Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Better Living Through Chemistry

entropy51 - 30-6-2010 at 15:13

Quote:
Girl, 15, dies after weekend rave at L.A. Coliseum
Officials suspect that the teen, identified as Sasha Rodriguez, died of a drug overdose after attending the Electric Daisy Carnival. Her death renews calls to ban such events from the Coliseum.

By Rong-Gong Lin II and Sarah Ardalani, Los Angeles Times

June 30, 2010

A 15-year-old girl died Tuesday of a suspected drug overdose after attending a rave over the weekend at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum that had a minimum age requirement of 16.

The girl, identified by family members as Sasha Rodriguez, was one of two rave attendees who were in critical condition at California Hospital Medical Center after the 14th annual Electric Daisy Carnival.

As Sasha's family decided whether to remove her from life support Tuesday, her mother, Grace Rodriguez, told the CBS Evening News: "I was supposed to be planning her Sweet Sixteen party. Now I have to plan her funeral."

Sasha, who lived in the Atwater neighborhood, died shortly before 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, according Katreena Salgado, a spokeswoman for the hospital.

She and the other critically ill patient had been taken to the downtown Los Angeles hospital by ambulance directly from the venue, officials said. Both were treated for drug intoxication in the intensive care unit.

"She came in as an emergency patient from the rave. She was in respiratory arrest when she got here, and she never recovered," said Salgado, who said Sasha was in a coma and experienced multiple organ failure.

Outside California Hospital Tuesday night, friends and family said that when Sasha was found, she did not have identification.

"Obviously they didn't check IDs," said Eva Rodriguez, Sasha's godmother.

Doctors told Sasha's family that she had the drug ecstasy in her system when the ambulance got her to the emergency room.

Kimberly Keith, a family friend, said Sasha's loved ones are still trying to figure out what happened. Although they knew Sasha was going to her first rave, Keith said, drug use was "not her character."

When they got the call that Sasha had been taken to the hospital, they had no idea how serious her condition was.

"We were almost like joking, 'Oh she's going to be in trouble. I can't believe she went there!' " she said. Keith said they thought maybe the rave was "too packed, she was excited and passed out.... Never in a million years would we would have imagined" drugs.

A 16-year old friend who was with Sasha at the rave said Sasha was dancing, got hot and began quickly drinking cold water.

Doctors said "her sodium, electrolytes were so low that when she started replacing them so quickly [with cold water], ecstasy messes up your body's ability to process that, so it threw her body out of whack," said Keith.

Sasha passed out, hitting her head on the floor. The friend who was with her tried to shield her body but told her family that the venue was so crowded, people stepped on them.

"We've got kids in inappropriate situations that are dying," Keith said. "That's a city-, state-, county-owned building. They throw it, they rent it, yet they fill it full of minors in a setting where everybody knows what a rave is about. Where's the accountability?"

On Monday, Dr. Caitlin Reed, a physician from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on assignment with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, said she was at the rave on both days and did not see anyone checking identification.

"I didn't see any ID being checked at the entry point," Reed said. "This was an all-ages event. There were many, many younger teenagers present."

Pat Lynch, who manages the Coliseum, was stunned to learn of the death Tuesday.

"Oh, no. Oh, my God," Lynch said. "I don't know what to say. That's just terrible."

When asked how a 15-year-old was able to get into the event when the minimum age for entry was 16 without a legal guardian, Lynch said he needed to investigate.

"I'm at a loss," Lynch said. "Sixteen is what the promoter requested, and I just don't know."

Dr. Brian Johnston, the emergency room medical director at White Memorial Medical Center, called the death tragic. Johnston is among doctors who have said that raves at the publicly owned facility put people at risk. He believes that such parties should no longer be permitted at the Coliseum, which was built on state land and is under the authority of a joint city, county and state commission.

"I think it's tragic when a 15-year-old girl dies in this way as a result of a public policy that put her at risk," Johnston said. "Can you imagine explaining that to her parents?"

Barry Sanders, president of the Coliseum commission, issued a statement Tuesday expressing "dismay and deep sadness on the death of the young woman."

