    For example -
    acid. If it were legal we'd know that every tab or bottle we bought is indeed acid, and a trip will be fairly mellow and last 8-12 hours.

    At the moment when you buy a tab - it's more than likley to be bromo, hence a trip is intense and lasts anything upto 36 hours.
    Well, to be fair it's pretty rare for acid to be impure, but a bunch of people (including the vendor himself) overdosed and died after a batch of bromo got sent out mislabeled as 2c-b-fly. The unregulated grey market for legal 'research chemicals' is probably one of the more dangerous consequences of the war on drugs. People have concocted some pretty nasty **** trying to get around the drug laws. That said, the fact that these substances are available yet deaths remain relatively rare tells me drug users are a lot more responsible than people like to think. Still a lot of potential for disaster, though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for cancer, and thus, saying that cannabis is more effective you are threby saying that cannabis is an effective treatment for cancer. You said it here:
    pwned


    I tried not to use that word, but really its the only one that fits
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    'Fraid not kid
    Loving the passive-aggressiveness "kid".

    "Grow up".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Loving the passive-aggressiveness "kid".

    "Grow up".
    lol I'm only bantering with your Channy. It's all good. :cool:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They're illegal because people are prejudiced against the idea of being "high".
    The goverment would rather let you take dangerous medicines with harmful side effects, rather than let you take a medicine which is more effective but gets you high.

    Take cannabis for example, it has been found to be more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy, whilst at the same time far less harmful and with less side effects.

    It's also found to be more effective at preventing Alzheimers than commercial drugs prescribed by doctors, and can treat things like multiple sclerosis.

    Believe me cannabis is just one of many many examples (albeit the best known) of medicinally superior drugs which are banned simply because they get you high, not because they are harmful.

    For example hydrocone is used for post-surgical pain relief, however they add acetaminophen to prevent people taking enough hydrocone to get high off. However acetaminophen is toxic and causes serious liver damage leading to thousands of emergency room visits and deaths per year and less dangerous than taking just Hydrocone.

    If psychoactive drugs are illegal because they're harmful, then why is it legal to take more harmful non-psychoactive drugs?

    This leads me to the conclusion that the government would rather kill you or force you to take far more dangerous medicines than let you get high...

    Read more here:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-the-war-drugs
    LOOOOL never read so much medically incorrect knowledge in one post, congrats.

    If you believed everthing you read, you'd eat everything you saw.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    lol I'm only bantering with your Channy. It's all good. :cool:
    Hard to tell online, I admit...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Chemotherapy is an effective treatment for cancer, and thus, saying that cannabis is more effective you are threby saying that cannabis is an effective treatment for cancer. You said it here:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    pwned


    I tried not to use that word, but really its the only one that fits
    :facepalm:

    If you actually read the beginning of thread this has already been discussed and resolved, nowhere did I say smoking cannabis is a treatment for cancer.

    The chemicals found in cannabis are apparently more effective since it actively targets cancer cells, killing them. Combined with this is the little to no negative side effects. Having a friend who died of cancer, I know myself that chemotherapy is far from a pleasant thing. That is why it is more effective.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Hard to tell online, I admit...
    Are you paranoid from smoking weed?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pauline_lg)
    LOOOOL never read so much medically incorrect knowledge in one post, congrats.

    If you believed everthing you read, you'd eat everything you saw.
    Please elaborate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    :facepalm:

    If you actually read the beginning of thread this has already been discussed and resolved, nowhere did I say smoking cannabis is a treatment for cancer.

    The chemicals found in cannabis are apparently more effective since it actively targets cancer cells, killing them. Combined with this is the little to no negative side effects. Having a friend who died of cancer, I know myself that chemotherapy is far from a pleasant thing. That is why it is more effective.
    You said it's more effective than chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer, ergo you said it is a treatment.

    So your definition of "effective" isn't the drug actually working, it's how you feel while on it? That's completely ridiculous. Chemotherapy isn't meant to make you feel more pleasant, it's there to get rid of the cancer. As long as the cancer goes in the long run, how good you feel during the treatment shouldn't really be a major concern (obviously it's preferable to be as gentle as possible - but not the key aspect of the treatment).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Jesus is my high.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Actually it's alcohol and music - from those two combined or individually I can be the happiest I ever need to be. I have no need for other substances
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.