MDMA and Footbag

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 05 Jul 2009 19:31

That graph is stupid Jeremy :) Whats the number on the left? And how the heck does Khat rank so high comparatively to heroin? I dont think 99.999999 percent of addiction experts or doctors have ever seen a single patient for the use of khat.

Mdma in street form is dangerous to many people imo. Ive seen some people get addicted to either it or the heroin that was mixed into it. Almost all xtc pills used to have heroin in them.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 05 Jul 2009 23:20

I'm fairly sure I offered some references to that graph. It seems pretty foolish to call a graph published in the most respected peer reviewed medical science journal in the world "stupid" without at least spending the time to actually read the article.

If you take the time to read the article, you'll see that the numbers on the left are fully explained, which also will explain to you that Khat is actually rated as being essentially completely safe and incomparable with heroin, rather than "comparatively high" as you claim (even without reading the article, I am at a loss to explain why you would think the graph says that Khat is dangerous, given it labels heroin as the most dangerous drug and Khat as the least dangerous).

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 06 Jul 2009 21:38

Heroin is 2.75 and khat is .75 that sounds like khat is dangerous to me.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 07 Jul 2009 01:34

So taking the time to read the study (the lancet is possibly down but I found a copy on another website through uni, which I can't repost a link too unfortunately, but if it's really necessary and you can't read it yourself then I'll post it.


A panel of experts gave each of the 20 drugs three scores of between 0 and 3. The three scores were on the following three criteria.
the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug
the tendency of the drug to induce dependence
the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society
So lets imagine we were ranking caffeine.

Caffeine can in some cases cause significant harm, including death, if taken in high quantities over long periods of time and especially in people with heart conditions or who are pregnant. I'd expect an average score for the first criteria above 0, although probably below 1.

Caffeine is fairly highly addictive. Certainly people are far more likely to become addicted to caffeine than most of the drugs on that list. Dependence is a little bit more than just addiction but nethertheless I'd expect caffeine to rate above 1 on this criteria (but probably below 2).

The effect of the drug on families, communities and societies is probably almost completely positive, except if you take into account the often negative conditions for the people growing it I guess. The rating here would probably be 0.

So we have about .5, 1.5 and 0. A total score of 2. for an average score of 0.67. Therefore Khat would be deemed only slightly more dangerous than what I think is a reasonable assessment of caffeine.

I would argue that anything that scores at or below 1.5 should be considered mainly safe. Drugs that score above 1.5 should be taken carefully.

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 07 Jul 2009 18:15

I dont agree with those so called experts. Someone wasted a bunch of money for that study.

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 07 Jul 2009 18:18

If you take some mind altering substance and it helps you shred like a madman, keep in mind youre still human so dont overdo it. You could pass out from overexertion or get an ankle or knee injury.

hacksterbator
Washed-Up Child Star
Posts: 4141
Joined: 12 Jul 2003 18:33
Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba
Contact:

Post by hacksterbator » 03 Aug 2009 12:43

crazylegs32 wrote:I dont agree with those so called experts. Someone wasted a bunch of money for that study.
ha, wow. can some one point me in the direction of the "hall of shame" thread?
A.G.

User avatar
Blue_turnip
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 03:55
Location: Melbourne

Post by Blue_turnip » 03 Aug 2009 20:11

hacksterbator wrote:
crazylegs32 wrote:I dont agree with those so called experts. Someone wasted a bunch of money for that study.
ha, wow. can some one point me in the direction of the "hall of shame" thread?
lol pretty much.
Oliver Adams

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 12 Aug 2009 17:40

Quote "A panel of experts gave each of the 20 drugs three scores of between 0 and 3."

If you feel thats a valid study then you are idiots.

hacksterbator
Washed-Up Child Star
Posts: 4141
Joined: 12 Jul 2003 18:33
Location: Winterpeg, Manisnowba
Contact:

Post by hacksterbator » 12 Aug 2009 20:52

makes more sense to me than some chump from chicago saying the experts in their filed are wrong.
A.G.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 12 Aug 2009 21:12

I'm an idiot then :D

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 12 Aug 2009 21:18

Mdma in street form is dangerous to many people imo. Ive seen some people get addicted to either it or the heroin that was mixed into it. Almost all xtc pills used to have heroin in them.
I think this argument spurs from a misunderstanding. Pure MDMA (While it can be found on the street) is most often delivered in ectasy pills, which are most notorious amongst street drugs for being cut with numerous other substances. Pure MDMA is basically the euphoria of ectasy, without the lock-dock or zoneiness that comes with ectasy pills cut with methamphetamines or opiates. Pure MDMA (A yellowish powder) is pretty safe stuff when compared to other substances on the list.
Image

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 12 Aug 2009 21:54

Duh the chump from chicago was arguing that the drugs are MORE harmful than represented. But go ahead and do lots of drugs because this study and hacksterbator agree to their harmless nature.

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 12 Aug 2009 22:00

Im using the experts as the source but it sounds like id recommend- alkyl nitrates, ghb, and exctasy. they sound harmless to me :roll:

User avatar
james_dean
space cowboy
Posts: 2268
Joined: 26 Oct 2004 23:11
Location: Bendigo, Vic, Australia

Post by james_dean » 12 Aug 2009 23:56

crazylegs32 wrote:Im using the experts as the source but it sounds like id recommend- alkyl nitrates, ghb, and exctasy. they sound harmless to me :roll:
So on a scale of "Harmful" you would recommend any of the drugs on the lower end of this scale, despite the fact that they are still harmful? How does any substance on a "harmful" scale sound harmless to you? That's a bit of a contradiction isn't it?

Also, wtf?
Image

"It's a punk one!" - Auntie Val, after being shown a spikey footbag

Bloggy

Challenge

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 13 Aug 2009 10:10

Duh the chump from chicago was arguing that the drugs are MORE harmful than represented.
Well, no one's saying these chemicals can be ranked in terms of safety on a number scale. Everyone's body is different and everyone will react to different chemicals uniquely. None of the items on this list are safe whatsoever.

That being said, I'd rather you smoke a bowl or two a day than drink a six pack of Mountain Due. I'd rather you try MDMA once or twice in your life as opposed to eating a plethora of trans-fatty acids like most everyone currently does. People need to get away from the idea that the government is regulating substances based on whether or not they are safe for us to consume.
Image

BainbridgeShred
Post Master General
Posts: 2352
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Contact:

Post by BainbridgeShred » 13 Aug 2009 10:11

I think he was being facetious James.

Basically, do your own cost/benefit analysis on anything you put in your body.
Image

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 14 Aug 2009 17:23


crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 14 Aug 2009 17:29

My main concern about misranking drug danger is this- Some kid may try a drug ranked highly dangerous like marijuana. They usually wont have any short term negative effects (of course smoking is bad) so they get a bit lackadaisical over the danger of drugs. Next thing they turn into cokeheads, tweakers, or junkies. Gateway drugs are an effect of misreporting of drug dangers IMO. Some drugs are 100 times more dangerous than others.

crazylegs32
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1341
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 19:45
Location: Palatine/Chicago Burbs

Post by crazylegs32 » 14 Aug 2009 17:34

Since this was published in "the most respected medical science peer reviewed journal in the world" What did the peers feel about the study?
I tried your link once and I would have to sign on to view the study and Im not signing on.

Post Reply