Trozzle

Also now I've finally confirmed 'glass barbie' is specifically a crack pipe - no lol, I've not smoked anything besides cannabis (including oil), tobacco, and DMT.

lolwut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt I interpret this as "actually assess the real world effects of each current illicit and legislate its legality according to the factual severity of their impact" - ie the sensible way to go about it, not unnecessarily demonising everything as we've seen in the past? If so, I agree 100%. People should be allowed to do as they please with their own bodies in the appropriate settings (privacy of home), within reason. So long as the results of their use have no appreciable negative impact on any aspect of society, INCLUDING resulting health complications that impact the public healthcare system and taxpayer, then really it's on the user. Still need some measures to ensure the user doesn't do something stupid, which is understandably a topic of concern that would need addressing...though really I believe that comes down to education, which is where I see some others' points regarding driving whilst high - you can't PREVENT it from happening; you can only really catch the person in the act, which is too late. The fact this is already of concern with alcohol doesn't take away from 'drug driving' either, so I do see the point in the argument of not adding more to a current problem by decriminilising certain things.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/why-are-drugs-illegal-google-answer

And I'm somewhat willing to let my lack of evidence stand, when the alternative is opening up to someone who already dislikes me. Why would I want to give you more ammo at the same time as proving something that doesn't even hold academic value (since I never actually claimed to have studied the topic, I only know what I've read.

This magical forum of knowledge is not there to promote drugs, drug use, or their legalisation. It's there to provide support for users. Sections devoted to helping users get clean, sections devoted to mental health, sections specific to region, section specific to drug class (see, we separate say opiates from cannabis, unlike in a lot of people's minds). It's not there to help these people 'do drugs', but for those that do it's there to help them go about it safely. Again, you go straight for the scenario that much says "if you're high, you'll do something stupid like drive". I accept you're against alcohol, so at least not hypocritical or of double standards, but just because weed is legalised, doesn't necessarily mean there'll be more incidence of users driving high. Weed is already easily accessible as has been pointed out, and just because it's suddenly legalised doesn't mean everyone under the sun is suddenly gonna start smoking. The power of desire is a great thing, and I have no desire for alcohol. It's legal, so why don't I drink it? I mean I used to, and it hasn't given me any real reasons to ditch it. It's because I wasn't interested any more. Believe it or not, a lot of people aren't interested in weed. You're a good example, so is Dan. Unlike alcohol though, cannabis doesn't particularly lower your inhibitions at all like alcohol doesn't. There is no boost in confidence as with alcohol; quite the opposite actually, as high THC content can cause a little paranoia. Driving high and driving drunk, while both inexcusably dangerous, aren't apples and apples. The idea of driving high is quickly dismissed in my mind at least due to the whole "what if this happens" paranoia, not that I've actually considered it. We all know the (stereo)typical drunk's idea on driving. Believe it or not, many people drive under the influence of prescription medicines (which they know they shouldn't), such as opiate painkiller and benzodiazepines. The effect of these drugs can be significantly more inhibiting to your driving abilities than being stoned, but we aren't running around with our hands in the air over them. Again, your scenario, while justified, rests entirely on the argument that there WILL be a resulting problem as seen with alcohol. I disagree with that.

Before I read your whole post, my comment was out of disappointment since it seems every time I get in on something, it dies. Regardless of the subject. It wasn't because I think I'm better, it's because I seem to kill debates when I don't want to.

Broke the post

Derp, documentary https://youtu.be/dYzmZ1IU4zY Can't remember embedding tags

Absolutely beyond all doubt. MDMA is not only significantly less toxic than the chemicals currently in its place such as 5-MAPB. You should watch the first minute of this below documentary. You'll understand just how rampant drug misrepresentation is, and we know nothing about these new drugs taking its place; MDMA has been around for a LONG time, relatively speaking. Similarly with LSD we see the NBOMe series. Cheap as all f**k to produce, and highly toxic. For the purpose of argument, you cannot overdose on LSD. It's non toxic, good luck ever getting hold of enough to make it toxic. 25i-NBOMe however has caused seizures and a handful of known deaths at NORMAL doses. This shit is being sold EVERYWHERE as acid/LSD. Kids who don't use a reagent test kit to confirm what they have is actually LSD are running a risk. If they're really stupid and take multiple hits for a strong trip running on the assumption it's real LSD and it isn't, they're dead. If it were LSD, which it very likely would be if it weren't scheduled so tightly, they'd be in for nothing more than a heavy trip, which only comes with risks of doing something stupid while inebriated (like walking in front of a car drunk? Lol), or if shit goes south and they're not mentally prepared, could leave them a bit shaken. But otherwise in perfect health, as far as the drug is concerned.

