Topic: Why the fuck is ecstasy a class A drug in Britain?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #11,583
In the UK, ecstasy is a class A drug. Which means it is equally as illegal as heroin and methamphetamine. Chief government drug adviser professor David Nutt described ecstasy as less dangerous than horse riding, before being fired. It seems that government drug advisers (experts, scientists) are paid to agree with the government, and if they don't agree, they are made unemployed.Why do lawmakers in this country disregard the advice of scientists who know what they're talking about? Why does political correctness need to triumph over logic, rationality and facts?
If I take some ecstasy and spend a few hours dancing, expanding my mind, exploring different perceptions of reality, experiencing incredible levels of empathy for other human beings which ultimately form a more well rounded human being, express unity, friendship and togetherness with fellow human beings, who does that actually harm? No-one. This drug should not be illegal. If it were made legal then the government could profit from it, criminal groups would no longer profit from the import/manufacture of it, and there would be far less deaths as the drug would always be sold pure.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #208,481
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,482
Yea. That's weed in the US. You aren't even supposed to be able to get it for studies.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,483
The UK Home Office rejected the recommendation of its independent scientific advisory board to downgrade MDMA to Class B, "saying it is not prepared to send a message to young people that it takes ecstasy less seriously".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,484
@208,482 (sluggy)
We all know that weed was made illegal in the US just so other industries (oil mostly) could profit. It has been the USA's legislation and influence that has shaped the cannabis laws in the rest of the world (basically American diplomats oppressing other countries).
We all know that weed was made illegal in the US just so other industries (oil mostly) could profit. It has been the USA's legislation and influence that has shaped the cannabis laws in the rest of the world (basically American diplomats oppressing other countries).
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,486
Stop complaining about everything, to4str.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,488
@208,484 (A)
> It has been the USA's legislation and influence that has shaped the cannabis laws in the rest of the world
(Citation needed.)
> It has been the USA's legislation and influence that has shaped the cannabis laws in the rest of the world
(Citation needed.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,493
@208,483 (D)
Which is just a complete farce basically. I think young people will take government less seriously with that excuse. "We can't think of any real reason not to decriminalize ecstasy, but we wouldn't want to send the wrong message to young people! God forbid!" Of course middle class law makers can't sympathize with the parents being incarcerated for having this completely fucking benign drug, what about their children?
Which is just a complete farce basically. I think young people will take government less seriously with that excuse. "We can't think of any real reason not to decriminalize ecstasy, but we wouldn't want to send the wrong message to young people! God forbid!" Of course middle class law makers can't sympathize with the parents being incarcerated for having this completely fucking benign drug, what about their children?
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,494
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,496
@208,484 (A)
Yea. It was basically one man responsible for that. It wasn't really about hemp products. That's just one part of a very complicated puzzle.
Yea. It was basically one man responsible for that. It wasn't really about hemp products. That's just one part of a very complicated puzzle.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,498
I agree with to4str. All drugs should be legal, and the NHS should be reformed so that people with higher-risk lifestyles (for instance, a heavy drinker or heroin user) should pay more National Insurance than someone with a lower-risk lifestyle.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,500
@208,488 (D)
Research it yourself. The USA tries to control the drug laws in all countries.
> If Jamaica legalizes small amounts of marijuana for personal use, it could violate international treaties and bring sanctions from the United States, a Jamaican official has warned.
> Jamaica's Parliament is considering relaxing drug laws to make small amounts of marijuana legal to adults for personal or religious use. [...]
> [...] Solicitor General Michael Hylton said any relaxation of drug laws could be in breach of [Jamaica's] international obligations on drug control.
> Jamaica has signed three international treaties that make possession of marijuana a criminal offense, including the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
> The U.S. government, which gives Jamaica up to $2 million in annual aid, has consistently opposed the island's efforts to loosen its drug laws.
http://cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17961.shtml
Research it yourself. The USA tries to control the drug laws in all countries.
> If Jamaica legalizes small amounts of marijuana for personal use, it could violate international treaties and bring sanctions from the United States, a Jamaican official has warned.
> Jamaica's Parliament is considering relaxing drug laws to make small amounts of marijuana legal to adults for personal or religious use. [...]
> [...] Solicitor General Michael Hylton said any relaxation of drug laws could be in breach of [Jamaica's] international obligations on drug control.