Sanders said he plans to call a special meeting of the commission to review all criteria required for organizers using the venue.

Pasquale Rotella, founder of Los Angeles-based Insomniac Events, the company that organized the event, did not respond to a request made through his publicist for comment.

The event, held Friday and Saturday, drew about 185,000 people to carnival rides, five stages and performances by Moby, Will.i.am, Steve Aoki and Deadmau5. About 120 required transport to local hospitals, mostly for drug intoxication.

The volume of patients in need of hospital care led several emergency room physicians on Monday to call for an end to raves at the Coliseum.

Cathy Chidester, director of the county Emergency Medical Systems agency, said Monday that officials treat raves at the Coliseum like a "multi-casualty incident," which she said was similar to planning for a disaster like the Chatsworth Metrolink train crash, which killed 25 and injured more than 130.

Tuesday's death was the latest in a string of high-profile problems at raves at public venues. Earlier this year, at least 18 drug overdoses tied to ecstasy were reported at a New Year's Eve rave at the Los Angeles Sports Arena, next to the Coliseum. And two men died of suspected drug overdoses during a Memorial Day weekend rave at the Cow Palace in Daly City, south of San Francisco.

Although many partygoers consider ecstasy to be safe, doctors and researchers warn that the drug, also known as MDMA, can cause high blood pressure leading to stroke. The hallucinogen can also trigger seizures, releasing toxins that cause kidney failure.

"There are multiple mechanisms through which ecstasy can cause death," Reed said earlier this month when a CDC report she co-wrote on the overdoses at the New Year's Eve rave was released.
LATimes.com



Sedit - 30-6-2010 at 16:22

I dont believe it....

Read the results of dance safe... There is almot no such thing as ecstacy around anymore but dangerous analogs synthesized in china and sold on the streets as XTC. The odds of a pill testing positive for true MDA or MDMA are about 1-100 if that. Sad thing is it all gets lables as MDMA even if its not and media takes off to tell us the dangers of something they know nothing of.

Shame these people past away but ignorances is not always bliss and its these folks that set the drug movement back decades everytime the go and ignore warnings that have been around for years.

Darwins new strategy since we no longer live in the wild.


[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Sedit]

[edit]

How about proof the source "doctor" is a dumbass

""Doctors said "her sodium, electrolytes were so low that when she started replacing them so quickly [with cold water], ecstasy messes up your body's ability to process that, so it threw her body out of whack," said Keith.
"""
Yes because rapidly replacing H2O somehow alchemicaly turns it into sodium in the body. God I hate fear mongering. And let us not forget she passed out(something I do at concernts all to often even sober) and bumped her head on the floor where she was repeatedly trampled. There is not a shread of proof here that the so called MDMA is the case of death.

[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Sedit]

[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Sedit]

entropy51 - 30-6-2010 at 17:02

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
There is not a shread of proof here that the so called MDMA is the case of death.
Quote:
Doctors told Sasha's family that she had the drug ecstasy in her system when the ambulance got her to the emergency room.
See hyponatremia. Not alchemy, just pathophysiology.



[Edited on 1-7-2010 by entropy51]

psychokinetic - 30-6-2010 at 17:50

Quote:
Yes because rapidly replacing H2O somehow alchemicaly turns it into sodium in the body.


That's not what it said, but still - there's no evidence of MDMA I agree.

watson.fawkes - 30-6-2010 at 18:32

Perhaps Brawndo should sponsor these events. Because it's got electrolytes.

Sedit - 30-6-2010 at 21:49

No I was correct in what I stated.

Quote"

""Doctors said "her sodium, electrolytes were so low that when she started replacing them so quickly [with cold water], ecstasy messes up your body's ability to process that, so it threw her body out of whack," said Keith.""

So she relaced the Sodium way to quickly by drinking to much water????. She was not eating salt which could have maybe helped her condition but she diluted the already slack amount of Na present in her blood stream. To muh water dilutes the electrolytes in the body not increase them.

psychokinetic - 1-7-2010 at 02:00

Quote:
To muh water dilutes the electrolytes in the body not increase them


Granted, but the doc said she was replacing sodium stores with water, instead of sodium.

turd - 1-7-2010 at 03:47

Quote:
The event, held Friday and Saturday, drew about 185,000 people to carnival rides, five stages and performances by Moby, Will.i.am, Steve Aoki and Deadmau5. About 120 required transport to local hospitals, mostly for drug intoxication.