I'd like to say legalise everything bar a couple like meth, heroin/hard opiates, and shit like PCP (coz that's a bit of a risky one haha). Personally I'd be happy if they only fully legalised weed and a handful of psychedelics, and found a way to somehow regulate things like MDMA (believe me, prohibition has done baaaaaaad things for MDMA misrepresentation). I've no idea how to approach typical amphetamines' legality, since speed is high on the abuse potential and can result in harm, however such things do still have use...just not enough to outweigh the negatives when abused. Decriminalisation would be a better approach to some things.

Have tried synthetic shit way back when it wasn't THAT bad... f**k that, never again. So long as real weed exists, that stuff can go to hell....and the only reason the synthetics are even synthesised is due to the current alternatives being prohibited. Similarly, it's why shit like flakka (a-PVP) exists. Though meth shouldn't be legalised by any means through the same argument haha

And funnily Dan, I think your attitude is much more appropriate to have if you were to simply try something to see what it's about. You obviously have no interest in taking up a vice of sorts, so even if you did enjoy it I doubt you'd bother making time in your day to abuse it, knowing it would likely take away from your current lifestyle.

I agree with you on the potential to abuse, though not the potential for that excessive use to actually have negative impact. Similarly to the addiction potential being largely specific to the individual, the potential for harm from smoking MJ is very much down to the individual, particularly their personality. The only thing I really take issue with is the grouping of all 'illicit' drugs and the massive demonisation that follows. We as car enthusiasts despise all being painted with the same broad brush as 'hoons', this you can't deny. So why is it acceptable to blatantly do the same thing unto another social demographic? I understand personal experience plays a large role, however again back to the modified car scene how often are we all placed in the same boat by someone who had some complete dickhead driver in a skyline/turbo car do something reckless?

Good to see the conversation die as soon as I chime in. Funny.

flamin mongrel. Haha. If Reece, motorkhana extraordinaire, took you for a test drive through the twisties, you'd buy one too.

Well, for everyone else - I don't think there are ANY online communities even remotely close to the size of this one, on the topic of recreational drug use and harm reduction. Literally, there is no alternative of the same nature (so far as I'm aware), at least certainly not anywhere near as large.

Yes and no lol. If I didn't know any of you beyond an SAU user name, sure I would. However since I do, I'm wary of how your opinions of me will change once you see that side of my life haha I will state one thing - my life, and my health (in all senses of the word, both physically and mentally/emotionally), took significantly larger toll from owning a skyline than from any and ALL the illicit substances I've put in my body. That ain't a joke either, as amusing as it is haha

Not sure if I should be reading into that reply or not haha....I'm on the back foot after my last post now.

For the past 2.5 years or so, I've immersed myself within an online forum community aimed entirely at harm reduction resulting from recreational drug use, both illicit and otherwise (like off-label prescription, or simply recreational use of prescription drugs). This community's mission is absolutely about providing accurate information on substances; false or misleading claims are quickly refuted or removed, depending on potential for harm as a result. The community is incredibly sizeable also, over 300,000 registered member accounts, with just a touch over 4000 'active users' while I type this. The depth of information available is infinitely more than you'll ever hear in any media article on the subject of 'drugs', and short of perusing a ridiculous number of wikipedia articles and pubmed studies, you likely won't find a more concise source of accurate information, right down to the VERY specific pharmacology of the substance. Some of the members of the community, notably some of the senior moderators, have quite extensive experience and academic qualifications in relevant fields; some are ER nurses, some are qualified pharmacists or neurologists, etc. Some are flat out batshit junkies whom provide case point examples first hand lol. Point being is if you want seemingly endless information on the topic of "drugs", this forum will have everything you could possibly want to know and more. And then some f**king more. Since the beginning of this year I've landed myself a moderator position (aaaaaaand here's the bit I really didn't want to share, for reasons above) within the specific Psychedelic Drugs section. You know, all the supposedly dangerous shit like LSD and mushrooms. The stuff that is guaranteed to melt your mind if you even think about touching it, or so goes the impression I sometimes get from other sources of (mis)information. Funny, my brain still works and I know what reality is....guess all the psilocin I've shoved down my throat to the point I no longer had a sense of self really took a toll on my mind and the community lol. Bit busy to continue rambling, but I hope the above has given a bit more of an idea of where I've gained what I know now, and hopefully I don't get judged too much on it. Frankly, I don't care to be honest though; there's always somewhere I know that won't happen.

