Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As surprising as it was to see you fail to address pretty much the only outside content in this thread, provided by yours truly. Need I go back and dig up the articles I've shared? You know, particularly the one authored by someone smarter and more educated on this topic than both you and I? Surely you'll have something to say about their claims given the volume of inane shit you've spouted back at me.

What on earth is XTC? Please, if you're going to speak from a position of assumed authority and knowledge, at least use the correct terms to refer to these substances. For the sake of educating the coming generations you care oh so much for. So much so you're happy to censor their life experience.

I see you have avoided answering my questions, you must be too educated for that.

I see you have avoided answering my questions, you must be too educated for that.

I'm just trying to take the same approach as yourself. You seem pretty certain it's how you conduct yourself in a mature debate, so perhaps I'm learning something from the master of sidestepping questions.

Anyway, we agree to disagree. That's obviously as good as it's going to get here.

You actually dug up some really old memories to be honest.....but something doesn't quite seem right - didn't angsty straight-edge teenagers die out with Myspace? I mean that's pretty well the only place I've seen such a username convention used, until it finally just clicked with yours here.

You can be straight edge, that's fine. Nobody is forcing drugs on you. Just stop forcing that lifestyle on everyone else thanks. We're happy to stand by that ideal when it comes to religion, which is nothing more than a chosen belief. Believe what you wish to believe, that's your prerogative; just keep it to yourself if you're not trying to be constructive.

Edited by Trozzle
  • Like 1

Anyway, we agree to disagree. That's obviously as good as it's going to get here.

You actually dug up some really old memories to be honest.....but something doesn't quite seem right - didn't angsty straight-edge teenagers die out with Myspace? I mean that's pretty well the only place I've seen such a username convention used, until it finally just clicked with yours here.

You can be straight edge, that's fine. Nobody is forcing drugs on you. Just stop forcing that lifestyle on everyone else thanks.

dude you see those usernames on COD all the time lololol

  • Like 1

dude you see those usernames on COD all the time lololol

The instance of 13 year olds playing FPS outside school hours would be fairly high I suppose hahaha

Digressing, I wonder how many people sporting the X_whatever_X style username actually understand what they're joining in on (not that there's anything wrong with being straight edge, mind you...just not the way XGTRX is going about it)

So how do you plan on stopping people from doing dugs XGTRX? Ice, Alcohol, LSD, Tobacco, Marijuana, Ecstacy, Heroin, whatever it may be? Its impossible.

The only reason that crime/criminals benefit is because there is an underground market for it. If Alcohol and tobacco were still prohibited, they would be profiting off that also. Most likely funding more illegal activity and possibly violent crime.

How do you stop this? You take away as much of the market from them as possible. Regulate, control and tax, just like Alcohol and Tobacco.

That doesn't mean we should legalise all current illegal substances and sell them in the local corner store. No, but for a quick arguments sake lets take Marijuana: Obviously the more research on health effects the better, but at the moment i would not categorise it as any worse than Alcohol or Tobacco and It makes millions-billions of dollars for criminals. Regulation, control and tax of the drug would take away a MASSIVE source of profit for these criminal organisations, which in turn would lessen their power.

On the other hand, we have hard drugs like Ice or Heroin. I have no experience with these personally but i would say that these are NOT something that can be regulated or controlled (some might not agree?) as the health risks are far too great. In this case i believe decriminalisation would be the best course of action at the very least. Addicts need to be HELPED not to be thrown in jail. I dont know how much funding there is for methodone/rehab clinics but i think the main focus should be on helping these people. At the end of the day more successful rehabilitation means less people going back and throwing their money at drug dealers. Once again, less money = less power/crime.

Anyway those are my thoughts, curious to hear more of what others think :)


Just to add to my previous post lol - Here are some articles regarding Portugal's pretty much "blanket" decriminalisation of drugs.

Its uncharted territory so there are obviously both positives and negatives to this approach but i think the positives out weigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal - Yes its wikipedia lol but good for a run down on what exactly they are doing.

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.wdYQAJc2I - 14 years later

https://mises.org/library/portugal%E2%80%99s-experiment-drug-decriminalization-has-been-success - 14 years later

^^^ that's gonna get torn to shreds with a heap of valid, yet somewhat moot points regarding an increase in use etc etc. I'll just use cannabis in my example, though the effects would be somewhat different depending on the drug in question.

IN MY OPINION:

If one DESIRES trying weed, they'd likely try it even if it were still illegal (at least here in Aus, given how available it is and how minor the repercussions if caught). If this person has an addictive personality, they'd continue their use after their trial.
If one doesn't desire trying weed but don't necessarily care for it, they may be more likely to trial it if it were decriminalised as the repercussions become negligible. There is no guarantee they'll go on to continue smoking it after they try it - they had no particular interest in the first place. It may not be their thing at all.