Seems quite harmless to me. In my neck of the woods we have more than 120 sick people on similar scaled festivals. People poisoned from alcohol, heat strokes, dehydration, hypothermia at night, brawls. This "article" shows that people should switch from alcohol to MDMA!

Quote:
Perhaps Brawndo should sponsor these events. Because it's got electrolytes.

DHMO is bad for your health! That's why I drink beer, not water!

quicksilver - 1-7-2010 at 09:05

As a parent of an adult I have a totally different take on the whole issue. The kid was 15. That is a child. That 15yr old girl is still her parent's responsibility. They are so fucking lame they don't know what a party is about?
"Oh that 's sweet", "here is some fucking condoms but for heaven's sake give head first so you don't take any chances". This shit makes me really angry.

"It's the chemical's (drug) fault: It's the rave issue: It's a the concert promoter's fault": It's everyone else's fucking fault but the bottom line! The bottom line is that at 15 a kid does NOT have the worldly experience to make decisions based on a solid grounding of experience (they have very little) or logic (they are little balls of hormones). So what does she do? She takes a drug that she knows jack-shit about and takes the "drug" not knowing if it IS what it's supposed to be! She is IN that position because her parents thought it was OK to let their daughter attend a gathering of 100,000 other kids and NOT EXPECT that they are going to do stupid shit??????

That was a set-up for a problem. ANY parent would know that IF they examined the issue. 15yr old girl (attempting to act older, of course) goes to a party w/ 100,000 others of her ilk. but where does this happen? You betcha"...... CALIFORNIA: the state that allowed burglars to sue home owners for getting hurt while breaking into their homes.

Of course it's a damn tragedy that the girl died. THAT goes without saying......But she didn't have to be a statistic.
An ACCIDENT is when you're stopped at a red light and a truck looses it's breaks and T-Bones you. Negligent shit is an altogether other agenda. NEGLIGENCE starts with the words "I had no idea it had bullets in it." ---- "Did you check"? "No....but it just went off". NEGLIGENCE is letting a young girl go to a public party in LA where the IDEA is to party intensely. 15yr old girls are PREY. The obligation of parenting is to protect them until they can protect themselves. That doesn't happen overnight.

Vogelzang - 1-7-2010 at 14:01

Drugs don't even make the list here. Drug hysteria keeps people from getting their priorities straight. :P



cchart.jpg - 71kB

Chainhit222 - 1-7-2010 at 14:14

People texting behind the wheel are more dangerous then drugs can ever be. But then again, alot of people let drugs get way too involved in their lives....

Treat drugs as a fun activity to be somewhat ashamed of (like eating at MacDonald's) and you will be fine. And don't redose too much, that's often asking for trouble.



[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Chainhit222]

Vogelzang - 1-7-2010 at 14:18

Also, 50% of all car accidents do not involve alcohol.

Vogelzang - 1-7-2010 at 14:23

???

tramp-steamer.gif - 50kB

Vogelzang - 1-7-2010 at 15:43

Some drug education here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jj3wZVc7nw&NR=1

[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Vogelzang]

Sedit - 1-7-2010 at 15:44

Quote: Originally posted by Chainhit222  

Treat drugs as a fun activity to be somewhat ashamed of (like eating at MacDonald's)
[Edited on 1-7-2010 by Chainhit222]


Here in lies the problem with drugs. Is not the drugs themselfs but the idea that the user should feel ashamed in someway of self medicating.

Without the shame these people are forced to feel im confident there would be less homeless people on the streets because they have lost all hope because the drug that once made them on the top of there game has forced them into the gutter due to other peoples views on there drug use.