> Jamaica has signed three international treaties that make possession of marijuana a criminal offense, including the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
> The U.S. government, which gives Jamaica up to $2 million in annual aid, has consistently opposed the island's efforts to loosen its drug laws.
http://cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17961.shtml
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,502
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,503
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,506
@208,498 (F)
Well, that was certainly taking the conversation off-topic, but whatever. If the NHS was contribution based, what about people who have never payed NI? They are refused care? What about people that say they don't drink or smoke (when they do)? Would you test their lungs and livers to determine if they were telling the truth (if you didn't everyone would lie to save money)? If you found out they lied about smoking, would you refuse them care? Or would you fine them? If you were to fine them, how would you figure the amount of time they have been lying about smoking? All in all, that would be a merit-less, tediously elaborate system that would cost tens of millions (probably more) to create and maintain.
Well, that was certainly taking the conversation off-topic, but whatever. If the NHS was contribution based, what about people who have never payed NI? They are refused care? What about people that say they don't drink or smoke (when they do)? Would you test their lungs and livers to determine if they were telling the truth (if you didn't everyone would lie to save money)? If you found out they lied about smoking, would you refuse them care? Or would you fine them? If you were to fine them, how would you figure the amount of time they have been lying about smoking? All in all, that would be a merit-less, tediously elaborate system that would cost tens of millions (probably more) to create and maintain.
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,510
i agree t04str
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,514
@208,506 (A)
> Well, that was certainly taking the conversation off-topic
Not at all. The negative effects of drug use is well-documented, and if drugs were easily available it stand to reason that the NHS would be put under strain. Alcohol abuse treatments alone costs 'tens of millions' of pounds.
> If the NHS was contribution based, what about people who have never payed NI?
Like who? Children? People on benefits? There are already procedures in place for these people, and I don't know why you're assuming that they would change. You're creating an issue where one need not exist.
It would require some kind of database which tracks purchases. The more alcohol, cigarettes and drugs you buy, the more NI you pay. Perhaps a kind of point threshold system. This database would also be useful for people who are on benefits; if they could be paid in 'credits' which the government exchanges to the merchant for money, one could simply block them from buying drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
> Well, that was certainly taking the conversation off-topic
Not at all. The negative effects of drug use is well-documented, and if drugs were easily available it stand to reason that the NHS would be put under strain. Alcohol abuse treatments alone costs 'tens of millions' of pounds.
> If the NHS was contribution based, what about people who have never payed NI?
Like who? Children? People on benefits? There are already procedures in place for these people, and I don't know why you're assuming that they would change. You're creating an issue where one need not exist.
It would require some kind of database which tracks purchases. The more alcohol, cigarettes and drugs you buy, the more NI you pay. Perhaps a kind of point threshold system. This database would also be useful for people who are on benefits; if they could be paid in 'credits' which the government exchanges to the merchant for money, one could simply block them from buying drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,521
@previous (F)
> if drugs were easily available
Implying they aren't already.
> It would require some kind of database which tracks purchases. The more alcohol, cigarettes and drugs you buy, the more NI you pay. Perhaps a kind of point threshold system.
That really doesn't sound like the sort of society that I want to live in.
> if drugs were easily available
Implying they aren't already.
> It would require some kind of database which tracks purchases. The more alcohol, cigarettes and drugs you buy, the more NI you pay. Perhaps a kind of point threshold system.
That really doesn't sound like the sort of society that I want to live in.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,524
@previous (A)
> Implying they aren't already.
Yes, that's what I'm implying. Drugs are nowhere near as available as a litre of vodka is.
> That really doesn't sound like the sort of society that I want to live in.
We already live in that society. It's just more efficient and fair my way, with more freedom.
> Implying they aren't already.
Yes, that's what I'm implying. Drugs are nowhere near as available as a litre of vodka is.
> That really doesn't sound like the sort of society that I want to live in.
We already live in that society. It's just more efficient and fair my way, with more freedom.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #208,531
@previous (F)
Growing up in a major city, as a teenager it would have been a phone call and a short walk to buy an eight ball, some heroin, or any drug you can think of really. Buying alcohol was much more difficult for us. I'm a libertarian, not a socialist. I don't want the government knowing every purchase I make with such extreme levels of monitoring and surveillance that you crave. Just go away...
Growing up in a major city, as a teenager it would have been a phone call and a short walk to buy an eight ball, some heroin, or any drug you can think of really. Buying alcohol was much more difficult for us. I'm a libertarian, not a socialist. I don't want the government knowing every purchase I make with such extreme levels of monitoring and surveillance that you crave. Just go away...
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #208,534
@previous (A)
> Growing up in a major city, as a teenager it would have been a phone call and a short walk to buy an eight ball, some heroin, or any drug you can think of really
And where would a person find this phone number? Where would a 45-year old middle manager find a contact to get him some magic dust? What about an 80-year old lady? Both of those only have to go to any shop to procure alcohol.