Currently drafting a better response now I'm back at work lol, but yes I fully understand opinions on this subject are very touchy thanks to personal experiences which will definitely skew someone's understanding of something; I'm no exception to this on certain topics, property market in a way being one (not that I have experience, which is my issue haha)

I've moved on to a different forum community, partially from the inactivity here, and partially from the close minded opinions shared on certain subjects (most notably this one), which directly ties in to my above claims, which I'll elaborate on a little when I get back to work. My reason for not wanting to qualify my claims? As above, I'll be met with the height of judgemental opinion, based purely on ignorance to fact (and I honestly don't mean that as an insult, there's not really anything wrong with being ignorant on this subject).

Off-topic question: Absolutely love the R. Not sure I'd go the wagon, coz ultimately the hatch with the back seats flat has more than enough room (comfortably fits both mine and the missus' pushbikes), and the addition of the extra weight isn't quite my idea of what the R should be. That being said, that's a matter of personal opinion. I don't particularly like Stageas, but one can't really refute their relative performance, and they are to the Skyline what the R wagon is to the hatch. Get a Wolfsburg though!

I'm unsure how to qualify the statement (well, I do, but not sure it's worth it), but for the most part given what I know of the others that have posted in here, my claim is true. I don't mean to send the message that I'm saying anyone's explicitly wrong in what they've posted, but aside from the resident pharmacist Terry, my knowledge of the individuals in here tells me they wouldn't be as learned on the topic. I'm not trying to toot my own horn either. Something tells me given the audience (you lot), admitting I know far more than anyone really should about illicit recreational substances doesn't earn me brownie points. I've already experienced SAU's opinions on the matter in the past. Ask me a question, or hand me a statement to address, and I'll respond to the best of my knowledge. But the moment you bring personal stuff into the discussion (like your experiences with a drunk driver killing someone, or a family member that lost the plot thanks to weed or something), you're introducing bias. It's understandable, but doesn't help hold a civil discussion.

Too much emotion and opinion in here, and not enough discussion of factual information pertaining to 'drugs'. It's disheartening to again see the difference in stance one person can have between various recreational drugs entirely based on their scheduling. You cannot paint all "illicit drugs" with the same brush. That's the height of ignorance. Not counting Terry, I can confidently state I likely have the most knowledge on the illicit drugs themselves, their effects, and how they can be used safely/responsibly (which in the case of things like methamphetamine and heroin, for example, is incredibly difficult enough to accept 'impossible', but can and has been done). My experience with the drugs themselves and their wider effect on the community however is limited. I certainly have none of the first/second hand experience some in here do regarding how the flow on effect from someone's drug use can ruin lives and communities. It can, but largely it isn't the drug to blame per se, but a much wider issue encompassing lack of education (made worse by intentional spreading of misinformation) and a myriad of potential mental health/society based problems. Again, too much emotion in this discussion for it to have real value. Some of you need to try to step back and consider the picture from an outside unbiased perspective. Read factual information about the substances you want to discuss, and form an informed opinion; don't state something as fact you cannot back up with a source reference, and stop listening to the absolute bullshit you're fed on the subject. It's not like the governments of the western world haven't widely distributed absolute fictitious lies on the subject in the past. I don't mean to offend or insult anyone who's posted in here with the above either. We're all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, I'd just like to try clearing some up

I wouldn't rent if negative gearing were removed. The number of houses that would hit the market would be obscene, I'd buy one then.