You will never hear someone say they are ashamed of taking pain medication that the doctor gave them yet a trace amount of cocaine(something I dont really feel is that nice of a compound) would cure these peoples pain much better then any dangerous opiate a doctor will give them with muc less toxicity. Opiates just make you to happy to care about pain without truely attacking the source. With cocaine for instance. Imagine someone in serious pain popping hydrocodone after hydrocodone with little relief yet if lidocaine was spread thruout there body they would feel no pain not just a reduction of pain like opiates do. And on top of it all opiates have a rebound symptom that tightens the muscle shortly after the effects ware away so the fever and the cure become the same thing.

Vogelzang - 1-7-2010 at 16:06

I think they get this effect using diffraction grating. I got a piece of transmission grating that came in a book and this is what it looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVstafKZDYY&feature=relat...

Sedit - 1-7-2010 at 16:59

There is NOTHING to suggest she died of an overdose at all. Please all keep this in mind.

Polverone - 1-7-2010 at 17:09

I personally think that adults should be able to swallow, snort, smoke, or inject whatever substances they please, at least until they've acted irresponsibly under the influence. This is a philosophical position and not particularly influenced by whether or not people are harming their health with such choices. I don't think 15 year olds are adults, though.

I don't think MDMA is harmless, and I think that advocates who dismiss the potential for harm are doing their cause a disservice. However, normalized by user populations, how much excess morbidity/mortality does it account for relative to (say) people who drink alcohol or smoke tobacco? I suspect that the relative risk to users is not very alarming, but I don't have comparative studies at hand and will humbly correct myself if the facts show otherwise.

Sedit - 1-7-2010 at 17:42

There is another recent thread where I posted that exact data Polverone but the basis of the discussion was around the dangers of methampletamine. It showed that tobacco and poor diet related incidents are the #1 cause of death in the US back in 05, IIRC, when the study was done.

Polverone - 1-7-2010 at 17:57

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
There is another recent thread where I posted that exact data Polverone but the basis of the discussion was around the dangers of methampletamine. It showed that tobacco and poor diet related incidents are the #1 cause of death in the US back in 05, IIRC, when the study was done.


I didn't see that thread but it sounds like that data is not quite what I'm looking for. Tobacco use and obesity are common contributors to death in no small part because they are common. I'm not interested in relative ranking of health hazards in whole populations so much as effects in subgroups that actually engage in these risks: tobacco users vs. MDMA users rather than national tobacco impact vs. national MDMA impact. I suspect MDMA will still not come off too badly by comparison but it's misleading not to adjust for the population size of the subgroups.

Sandmeyer - 1-7-2010 at 18:27

People can argue ad infinitum about drugs, are they good or bad, dangerous or not, are they moral or not and so on - it's a bit like gay marriage, you can argue about it forever and I guess that's what smart guys in power want as it keeps the focus away from the real issues. It's like throwing a bone to two annoying dogs, they fight over it and leave you alone. But the true, rational reason why certain drugs are illegal is the issue, it has nothing to do with public health and can be summarized in one word : power - as I recently pointed out in another thread. I mean, nobody will argue that shooting up crank is good for your health, it is not, but it is well understood that the most effective and by far cheapest way to deal with the substance abuse is prevention and treatment and worst is criminalization involving expensive, futile police and military operations and prisons, and the smart guys know it, yet it is the approach that's used and it is even escalating.

[Edited on 2-7-2010 by Sandmeyer]

Chainhit222 - 1-7-2010 at 19:33

Sedit, I did not think about the people who are self medicating. This is a good point. Perhaps I should have explained myself a bit better. I was thinking more along the lines of respect your own body.

For example, don't binge out on stimulants as not to put too much strain on your heart. Don't drink hepatotoxic quantities of alcohol every day. Similar to avoiding eating fast food regularly for health reasons. I guess this only applies to some drugs (depending on where you look), opiates don't cause bodily damage...

I'm glad I do not have to take any psychoactive drugs on a regular basis to function on a daily basis.

entropy51 - 2-7-2010 at 05:39

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
I personally think that adults should be able to swallow, snort, smoke, or inject whatever substances they please, at least until they've acted irresponsibly under the influence. This is a philosophical position and not particularly influenced by whether or not people are harming their health with such choices.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that the citizens should be free to decide what they want to put into their bodies. Is this correct?