> I don't want the government knowing every purchase I make with such extreme levels of monitoring and surveillance that you crave
Why?
> Just go away...
You're shit at debates.
> Growing up in a major city, as a teenager it would have been a phone call and a short walk to buy an eight ball, some heroin, or any drug you can think of really
And where would a person find this phone number? Where would a 45-year old middle manager find a contact to get him some magic dust? What about an 80-year old lady? Both of those only have to go to any shop to procure alcohol.
> I don't want the government knowing every purchase I make with such extreme levels of monitoring and surveillance that you crave
Why?
> Just go away...
You're shit at debates.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #208,539
Because people tend to drive their cars into peoples living rooms while "tripping balls".
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #208,540
@208,534 (F)
Heh. I helped this 70-year-old geezer buy some weed a few times. Dunno what he's doing with it.
> You're shit at debates.
No. I don't want to get into a flame war about politics with someone that has completely different views to me. No point.
Heh. I helped this 70-year-old geezer buy some weed a few times. Dunno what he's doing with it.
> You're shit at debates.
No. I don't want to get into a flame war about politics with someone that has completely different views to me. No point.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #208,541
@previous (A)
I'm open to changing my view if you could convince me. The fact that you hold your viewpoint only suggests to me that you're closed-minded buffoon.
I'm open to changing my view if you could convince me. The fact that you hold your viewpoint only suggests to me that you're closed-minded buffoon.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,560
@previous (F)
I don't want to convince you, man. You have completely different ideas about what role government should play. This topic isn't about debating politics, it's about the legality of drug law. Go make another topic for this...
I don't want to convince you, man. You have completely different ideas about what role government should play. This topic isn't about debating politics, it's about the legality of drug law. Go make another topic for this...
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,569
@previous (A)
> This topic isn't about debating politics, it's about the legality of drug law.
Words honestly fail me.
> This topic isn't about debating politics, it's about the legality of drug law.
Words honestly fail me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,570
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,573
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,577
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,578
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,585
@208,570 (A)
I'm not trolling. Your statement was just fucking idiotic.
Let's ignore for a moment that the phrase "legality of drug law" implies that this topic is about whether or not drug laws are legally valid. Now, you say that this topic isn't about politics, but rather about governance. They're the same thing, you dumbass roidhead.
I'm not trolling. Your statement was just fucking idiotic.
Let's ignore for a moment that the phrase "legality of drug law" implies that this topic is about whether or not drug laws are legally valid. Now, you say that this topic isn't about politics, but rather about governance. They're the same thing, you dumbass roidhead.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,586
@previous (F)
I don't have time for semantics and bullshit with pathetic fuckhead trolls like yourself.
I don't have time for semantics and bullshit with pathetic fuckhead trolls like yourself.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,592
@previous (A)
But you do have time to rage on minichan. I'm not a troll, I tried to have a reasonable debate. You're the retarded idiot. Why don't you just go and kill yourself?
You'll be dead in the next 5 years anyway because of your drug driving. I will laugh.
But you do have time to rage on minichan. I'm not a troll, I tried to have a reasonable debate. You're the retarded idiot. Why don't you just go and kill yourself?
You'll be dead in the next 5 years anyway because of your drug driving. I will laugh.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,596
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,599
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,649
same to4str, different day
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,663
Because the UK government is as retarded as America's.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,667
lol it's just like the pedos who cry about their shit.
guess what, it's never going to be legal. OD already and stop wasting valuable internet space with your petty horse shit.
guess what, it's never going to be legal. OD already and stop wasting valuable internet space with your petty horse shit.
ltamake !!onnLC5KY8 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,681
Oh hi, to4str. Ecstasy is illegal because the government says so. There's nothing we can do about it. Like you said, they disregard research and just assume that all drugs are bad and a threat to national security.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,686
@208,667 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
There's no reason for E to be legal, but there's no reason for it to be a class A drug either.
There's no reason for E to be legal, but there's no reason for it to be a class A drug either.
!VoCaLoNunI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #208,734
@208,681 (ltamake !!onnLC5KY8)
> Oh hi, to4str. Ecstasy is illegal because the government says so. There's nothing we can do about it. Like you said, they disregard research and just assume that all drugs are bad and a threat to national security.
> Oh hi, to4str. Ecstasy is illegal because the government says so. There's nothing we can do about it. Like you said, they disregard research and just assume that all drugs are bad and a threat to national security.