Drug use poll -- which drugs have you used recreationally

[Whateverman]

I could talk about this for a LONG time (but I wont unless the thread remains active).

I've tried many things, and believe strongly that (with drugs) it's impossible to characterize exactly what they are going to do to you before you take em.  For that reason, I was always curious - but quickly found (with a few exceptions) that I didn't enjoy them.

For example, hallucingens fuck me up too much to be recreational.  No one told me that mushrooms (and LSD) also make you really stoned; I thought they were mostly hallucingenic - and didn't like discovering some of the stuff in my head while getting sick, etc.

I used to smoke weed a lot, and I actually became addicted to it.  Any addiction stories I'd heard were laughed off by people who claimed you couldn't possibly become dependent.  I did.   While I enjoyed it some of the time, eventually I became too paranoid and had to stop; it took me over a year to get rid of the craving/habit/whatever.  I still partake, but only 2-3 times a year, and never enough to seriously impact my ability to stand, talk, drive or think.

Tie stick (opium laced marijuana) is actually quite nice, but I don't like sitting around and doing nothing for long periods of time :p

I *love* ecstasy, and I'm afraid of it for that reason.  I've taken it maybe half a dozen times (but not in the last 10 years), and have never had a bad time doing it.  Hanging around friends or going to a concert while on E, it's a blast.  It really opens me up and makes me want to hug stuff; who in the world couldn't use an extra hug?!?

---

The trick, however, is that it looks like I was able to stop myself from doing really stupid stuff.  Other people handle experimentation to varying degrees, and I recognize that just because I was successful doesn't mean other people will be.  For that reason, I consider drugs potentially dangerous - and that danger is more sharp with the highly addictive stuff (meth, coke, heroin, etc).

I don't like governmental attitudes about "substances" like the ones we're talking about.  Things need to change.  However, I'm not entirely one of those "legalize all of it!" people, either.  Coming up with a drug policy that's consistent, fair and protects the right people from their use seems nearly impossible.

[nogodsforme]

"Legalize" does not mean" hand it out like free chewing gum to anyone on the street." It means evaluate the drug in terms of what it does to people and how dangerous it really is. Then regulate it accordingly, instead of pretending that all drugs are exactly the same and only low-class or bad people use them.
 
How about: you have to be 21 or whatever to use it; you know what is in it and what the possible side effects are; you have to pay a tax on it; maybe you have to go to a special center to use it and stay there until you safely come down; you have to sign a release to get it that says you understand what it is you are getting. Think of the good jobs it would generate!

Part of the tax could be used for the treatment of people who get messed up by it. And people would not get thrown in jail for being an addict, having drugs, or being high as long as they are within the regulations. The only downside I see is that the negative stigma that keeps some people away from drugs might be reduced, so use might increase.

I lived in a very nice house next door to a crack dealer in Oakland CA back in the 1990's, with the associated open-air trade, scary characters sitting on my front steps, screeching tires at all hours, gang activity, gunfire, teenagers with big stacks of illicit cash, constant calls to police who could do little, participating on neighborhood committees who could do little, watching as nice people fled the neighborhood and property values dropped.[1] Some increase in use is a trade off I would be happy to accept.

1.	People were shot several times, and cars were broken into regularly.

[Truth OT]

"Legalize" does not mean" hand it out like free chewing gum to anyone on the street." It means evaluate the drug in terms of what it does to people and how dangerous it really is. Then regulate it accordingly, instead of pretending that all drugs are exactly the same and only low-class or bad people use them.
 
How about: you have to be 21 or whatever to use it; you know what is in it and what the possible side effects are; you have to pay a tax on it; maybe you have to go to a special center to use it and stay there until you safely come down; you have to sign a release to get it that says you understand what it is you are getting. Think of the good jobs it would generate!

Part of the tax could be used for the treatment of people who get messed up by it. And people would not get thrown in jail for being an addict, having drugs, or being high as long as they are within the regulations. The only downside I see is that the negative stigma that keeps some people away from drugs might be reduced, so use might increase.

Such an idea never crossed my mind before, but I gotta admit that it makes a lot of sense. Business would boom in such facilities as they would be like casinos!

[Whateverman]

"Legalize" does not mean" hand it out like free chewing gum to anyone on the street." It means evaluate the drug in terms of what it does to people and how dangerous it really is. Then regulate it accordingly, instead of pretending that all drugs are exactly the same and only low-class or bad people use them.

Of course.  That kind of "legalization" is mostly a teen-aged fantasy, whereas real legalization would involve regulation.  That being said, I'm not really sure that all drugs are deserving of it, even with restrictions.