So do you think that companies should be allowed to sell whatever substance they please for adults to swallow, snort, smoke or inject according to their own judgment?

Should we do away with the DEA, FDA, CPSC and EPA since adults will be making these decisions for themselves with no meddling by the guvmint?

See Elixir Sulfanilamide

Sedit - 2-7-2010 at 05:59

Yes we should do away with the DEA and take the billions of dollars spent on them and gve it to the FDA so that they themselfs can study the effects of these various drugs, UNBIASLY, and distribute that information to any adult willing to take the substance they deem fit. The link you posted was a clear reminder how misinformation and lack of information can have dire consequences. The ban on drugs is along them same lines. Without them being legel theres no way the testing that can be done on them to give people the knowledge they need to make the responsible choice. Had they done the right thing and tested DEG in that formulation it would have saved lives. Same goes for substances they now deam illegle.

quicksilver - 2-7-2010 at 06:16

The DEA is not the old "Bureau of Narcotics". They are more an intelligence organization than a drug hunting venue and will not go quietly into the night. They would not be going anywhere at all because the value of intelligence organizations that operated BOTH in a host country and the US is too valuable to throw away.
There is much too much interaction between narco money and terror; narco money & political upheaval for them to be dismissed. This issue is really NOT about someone getting high. The issue is about the level of corruption and manipulation an unbridled amount of money can do.

woelen - 2-7-2010 at 06:16

The problem with modern regulations is that they are excessively tight. In all ways does the government want to protect the polulace. This kind of regulations makes many of us complete dumbasses when it comes to safety, responsible acting and reasonable use of materials and foods. I dislike the nanny-mentality of the western world.

I do not say that agencies like the DEA, CPSC, FDA should disappear. They have a good signalling function and it also is good that the risks of products are made public. But what happens now is that others try to decide for me what is good and what is bad. Let the agencies do their reseach and let them give their advice on product safety (and as a payer of taxes I also am willing to pay some amount for that), but let the people themselves decide whether they take the risk or not. I know that ethanol is a class I carcinogen, but still I occasionaly drink a glass of wine and I accept the risk. It is an illusion that we can have a life without risk, which still is worth living. In a world where all risks are banned I think most people don't want to live. The same is true with some extreme sports. People know the risks but still enjoy these sports.

When it comes to drugs I have a mixed attitude. I myself don't want any of it (not for personal use, nor in my family), but I can imagine that limited and careful use of _some kinds of_ drugs can be combined with a reasonable and acceptable life style. E.g. a person having a few hemp plants in his house for personal occasional use is not a problem for me. it becomes problematic for me if such a person becomes a nuisance for others or if such a person destroys his own body by means of excessive use. Some drugs are so bad that it is better if they are banned, but we should not be so paranoia that every single compound which is somewhat dangerous must be banned at once.

Polverone - 2-7-2010 at 08:05

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
If I understand correctly, you are saying that the citizens should be free to decide what they want to put into their bodies. Is this correct?

So do you think that companies should be allowed to sell whatever substance they please for adults to swallow, snort, smoke or inject according to their own judgment?

Should we do away with the DEA, FDA, CPSC and EPA since adults will be making these decisions for themselves with no meddling by the guvmint?

See Elixir Sulfanilamide


I think that medical claims about products should still require government evaluation. I think that regulators can and should enforce label disclosure of ingredients, conformity of contents with labeling, and label disclosure of known health risks (or disclosure of the fact that health risks are unknown, for new products).

I think that inherently dangerous-to-user products, like tobacco and other drugs both legal and currently illegal, should be labeled as such, and not promoted with fraudulent labels or advertising, but I don't think they should be illegal for adults to sell or buy. So in my dream-world the DEA would disappear or have a much diminished role. I don't think it makes sense for the FDA to enforce standards for non-medical use of drugs, so maybe that could be the DEA's new role, or maybe it's more appropriate for the BATFE to oversee such drugs.

