Legalise "Illegal" Drugs?

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Less

Allow me a moment of a pedantic nature, it should be smilie face before dots except after rant. (though there are some that claim it isn't a true rant if you include a smilie face).

Pedantry noted & ignored Sir. I think you'll find decorum & etiquette dictate that said smiley face should follow elongated punctuation points to infer a pause prior to cheeky grin, denoting also non serious nature of reprimand, a virtual, genteel rap across the knuckles so to speak.

Still, if you're off your face, who gives a rodents rectum ?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Misspelling & the use of incorrect words are all part of life's rich tapestry, Plus it don't half give you a grin.

Excuse me. That should be "tapstery": the art of drawing strong drink.

[jaysay]

I kinda like people who send you messages without signing them, as for birdbrain, if he carries on posting crap I'll keep telling him and that ain't abuse, unless the truth hurts that is, for the time being spin on it

[Boeing Guy]

With ya Jay, no doubt we will be getting a flood of Red...
It is rather childish really, if I ever give any, there's always a first, I will sign it

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by jaysay

One hell of a post BG, every word the truth, people clutching at straws trying to justify the use of illegal substances, especially use sugar as an example are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, probably somewhere he's been all his miserable drug addled life

Ha ha ha - ignorance!

This is one I made earlier...

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Less

I once tried going cold turkey in an attempt to cure my addiction for water.
The withdrawal symptoms were horrendous, I did find that diluting it with copious amounts of alcohol made me tolerant to it's effects.

Water is not harmful - the issue is that sugar does kill people but is slower at doing it than some drugs like heroin. However the point is very few can totally stop eating sugar - so it is a drug but we are so reliant on it we are prepared to ignore the damage it does.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Water is not harmful - the issue is that sugar does kill people but is slower at doing it than some drugs like heroin. However the point is very few can totally stop eating sugar - so it is a drug but we are so reliant on it we are prepared to ignore the damage it does.

Nope. Sugar is not a drug.

[Restless]

There is a lot of it about if you google it. People trying to get sugar listed as a drug due potential harm it can have on the body blahdeyblah

[Boeing Guy]

A drug is described as:
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.


So while Caffeine is a drug, one I enjoy a lot in fresh coffee, I fail to see sugar as one. Even the highly refined stuff we have in our foods.

This doscussion has been going on for 95 pages now and we are still bickering, I have had enough, I will not post again on this topic.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Restless

There is a lot of it about if you google it. People trying to get sugar listed as a drug due potential harm it can have on the body blahdeyblah

If one lists "sugar" as a drug, then why not sulphuric acid? Here we see a very broad definition of "drug": something that has the potential to cause harm. What a crock of horse manure!

In fact, this whole discussion is a complete waste of time, fit only to put on display some rather amusing prejudices. Most folks are arguing, not on the basis of some reasoned definition of what a "drug" is, but from idiotsyncratic prejudices which they assume, for some strange reason, are generally shared. Most seem to be approaching "drug" in the same way that the blind men did the elephant.

John Godfrey Saxe: The Blind Men and the Elephant

[susie123]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

A drug is described as:
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.

OK sugar isn't a drug? but it's certainly not benign - this sounds a bit like a drug to me:

A 2008 study noted that sugar affects opioids and dopamine in the brain, and thus might be expected to have addictive potential. It referenced bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization, and gave each of them operational definitions in order to demonstrate behaviorally that sugar bingeing is a reinforcer. These behaviors were said to be related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur during addiction to drugs. Neural adaptations included changes in dopamine and opioid receptor binding, enkephalin mRNA expression and dopamine and acetylcholine release in the nucleus accumbens.


Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(1):20-39. Epub 2007 May 18.

[susie123]

Originally Posted by Eric

If one lists "sugar" as a drug, then why not sulphuric acid? Here we see a very broad definition of "drug": something that has the potential to cause harm. What a crock of horse manure!

OK they can both cause harm but that's not the definition of a drug.

[Restless]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

This doscussion

Best watch out. The police are watching!

Nah I agree. This thread has gone on too long. Though I find the discussion of sugar and its effects on the body interesting its entry in this thread is... well Its a debate not worth having anymore

[Eric]

Originally Posted by susie123

OK they can both cause harm but that's not the definition of a drug.

See #1418 ...That was what was on my mind.

And you might agree that a liking for fats and sugars constitutes a survival advantage; and has, therefore, more to do with evolution than it has with addiction. There again, you might not

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

A drug is described as:
A substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body, in particular.


So while Caffeine is a drug, one I enjoy a lot in fresh coffee, I fail to see sugar as one. Even the highly refined stuff we have in our foods.

This doscussion has been going on for 95 pages now and we are still bickering, I have had enough, I will not post again on this topic.

Yeah, I think I've had enough too. But I'll take one last kick at the cat, just for the halibut. Certain drugs, the "soft" ones, will be decrimminalized. Just a question of the law catching up with what's going on. I've seen a lot of changes in my life. I remember when the good ol' boys in the pointy white hats was a'lynchin niggas in Mississippi. I remember when homosexuality was illegal. And I live in a time when the President of the United States of America is a black man, and the Premier of Ontario is an openly gay woman, legally married to her partner. So, some significant modifications to overly restrictive and outdated drug laws that are becoming way too expensive to police are inevitable.

I remember being at a party one time. I was looking at the album cover for Peter Tosh's "Legalize It". Buddy of mine, even more stoned than I was, looked at it and said something like, "Legalize it hell, subsidize it" Ok. Maybe that's going way too far The times they are a'changin', folks. Perhaps not in ways that we expected, or that we would have hoped for. But the barriers against responsible use, subject to law, of drugs for recreational purposes will come down like the Berlin wall. And tell me that wasn't a shocker to those of us who grew up in the Cold War era.