[Irish]

My view is that just as medications for high blood pressure, bacterial and viral infections, high cholesterol, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer, allergies, and every other ailment under the sun can be produced, regulated, and distributed safely and securely[1] then the exact same can be done with the likes of marijuana, LSD, ectasy, etc.

1.	Just think of the vast amount of medication you can buy over the counter at Walmart.  Tylenol, Advil, Zyrtec, Claritin, Sudafed, vitamins, dietary supplements, etc.

[rev45]

How about: you have to be 21 or whatever to use it; you know what is in it and what the possible side effects are; you have to pay a tax on it; maybe you have to go to a special center to use it and stay there until you safely come down; you have to sign a release to get it that says you understand what it is you are getting. Think of the good jobs it would generate!

It looks like San Francisco has brought this idea up but it hasn't gone anywhere.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110206/wire/110209626

[bosey926]

^^^It is already done in many countries across Europe and in Canada.  There are multiple programs on the History Channel and National Geographic that delve into this.  They show how positive it is to create drug usage centers...especially for drugs like heroin where people share needles and in turn, STDs and other blood diseases. 
     These programs are pretty much right in line with what nogodsforme said.  Jobs for well qualified professionals is icing on the cake. 

[Truth OT]

I've been on the legalization bandwagon for a while, but the more I think about it, the more faulty I find some of my reasoning. A big reason why I advocate legalization was because I believed that drug related crime, specifically the violent inner city crimes we hear so much about would be greatly diminished.
But yesterday I went to the barbershop, and a guy came in selling bootlegged DVD's and that got me to thinking that even if many drugs were to be legalized, there would still be street hustlers "bootlegging" drugs anyway.

[Dante]

snip > even if many drugs were to be legalized, there would still be street hustlers "bootlegging" drugs anyway.

Yeah, it'd end up as violent and uncontrollable as the alcohol bootleggers we currently have. 

There's been a push here in Colorado for legalization of marijuana, including 15 second commercials airing during primetime network broadcast TV, for now extolling the virtues of taxation on the multi-billion dallar mmj industry.

[rickymooston]

thinking that even if many drugs were to be legalized, there would still be street hustlers "bootlegging" drugs anyway.

Well, look what happened with prohibition. 

I could be wrong but I think the drug industry today, isn't as powerful as the alcohol one was.

The vast majority of drug users are casual ones and they dabble in mild drugs such as marijuanna a few times in their lives.

[nogodsforme]

I've been on the legalization bandwagon for a while, but the more I think about it, the more faulty I find some of my reasoning. A big reason why I advocate legalization was because I believed that drug related crime, specifically the violent inner city crimes we hear so much about would be greatly diminished.
But yesterday I went to the barbershop, and a guy came in selling bootlegged DVD's and that got me to thinking that even if many drugs were to be legalized, there would still be street hustlers "bootlegging" drugs anyway.

Of course there is that possibility, but if the real thing is available and the risk of buying the bootlegged version includes 1) buying from a cop and getting in trouble with the law and, 2) getting some drugs cut with kitchen cleanser or something worse, then it would have to be way cheaper for it to be attractive.

One of the many reasons I have never tried street drugs is that I don't trust some random dealer guy to give me the right stuff. And where is he if the stuff he sells me puts me in the hospital? How much of an expert do I have to be to determine if this is cocaine or rat poison or just baking soda? Street lore is not always correct. With legalization and regulation, there would be quality control, labeling, lists of side effects to watch for, etc.

Bootleg dvd's and cd's that I have bought on the street in other countries are almost always inferior quality compared to the real ones, and not worth the money saved.

[Ivellios]

I've smoked Marijuana twice.

The first time I thought I must have done something wrong... like not inhaling, so the next time I made certain I inhaled and held it for awhile... I smoked just as much of it as everyone else in the group, yet still nothing. I saw no point have the risk of jail time for something that did nothing for me so I haven't touched it since. I've heard there are some people unaffected, but it's rare.

[Samuelxcs]

Drugs are bad.

[Zankuu]

Drugs are bad.

Here, let me refute that for you: Ibuprofen is a drug.

Put more effort into your posts.

[Samuelxcs]

I meant drugs like marijuana and the ones that are bad for people.

Watch this:

[Zankuu]

I meant drugs like marijuana and the ones that are bad for people.

Why do you think marijuana is bad? And what are "the ones that are bad for people"? Benzodiazepines were included in the list of drugs in the poll. Do you consider them bad as well? What is your framework for deciding if a drug is bad or not?

