|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:No, if we swapped someone's adderall with meth they would get more negative side effects for a less generally effective drug. Are you trying to say that there is a safe dose of certain drugs like heroin? I don't see too many "light" heroin users, it's pretty easy to get addicted to it regardless of brain chemistry... Personally, I agree completely that some drugs are too hard to be used by the general public. Heroin is a loving awful drug, so is Meth, and there's no rational argument to support their use and wide distribution. Having said that, I don't think criminal drug laws are ever the answer to drug problems and the abuse of dangerous drugs. It doesn't help solve the problem - it's not killing demand, that's for sure. It doesn't matter how steep the penalties are - people will always sell drugs, make drugs, and buy drugs as long as there's a demand and a profit to be made. We're playing whack-a-mole on a board with like 80,000 moles. It's an impossible task. What's the big success story of the war on drugs? LSD? A designer party drug mostly being used by rich white kids, having close to 0 negative impact on society? I would like to think, however, that once legal, safer highs are more readily available, the more dangerous drugs that are being used today will be traded out in favor of safer substances. Black tar heroin, crack, meth, etc, all became popular street drugs because they were cheap. There's always going to be a hard drug problem in America, even if we reach some far flung future where you can buy all the alternatives for pennies on the dollar. But putting people in jail for selling any drugs or wanting any drugs is stupid, it's not going to solve the problem and it's not worth ours or anyone's time, except for the people who are routinely making money off it. It's either we let scum prey on the poor, or we lock the poor in jail as well as some small percentage of the scum because there's so much loving scum to go around.
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Mirthless posted:Personally, I agree completely that some drugs are too hard to be used by the general public. Heroin is a loving awful drug, so is Meth, and there's no rational argument to support their use and wide distribution. Having said that, I don't think criminal drug laws are ever the answer to drug problems and the abuse of dangerous drugs. It doesn't help solve the problem - it's not killing demand, that's for sure. It doesn't matter how steep the penalties are - people will always sell drugs, make drugs, and buy drugs as long as there's a demand and a profit to be made. We're playing whack-a-mole on a board with like 80,000 moles. It's an impossible task. Yeah, I don't think the war on drugs is working by any means. I also have no clue why weed is still illegal
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:They used it as a sleep aid back in Victorian times. Pretty hardcore. Although people also ate radium back then for health and everything had lead in it so I'm not sure I'd want to go back. Heroin is pretty difficult to dose, mostly because of how addictive it is combined with, well, how narrow the dosing margin is. Opium used to be a pretty big thing back in the day and it was pretty nasty even before the whole war on drugs thing. Fun, but probably not safe for mass consumption. I'd rather tolerate a spike in the overdose rate than the creation of another soldier in the drug war. It's just not worth it. Dosing is also extremely hard with alcohol, and it also stopped getting used as an anesthetic for the same reason, people die of alcohol poisoning all the time, and yet, we have seen the cost of alcohol prohibition and decided that tolerating it's use is less harmful than simply outlawing the substance outright and trying to enforce that. But are the heroin overdoses worth taking money out of the hands of extremely dangerous organizations? Yes. Are heroin overdoses worth reducing the stigma so that people who are addicted can be treated in a manner similar to alcoholics or people trying to quit smoking instead of locking them in a cell? 100%. The net positive far, far outweighs the lives of a few who will die using heroin 'just because it's legal all of a sudden'. Selling it through a legal (and for heroin and methamphetamines, preferably state controlled, along with no permitted advertisements or glorification of any kind) venue also eliminates drug dealers. It allows the farmers who depend on opium crops to become legitimate and no longer rely on criminal organizations to sell their crops. Prohibition creates violent, horrendous situations all over the globe and is the easiest thing we can take away from transnational terrorism. I don't want anyone to try heroin, but if you did want to I would rather you bought it safely, used it in your own home, and didn't have to be afraid of going to prison because you need to call 911.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:No, if we swapped someone's adderall with meth they would get more negative side effects for a less generally effective drug. Are you trying to say that there is a safe dose of certain drugs like heroin? I don't see too many "light" heroin users, it's pretty easy to get addicted to it regardless of brain chemistry... that implies that legalization/decriminalization causes usage rate to go up but there are at least two countries that show the opposite and that most users of a drug become addicted when only a fraction do. you should look up the term "therapeutic index" which is basically the toxic dose divided by the active dose of the drug. it also depends on the tolerance of the user: a long term addict could shoot a gram of heroin in a day but that would kill an opiate naive person
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