I don't think what I have described would seriously impair the operation of the FDA, CPSC, or EPA. Under my proposal you still can't sell laudanum as medicine unless it's passed a proper clinical trial for a medical condition (though you can sell laudanum, plastered with warnings much like cigarettes). You can sell a poisonous concoction, but labeled appropriately, not promoted as "soothing syrup" or whatever. The CPSC can still make rules for drug packaging and monitor OTC drugs for contamination (I am not sure why that's not handled solely by the FDA, but I digress). The EPA, to my knowledge, doesn't have anything to do with controlling consumer purchase, use, or disposal of drugs. I don't think they've even yet set wastewater standards for hormones and other endocrine affecting drugs that enter the sewers from human excretion.

Actually, the group of substances that is hardest to handle in my dream world is not habit-forming drugs but antibiotics. If you become an alcoholic, you're primarily a danger to yourself, though you can be a material danger to others if you get belligerent or try to operate heavy machinery under the influence, and you're a social hazard in that people who counted on your support (or at the very least your ability to support yourself) are short-changed. In terms of chronic and acute health risks to oneself, and direct and indirect risks to others, I don't think any recreational drug habit is markedly worse than alcohol dependency, and Prohibition brought far more ills than legal alcohol sales without even coming close to ending alcohol dependency.

Antibiotics are different, though. Overuse or improper use promotes drug resistance that is a material threat to everyone who faces bacterial infections in the future. I do not think that adults should be legally barred from risking or taking their own lives, but I am not so sanguine when there is a substantial risk to life and limb imposed upon others without their consent. Antibiotics and antivirals are about the only drugs I would want to see remain prescription-only.

densest - 2-7-2010 at 21:31

I mostly agree with polverone.... with a few extensions and caveats.

Anyone and everyone - especially corporations - should be responsible for the side effects of their indulgences.

For instance, a lot of good data has come out about secondhand tobacco smoke since many jurisdictions have prohibited indoor smoking. Large drops in heart attacks, etc. in nonsmokers have resulted. Also, in areas where the prohibition has been in effect longer, it has been sufficiently (to me) demonstrated that significant long term damage is done to fetuses to justify the prohibition. I really don't care if someone enjoys a cigarette or cigar - just don't ask me to pay for his hospital bills, and the smoker should pay for the damage done to other people.

I really don't care about anyone taking amphetamines - there are very valid reasons to do so. Unfortunately, there are many people who do so to great excess. Some do because they want/need to stay awake to make enough money to live. That's part of social justice, which is a topic which would take several lifetimes to address fully. Some do because they're addicted. Some do because they don't have anything else to do. Three downsides: "meth mouth" = destroyed dentition, with some truly bad lifelong health problems, amphetamine psychosis - mostly transient, relatively rare, and deadly on the highway, and familial violence which transmits down generations as a contagious disease.

It's also becoming increasingly obvious that road traffic is quite poisonous - particulates, gases, vapors, sounds, and light are all devastating to the health of humans living near roads. The effects of brake dust, road noise, and excess light are all very bad for humans. Sound and light pollution contribute in large part to sleep disruption which has been proven to cause dramatic health effects in a substantial subset of the population.

Most - not all - of the bad effects of opiates are the result of prohibition. Again, the effects on other people can be devastating especially in the context of an obligate auto-dependent age.

Texting while driving has been measured as the equivalent of 0.2% blood alcohol or worse. Even hands-free telephone conversations while driving are equivalent to something like 0.03-0.05%

So while physical drugs are a significant problem and should be regulated if legal to prevent public accidents, there are many other parts of modern life which are as detrimental or more and should be regulated with much more severity. Unfortunately, as people have said, the "war on drugs" is an industry, and the promotion of automobiles, mobile phones, etc., is such a big part of the economy as to be very difficult to restrain.

Vogelzang - 15-7-2010 at 15:30

Is MDMA blessed?



EpikursDream800.jpg - 215kB

Rich_Insane - 26-7-2010 at 16:08

As far as I know, MDMA is a fairly safe drug. It is actually pretty safe for use, but is not harmless. I think that most street ecstasy pills contain analogs -- very dangerous and unpredicatable ones too. Hell, some pills contain para-methoxyamphetamine, which is extremely neurotoxic. Generally it's a good idea to eat high sodium food before any sort of high intensity all-night parties. Also drink water, but not an excess.

