Drugs are bad, mkay?

[Bacon_Barbarian]

It might have actually been specifically PCP and LSD. I think I got a little mixed up. >.>

[Delphinus]

This website is an accurate source of drug information, though relying on it for legal advice would be a bad idea given it's based on UK law.

EDIT: Note that in the 'drug deaths' section there's only 1 on record from LSD. Your health class has been feeding you bullshit.

EDIT 2:

There are no known physical side effects associated with acid use, nor is there any evidence of brain damage. There are some psychological risks, however, particularly for those with a history of mental problems.

[CypressDahlia]

That website is clearly biased. And this is funny because I'd often offer websites that link to national health databanks and actual, federally maintained statistics or even abstracts off textbooks and Clockhand would unabashedly call them "biased" (lol) and never tell me why. But that, sir, is a site run by people with an agenda. Why do I say that?

I looked at the site map. Over half the stuff is about anti-legislation campaigning. If you read the "About Us" page, there are some heavy, HEAVY anti-corporation themes. In fact, they said that the site was personally funded //because// they are so anti-corporation. They even refer to their site as "organically grown". I mean, c'mon, really. Not just that, but it's founded by a community of angry football fans, not written or maintained by sponsored researchers or scholars. And lol, this is the best part:

"This site neither condemns nor condones drug use. This resource is for people to access the facts and make their own, informed decisions."

If you look directly across from it--like, literally, on the other side of the page.

"Decriminalising drug use could drastically reduce crime and improve health..."

Oh yeah, there is obviously NO agenda here.

[Delphinus]

If you look into the drug pages themselves, you'd realise that they don't downplay the potential health risks nor do they play up the positive effects. In addition the sections on health risks correspond with pharmacological data on the dangers of usage and the details of the effects of the drug are from the perspective of a user rather than a scientist. So in terms of the pages on drugs themselves they have a fairly balanced style of reporting; despite (or because of?) the perspectives of the founders of the website, they offer unbiased information on the 'ground level' effects of various substances.

While their stance on the politics of drugs is clearly pro-drug, the important stuff - the information about those drugs - is fairly solid and neutral. Even assuming they are pro-drug in some way, combine it with the official sites about drugs (FRANK in the UK) and you ought to be able to work out the truth of the matter.

EDIT: Also of note: that site's been cited in House of Commons debates and described as "disconcertingly well-informed". I believe that should be a fairly strong point for its neutrality when it's used to argue against the legalisation of drugs.

EDIT 2: And you have a clear agenda for making drug use look bad, given you're a preacher of tee-totalling. You're probably more biased than the website.

[CypressDahlia]

Of course I'm biased. I have an opinion.

That doesn't mean the sites I link are biased. In fact, most of the sites I've linked have corroborated data from the NIH. Other sites, which dealt with crime rates and incarceration, were also federally supervised.

I looked at the drug pages and I agree that the data itself is accurate. But the site wasn't the best to link to. If anything, just link to the sources. I know I sound a little anal right now, but data becomes less relevant if you have to slog through a bunch of anti-legislation propaganda first, which can be highly misleading and beside-the-point. So just link the data.

EDIT: +++ For the record, as I said in the Upop. Opinions thread, I don't actually believe in tee-totaling. I just said that to call the "if weed is banned, alcohol and cigs should be banned to!" bluff (because it's hardly implausible or detrimental to do so). Sadly, I ended up arguing that point more than I argued weed. =_='''

[Bacon_Barbarian]

This website is an accurate source of drug information, though relying on it for legal advice would be a bad idea given it's based on UK law.

EDIT: Note that in the 'drug deaths' section there's only 1 on record from LSD. Your health class has been feeding you bullshit.

No. People die on LSD, PCP, Meth and Ecstasy all the time. People jump out windows, stab themselves to death. It's not rare.

EDIT: Those death statistics are from '94 Delp. And the UK only. I'm sticking with Health, as you can find all sorts of horror NEWS stories on the subject.

For example. The CIA World Factbook says 8 in 1000 users dies. Now, it's not because the drug harms them, but it's because what the drug does. I never said direct effects.

[CypressDahlia]

Now this is just an issue of conflicting sources.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

I trust the CIA over what Del had. Oh, and I divided into my notes/handouts/classwork. I mixed up the 1 in 3 first time users thing. It isn't PCP or LSD, it's inhalants. Like people who huff glue. A little different. :/

[Delphinus]

No. People die on LSD, PCP, Meth and Ecstasy all the time. People jump out windows, stab themselves to death. It's not rare.

LSD is not PCP, Meth, or Ecstasy. Actually, LSD isn't harmful (or addictive!) in any physiological sense: the harmful effects only come about when one starts having a bad trip. Which, sure, is a compelling argument for being with people who aren't tripping off their nuts when one takes it, but it's hardly a great argument for illegalising it. As with most other drugs, the danger comes when people are personally irresponsible. Which, to my mind, makes the drug pretty much blameless: it's just stupid people not preparing themselves before doing it.

Kind of like the Darwin Awards.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

Oh, I know good stuff can come from doing LSD. It was originally used to treat alcoholics. But, well, people are (general) irresponsible. And it's not really like the Darwin Awards. You can't know when you'll have a bad or good trip (though you can certainly guess). If you do something stupid on a trip, it isn't really your fault. (Though the drug is still to blame.)