I don't think heroin is safe enough to sell over the counter, and I don't think laws that worked in other countries would always work in the united states. You want me to say that heroin is safe, and that many people can experiment with it and not become addicted, but that's just not the case. Some people may be able to try it and have no issue with it, but it's gotten it's reputation as pretty much the most addictive and dangerous drug on the planet for a reason. Seasoned addicts OD all the time, even if they can take higher doses than someone who is not as tolerant. I don't know how else to put this Edit: I'm not endorsing the full on war on drugs, but claiming that drugs like heroin are safe and manageable for a big chunk of the population is just wrong EXTREME INSERTION fucked around with this message at 05:36 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Seasoned addicts OD all the time, even if they can take higher doses than someone who is not as tolerant. I don't know how else to put this This usually happens in one of two ways: either someone takes a break, their tolerance drops, and then they try to do their old dosage, or they've been getting weak and impure drugs (common on the street) and then suddenly a batch of higher potency stuff comes along and they don't realize it and do their normal dose. The latter is something that can be fixed by mandating purity/adulteration standards, if you know what you're getting is 100% pure then you can't be surprised by stronger stuff. The former could be fixed by giving addicts access to trained personnel who could advise them, preferably medical staff but frankly even a liquor store clerk would be better than a drug dealer. A very large (probably the majority) of the medical risk involved in taking drugs comes from purity and adulteration problems, and those can absolutely be solved by bringing it above the table. A lot of the problems isn't the drugs, it's what they're cut with and ingredients that weren't properly removed because a shady drug cook didn't give a gently caress. An extreme example of this is krokodil, where the drug is relatively harmless (although highly addictive) and the adulterants will literally rot the flesh off your bones. The same thing is actually playing out right now regarding the potency of cannabis edibles in Colorado, actually. Turns out even legal businesses lie or have inconsistent products, now that testing has been ordered people won't be getting 0% potency or 200% potency brownies anymore. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:05 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This usually happens in one of two ways: either someone takes a break, their tolerance drops, and then they try to do their old dosage, or they've been getting weak and impure drugs (common on the street) and then suddenly a batch of higher potency stuff comes along and they don't realize it and do their normal dose. The latter is something that can be fixed by mandating purity/adulteration standards, if you know what you're getting is 100% pure then you can't be surprised by stronger stuff. The former could be fixed by giving addicts access to trained personnel who could advise them, preferably medical staff but frankly even a liquor store clerk would be better than a drug dealer. Even if the product was more standardized, I just can't see it being used responsibly unless it was like administered by a health professional or something for recovering addicts. I've seen a bunch of friends get addicted to various opiates and it generally started out as a "I can manage it" thing until they very rapidly couldn't. I refused to take them for more than a few days after I had surgery. I guess I would be okay with a clinic dispensing it though
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Rarely, and with extreme caution EXTREME INSERTION posted:It's rarely prescribed, and when it is, it's done with extreme caution http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423722/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858431 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22050030 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022501 Methamphetamine is the black market speed of choice because due to these identical profiles, demethylation is a needless extra step for illegal chefs. The reason methamphetamine has higher fatality rates and negative consequences in population level, epidemiological studies is due to a combination of manufacturing impurities and consumption patterns in problem users (imprecise dosing, smoking vs oral ingestion, polydrug use, etc.) Biochemically speaking meth is not "extra bad" speed, it's just easiest to make. Desoxyn isn't prescribed much these days for the same reason Dexedrine isn't prescribed much: it's obsolete compared to mixed-chirality formulations such as Adderall, or proprietary extended-release formulations such as Vyvanse.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Elotana posted:We went over this a few pages ago. There are very few measurable biological difference in the actions of methamphetamine and amphetamine in controlled studies: I've found papers that have said the difference in methylation does make a difference in how the drug is processed and metabolized, side effects etc http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2423722/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Here's one that looks at dopamine http://m.jbc.org/content/284/5/2978.full
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:I've found papers that have said the difference in methylation does make a difference in how the drug is processed and metabolized, side effects etc