What I'm getting at is that in my opinion, those who're likely to pick up smoking weed and contribute to the ongoing instance of its use will likely be someone who'd try it regardless of its legality. This same person may be more likely to continue with their use after they try it if there's less chance of getting in the shit, which is where I agree with those like Anthony who believe "encouraging" use through decriminalisation will increase the instance of users. Let's say I meet you guys halfway on it, as your logic is absolutely sound, I just don't believe it would be the real world outcome.

Now, legalising cannabis for recreational use would yield a different result, likely more in line with the 'increase in users' prediction. I still feel a great many would jump on it to see what it's about (though again, many will already have done it before legalisation lol), but not all of those will continue use due to simply not being interested in the effects. While I personally enjoy the effects of cannabis, I can definitely see it is not for everyone. Similarly to alcohol intoxication, some people just hate it.

Decriminalising the possession of other substances (in quantities for personal consumption, that is) won't necessarily increase their instance of use, again for much the same reasons above. I know I'm just one individual, and my feelings will be skewed as I've got a little more understanding than the average person, but heroin for example as I've said before is something I have zero interest in. Even if it were fully legalised and available from the pharmacy, I'd still not touch it. Decriminalising the possession however will allow addicts to gain assistance without fearing stigmatised and thrown in jail for what was potentially an escape from depression or mental disorder to begin with, and it would likely also result in more successful rehabilitation programs as that would be the preferred course of action for when someone is picked up by the authorities in a bad state.

Definitely a case by case, drug by drug situation with legalisation, but decriminalisation of an amount for personal consumption is definitely needed before we can help the people we keep stigmatising.

  • Like 2

Overall i agree :) .. ahh yes ! i forgot to mention that by decriminalisation i mean quantities for personal use.

With legalisation/regulation it is definitely a drug by drug situation, like i said, i dont think every drug should be sold at the corner store. More research is needed.

The end result that needs to be achieved is to (where possible) re route funds - instead of going to drug lords, government can use tax revenue to improve our lives (hopefully lol) and to help those who have unfortunately become addicted to much harsher substances.

Sure, its possible to make the link between decriminalisation and increase in users but there are ways to combat that. Education! As mentioned previously, people are gonna do what they want, but proper education will reduce the numbers.

Legalisation is to stop money going to dealers and decriminalisation is to increase the chances of addicts being successfully rehabilitated, lessening the chance they will go back and hurt themselves/give money to criminals. I think im repeating myself a little lol

I've just heard the same argument regarding using drugs with no answer to the obvious (and repeatedly stated) issue of the unavoidable impact upon society, even speaking only financially.
99% of the people in this thread are speaking about recreational drug use, so the old medicinal use argument won't hold water.

I happen to believe in personal freedom as long as it doesn't impinge upon anyone else as it mirrors my own views on firearm ownership, something that is important to me.
No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate the benefits of recreational drug use outside of anecdotal references like "I'm too happy on MDMA to get into fights"

I've just heard the same argument regarding using drugs with no answer to the obvious (and repeatedly stated) issue of the unavoidable impact upon society, even speaking only financially.

99% of the people in this thread are speaking about recreational drug use, so the old medicinal use argument won't hold water.

I happen to believe in personal freedom as long as it doesn't impinge upon anyone else as it mirrors my own views on firearm ownership, something that is important to me.

No one in this thread has been able to demonstrate the benefits of recreational drug use outside of anecdotal references like "I'm too happy on MDMA to get into fights"

"Impact on society" isn't straight forward, nor is it the same for each drug in question here. Each drug will potentially impact only specific aspects (?) of society, in varying degrees, and not all drugs will impact the same aspects.

I've only provided responses regarding the financial impact of proposed testing booths/stalls at festivals (as that's seemingly the "big issue" flavour of the month right now, and what's triggering this discussion topic in many places).

For the most part, undesired negative impact will mostly come in the form of those who abuse the substances and end up requiring medical/mental treatment (EDIT: this isn't at all in regards to the substances I'm only for decriminalisation of like hard opiates and meth. Their impact reaches well beyond medical). AFAIK the latter would only fall on society/the taxpayer if it were on court orders (this is an assumption). The medical treatment aspect is a hard one - I'm somewhat all for the idea of the user accepting the risks and voiding their public healthcare in the event they f**k themselves up, landing them with the bill if they need treatment. This probably wouldn't work in practice, unfortunately. I highly doubt public health insurance companies will offer a "drug user" level of cover either haha, for many obvious reasons but also because not all drugs are the same.

Edited by Trozzle

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
×
×
  • Create New...