MagicJigPipe - 28-7-2010 at 12:18

Better living through chemistry, eh? What is your position on chemistry again? I can't really ever seem to pin it down.

To me, you have actually bolstered the point you are supposed to be opposing.

And the "Elixir Sulfanilamide" argument is far from original. Any new ones in the interest of keeping things fresh?

[Edited on 7-28-2010 by MagicJigPipe]

quicksilver - 29-7-2010 at 09:08

I'm old enough so that I honestly remember the common production & use of hallucinogens such as LSD. During that period there were a number of adulterated products sold as LSD, Mescaline, etc. They were a serious risk. One of the largest concerns from my perspective is not the drug per se' but the fact that by it's very illegality, the production elements will always be in question.

MagicJigPipe - 29-7-2010 at 12:07

My sentiments exactly.

I sometimes wonder that, if the U.S. and/or other countries experimented with the legalization of drugs and, by careful monitoring and experiment, it was determined that, overall, things were better (less people in jail, less violence, less broken homes due to jail, etc...) if Joe Sixpack would admit then that drugs probably should be legal. I wonder if he/she would still say, "Well, it's just not right and it's against that thar Bible. What would Jesus do? FREEBIRD!"

Probably. Many things are like that, it seems. It's not the fact that they care about how much people suffer in totality, it's just a moral/I-just-don't-like-those-people issue. Projecting their will on YOU. Isn't that really what it comes down to for many?

I will delete this message if it causes a shitstorm.

quicksilver - 30-7-2010 at 07:15

Legalization would cover too much ground & have too many complications but de-criminalization has been attempted (Alaska) without too many problems.
As to the theological aspects of the issue I don't believe that the Judao-Christian Bible would have issues beyond the genre' of "Sloth", "Gluttony", & related concepts of man's relationship toward his society, family,& theological obligations. "Drunkenness" (as expressed as intoxication) becomes a theological issue when it impacts society, our family, & our obligations. Those problems won't go away with Prohibition or the Harrison Narcotics Act.

The approach to this as a Medical model may be much more productive than a Legal model because we've tried using Legal models to deal with drunkenness (and since 1914, narcotics as well) & we know that it doesn't bear fruit other than riches for dealers and private "Treatment" programs.

The biggest impediment is that we have a whole network of law enforcement, a whole caste-system of medical providers, & a whole genre of politicians that make their living off the present system. Some of those have value in other areas and some are simply parasites.
The issue is too complex to compose simple alternatives that don't take into account all the complications of a sweeping change.

Medical ethics questions would need to be addressed & they are seriously tough ones!
Is confidentiality to be maintained? Are self destructive actions to be condoned? What of the parent who is addicted? What of the person in authority who is addicted? Where is the line between addiction & chronic use? Does an individual have the right to self destruction if his mind is impaired?
The elemental ethics issues are one of the biggest hurdles on a medical level alone.


edit:

I ALSO will delete this message if it is in any way offensive



[Edited on 30-7-2010 by quicksilver]

Vogelzang - 30-7-2010 at 09:08

Mendel's experiments showed that there apparently was some sort of genetic mechanism responsible for inherited traits. Why is Darwin demonized, but not Mendel?

hissingnoise - 30-7-2010 at 09:53

I thought Darwin was lionised but not demonised. . .


Mister Junk Pile - 30-7-2010 at 10:21

"Does an individual have the right to self destruction if his mind is impaired?"

I believe the answer to this question lies in another one:

Is the individual causing direct harm to others?

The issue here then comes from, what is "direct"? Does any sort of indirect harm count? What about emotional harm? Financial?

Like I said before, I feel many get caught up in the irrational side of this debate. Instead of looking at it rationally and logically, they make their decisions based solely on gut-feelings and knee-jerk reactions. "My brother was addicted to crack and now he's in jail, all drugs are bad". "My friend OD'd on heroin, therefore, it is impossible for anyone to use such a drug responsibly and we should protect people from themselves". Or "My aunt was shot by a drug dealer, therefore, drugs should most definitely be illegal and anyone who is caught with them should go to prison for life".

Have to go. Talk later.