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Focusing on meth is also a bit of a red herring because it's highly likely that given readily available amphetamine very few people would exogenously prefer meth. Meth really only became a thing when supply of amphetamine was constricted in the late 50s/early 60s and if amphetamines are available then its usage will fade away fairly quickly. It's pretty much the bathtub moonshine of amphetamines, its draw lies in its availability and ease of manufacture. When making arguments about meth it's also important to remember that it's literally prescribed to children and has a long history of military use as a pep pill. The primary difference between meth and d-amphetamine is that meth is somewhat more potent, the pharmacology probably differs in fine details (as with all drug variants) but it's not that different. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:13 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Elotana posted:That's one of the papers *I* posted. The first one in fact. Please directly quote the statistically significant differences you believe the study supports. quote:In the presence of discrete, salient stimuli, however, the response to acute or challenge injections of METH, and to a lesser extent AMPH, was enhanced, and the overall magnitude of activity was higher in METH- compared to AMPH-treated rats. Furthermore, repeated treatment with METH produced robust cross-sensitization to AMPH, but repeated AMPH treatment resulted in minimal cross-sensitization to METH.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Without adding to the discourse, it's awesome that this thread finally got a proper name change.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
It would be nice to invent a non toxic hangover free non addictive alcohol pill or something. If I accomplished that in my lifetime I would consider myself a fulfilled human being
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
I can't help but notice you left out the very next sentence, and are quoting from the conclusion (which makes no mention of statistical significance) rather than the much more detailed results section. I wonder why I specified statistical significance in my original request. One of those imponderables. (Hint: Aside from cross-sensitization, which isn't terribly relevant to a discussion of drug policy, there is exactly one (1) difference at one (1) dose level that was statistically significant across first-day and multiple-day exposure. Not terribly compelling stuff, which is why their conclusion concludes the way it does, and why I cited the study in support of the proposition "very few measurable biological differences.") Elotana fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:I don't think heroin is safe enough to sell over the counter, and I don't think laws that worked in other countries would always work in the united states. You want me to say that heroin is safe, and that many people can experiment with it and not become addicted, but that's just not the case. Some people may be able to try it and have no issue with it, but it's gotten it's reputation as pretty much the most addictive and dangerous drug on the planet for a reason. Seasoned addicts OD all the time, even if they can take higher doses than someone who is not as tolerant. I don't know how else to put this So you don't want addicts to get help by legalizing the market, nor do you want them to get prosecuted by law enforcement. What do you think should happen to the millions of addicts? Do you think alcohol prohibition was a good thing? Do you think alcohol is a hard drug?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
The dominant belief is that certain chemicals, if ingested, 'hijack' the brain and must therefore be prohibited. This is called 'pharmacological determinism'. It is a belief that has become the theoretical rationale for drug prohibition. It also happens to be complete bunkum but goes hand in hand with the chronic brain disease model of addiction (which is also fundamentally flawed[1]). Drugs do not cause addiction: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm The vast, vast majority of people who take opioids for chronic pain do become addicted. There is a Cochrane review of this which concludes cases of: quote:iatrogenic opioid addiction [during long-term opioid therapy], were rare. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006605.pub2/pdf/standard The conclusion of a more recent systematic review found that: quote:The available evidence suggests that opioid analgesics for chronic pain conditions are not associated with a major risk for developing dependence. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04005.x/abstract The vast majority of Vietnam Vets who were clinically dependent on Heroin were able to simply stop using after they were told that they would not be repatriated until they passed a urine test. Follow up studies indicate that few of these Vets went on to have a life defined by heroin addiction: quote:Results indicate that before arrival, hard drug use was largely casual, and less than 1% had ever been addicted to narcotics. In Vietnam, almost half of the general sample tried narcotics and 20% reported opiate addiction. After return, usage and addiction essentially decreased to pre-Vietnam levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1156114 Best estimates of pre prohibition American indicate that opiate dependence is about the same now as it was before the Harrison Narcotics Act (4.6 addicts per thousand in 1890 [unrestricted access to all drugs] versus 3.4 addicts per thousand in the early 2000's): http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RM_oWWqv54IC&lpg=PA8&dq=Opiate%20Use%20Prior%20to%20the%20Harrison%20Act&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false That is because drug use, even use of the 'scary' drugs like heroin, GHB and methamphetamine (all of which can be used in paediatric contexts [2][3][4][5]), IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ADDICTION. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3378040/ 2. "Nasal diamorphine spray should be the preferred method of pain relief in children and teenagers presenting to emergency departments in acute pain" http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7281/261 3. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm088582.pdf 4. http://www.journalsleep.org/articles/290805.pdf 5. http://online.liebertpub.com/na101/...3.iv.fp.png_v03 Edit: The policy of prohibition is an unmitigated disaster. It has been used as a justification to execute people (mainly the poor), subjugate minorities, confiscate property and jail millions in privately run 'for-profit' prisons to the sole benefit of rich investors. Worse still is that it has been and continues to be used as a pretext for military interference and war-mongering in foreign lands(see Afghanistan and Colombia). gently caress the architects of the drug war and their sympathisers to hell. KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:02 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:It would be nice to invent a non toxic hangover free non addictive alcohol pill or something. If I accomplished that in my lifetime I would consider myself a fulfilled human being GHB is a reasonable alternative to ethanol if you want a short acting CNS depressant with a pretty good safety profile and no hangover: http://jop.sagepub.com/content/23/1/94.short The other upside is that it isn't carcinogenic or teratogenic (ever seen foetal alcohol syndrome?). Of course you can't buy a drink with a standard dose of GHB (thanks prohibition!). Had prohibition v2.0 never happened it's hard to imagine that alcohol would still hold the number one spot as the world's preferred drug. KingEup fucked around with this message at 11:50 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
KingEup posted:
Alcohol has held specific cultural significance in human culture for millennia, even in the countries that specifically ban intoxicants. If we ever invent space flight that's mostly automated I can guarantee that alcohol will be on there.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Elotana posted:I can't help but notice you left out the very next sentence, and are quoting from the conclusion (which makes no mention of statistical significance) rather than the much more detailed results section. I wonder why I specified statistical significance in my original request. One of those imponderables. Did you even read the second article
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:So you don't want addicts to get help by legalizing the market, nor do you want them to get prosecuted by law enforcement. What do you think should happen to the millions of addicts? Do you think alcohol prohibition was a good thing? Do you think alcohol is a hard drug? Well, I think selling cheap, unsafe, super addictive substances like heroin over the counter end up in some sort of libertarian night mare. That's just like, my opinion though. I don't think people need to get massive jail sentences for this. There must be some middle ground Edit: although this could be a chance for me and a bunch of hipsters to try the true, original Coca cola EXTREME INSERTION fucked around with this message at 15:06 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Well, I think selling cheap, unsafe, super addictive substances like heroin over the counter end up in some sort of libertarian night mare. That's just like, my opinion though. Like, your opinion is wrong and doesn't reflect reality though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Like, your opinion is wrong and doesn't reflect reality though. So, you think selling heroin over the counter in products in drug stores is a good idea? I just want to be clear on your position
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:So, you think selling heroin over the counter in products in drug stores is a good idea? I just want to be clear on your position Yes, just like buying a fifth of whiskey.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Did you even read the second article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475187/ No statistically significant difference in addiction measures, no statistically significant difference on psychomotor or cardiovascular measures, one statistically significant difference in subjective measures which has an alternative explanation from the sample. Everybody panic! Elotana fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Well, I think selling cheap, unsafe, super addictive substances like heroin over the counter end up in some sort of libertarian night mare. That's just like, my opinion though. I don't think people need to get massive jail sentences for this. There must be some middle ground Prohibition doesn't reduce use. If your goal is to reduce the use of heroin (which it should be) then you shouldn't endorse prohibition.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Prohibition doesn't reduce use. If your goal is to reduce the use of heroin (which it should be) then you shouldn't endorse prohibition. Progressively higher taxation and slowly erasing it from society does seem to work though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Prohibition doesn't reduce use. If your goal is to reduce the use of heroin (which it should be) then you shouldn't endorse prohibition. I guess I could get behind what Portugal is doing, although I am unsure if it would translate well to the US.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:I guess I could get behind what Portugal is doing, although I am unsure if it would translate well to the US. What makes you think it wouldn't work well in the US?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:What makes you think it wouldn't work well in the US? Its a much bigger country with a worse track record for marketing unsafe substances to people for profit
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Prohibition doesn't reduce use. If your goal is to reduce the use of heroin (which it should be) then you shouldn't endorse prohibition. This is a false dichotomy. There are alternatives besides drug war and heroin at 7-11. Elotana posted:Yes, it's a cell metabolism study that purports to explain "the euphoric and addictive properties of METH compared with AMPH." In other words, it presumes a differential behavioral endpoint which the four studies I linked show to be extremely weak if not nonexistent. Don't show me a tree stand and tell me it's a forest. Here, I'll link the third study again: I'm confused by this link. What position is the cited study being used to support?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:This is a false dichotomy. There are alternatives besides drug war and heroin at 7-11. What?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
What do you not understand about that statement? "The drug war has been an unmitigated disaster" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all drugs should be available over the counter to anyone who wants them. There are other alternatives.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:What do you not understand about that statement? "The drug war has been an unmitigated disaster" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all drugs should be available over the counter to anyone who wants them. There are other alternatives. Ok. Please enlighten me.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:Its a much bigger country with a worse track record for marketing unsafe substances to people for profit Ok, but bear in mind that in Portugal it is illegal to sell or produce drugs. So marketing of these substances does not happen under the system they have in Portugal. Hence, I don't see how the US's track record of marketing things like cigarettes relates to decriminalization of possession and use. As far as the size of the country, how would this impact the effects of decriminalization? I can see how it is a difference between the countries, but I'm not sure if this difference has an inherent impact on decriminalization. I'd like to hear your views on why it might.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm confused by this link. What position is the cited study being used to support?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:This is a false dichotomy. There are alternatives besides drug war and heroin at 7-11. Look at the sentence you quoted. I stated that prohibition doesn't reduce use. Who suggested selling heroin at 7-11? This is one of the major hurdles in a rational discussion of drug policy; people talk past each other about the goals. My goal isn't to make drugs highly available, its to reduce their use. Putting people into jail does not reduce use but so far we've had good success with tobacco and alcohol by making them available and highly regulated. I don't think we should jump whole-hog into legalizing all substances just yet but I do believe that we should continue testing the regulation idea with cannabis and that if it has good success there that we extend it further to other substances.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
For anything harder than marijuana dispensaries would have to be state controlled. As much as I hate the drug war, the idea of an opium company with an advertising budget is loathsome to me. If hard drugs were to be legalized I would want the following criteria - 1. All dispensaries of 'hard drugs' (which would legally require a different drug classification system) must be government owned and operated, no commercial hard drug licenses will be issued. 2. Information regarding the purity and danger of the product attached to the package by label 3. Freely available information on quitting or getting clean prominently displayed in the dispensary itself. 4. No sale to minors, transferring possession of hard drugs to minors is still a crime. 5. Tracking of product from flower to finish to ensure that the money is not flowing into the coffers of shitheels 6. Government controls and taxes that push the price floor down so that the black market cannot compete, but the product remains expensive enough to discourage use. 7. Advertising anything other than location of the facility (quality, price, purity, etc.) is illegal. I think this might be closer to the middle ground between total prohibition and selling horse at 7/11, or a framework like this. Legal, but not glorified, and definitely not letting anyone reap a profit margin from a highly addictive drug.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Ok. Please enlighten me. I'm with this guy. How do you restrict drug sales without enforcement? If you rely on criminal enforcement to get rid of drug producers and sellers you're back in the same position we're in now, where you're fighting a war you can never win against an enemy that is impossible to find and infinite in number. You can't get rid of the means of Heroin production, since opiates are used for so many things. So what do you do? I hate Heroin. I mean that, I mean I really hate that this drug exists. Heroin destroyed my childhood and killed my dad. I blame him a lot for the choices he made, but mostly I blame that stupid loving drug. I don't believe there is any such thing as responsible Heroin use. But I would rather see Heroin addicts get their drugs from a reputable source then see them get poo poo from a scumbag dealer that could kill them. Ideally, we could make the drug freely available but require it be administered by a professional, or at least require that it be used under the care of professionals. If we had some legitimacy in this business fewer people would be dying, even if the addiction rates went up at the end of the day. Full Battle Rattle posted:big post This is exactly the kind of common sense approach I would like to see taken to hard drugs. People are going to use this stuff anyway. Minimize harm as much as possible. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:08
|
|