[Samuelxcs]

There are some drugs that could kill people, like cigarettes, etc. I don't think I need to be specific when I say drugs are bad. That doesn't mean ALL drugs are bad.

[One Above All]

There are some drugs that could kill people

Yeah - all of them[1]

I don't think I need to be specific when I say drugs are bad.

As evidenced in this thread, you do

That doesn't mean ALL drugs are bad.

By your definition of "bad", they are

1.	Note: Some drugs can't kill you directly, they just mess with your brain and make you do stupid things

[Whateverman]

I think I understand where you're coming from (since you included the South Park clip), but I'm a serious person and need to disagree with something:

I don't think I need to be specific when I say drugs are bad.

I think you do.  The fact is that different people mean different things when they use the word, and these people disagree as to what constitutes "bad".  All drugs can kill people if consumed at unsafe levels.

[Zankuu]

There are some drugs that could kill people, like cigarettes, etc. I don't think I need to be specific when I say drugs are bad. That doesn't mean ALL drugs are bad.

Let's talk about marijuana specifically since you mentioned it being "bad". Are you opposed to marijuana because it could kill people? Have you bothered checking to see how many marijuana related deaths are there per year? And if it isn't the possibility of marijuana being deadly, then what is your argument against it?

[Samuelxcs]

I am not against marijuana, I just don't like the effects of it. The smell is horrible to. It is just not what I would prefer, I prefer alcohol to drugs but I wouldn't drink for the effects either. Drugs and alcahol can have bad effects. Marijuana might offer some relief to people in times of stress. The lungs could be hurt though or someone might get cancer.

[One Above All]

I am not against marijuana, I just don't like the effects of it. The smell is horrible to. It is just not what I would prefer, I prefer alcohol to drugs but I wouldn't drink for the effects either. Drugs and alcahol can have bad effects. Marijuana might offer some relief to people in times of stress. The lungs could be hurt though or someone might get cancer.

Does this mean that you concede that drugs are not inherently good or bad? Or are you trying to make another subtle point?

[nogodsforme]

I meant drugs like marijuana and the ones that are bad for people.

Why do you think marijuana is bad? And what are "the ones that are bad for people"? Benzodiazepines were included in the list of drugs in the poll. Do you consider them bad as well? What is your framework for deciding if a drug is bad or not?

Drugs that are bad for people are .....bad....for people. Aspirin, sleeping pills, vitamins, cold medicine can kill you if abused. But they aren't bad, are they?

I take several prescription drugs every day for clinical depression and anxiety. It has taken years for me to get the right combination of pills and correct dosage. Before the medications and therapy, I was a wreck. Where would I have ended up without mental health care?  I am now a stable, responsible, happy, functional person with a good job and family.  Luckily I have insurance that helps to pay for the drugs (but not for the therapy).

Who can say whether there might be some street drugs that with the proper dosage and quality controls, could enable more people to be functional? Maybe some of those unhappy mentally ill homeless people--self-medicating with alcohol and unregulated street drugs--  could be rehabilitated? We already know that marijuana helps people with cancer and AIDS.

We will never know more if nobody is even allowed to do the research. And the research can't happen as long as the "all drugs are bad" message is out there. No politician wants to be the one who voted for the legal heroin study--- not in the US of A.

[HalusN8er]

I've smoked Marijuana twice.

The first time I thought I must have done something wrong... like not inhaling, so the next time I made certain I inhaled and held it for awhile... I smoked just as much of it as everyone else in the group, yet still nothing. I saw no point have the risk of jail time for something that did nothing for me so I haven't touched it since. I've heard there are some people unaffected, but it's rare.

I actually think it's fairly common for people to not get high the first couple times they try pot.  I know I didn't, but it worked from there on out juuust fine.

[rickymooston]

Whateverman, you are not the first person whose claimed to be addicted to pot. Obviously, its addictive for some people but most people don't seem to find it addictive.

I was concerned when you mentioned the "paranoia" because I'd read it causes "psychosis" in some people and that people with schitzophrenia should definitely avoid it at all costs.

Apparently the paranoia reaction is common in heavy users.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/chem-lab-the-sc/

Yeah - all of them[1]

1.	Note: Some drugs can't kill you directly, they just mess with your brain and make you do stupid things

Its not clear to me that all drugs kill you, either directly (for example inducing a heart attack) or indirectly (causing you to try to fly by jumping out the window), because there are simply too many drugs to choose from.

All the same, even caffeine can kill by inducing cardiac arrest.

[rickymooston]

oops.

[kin hell]

.......what a bunch of wowsers, 

I am slightly surprised at the stats, the sample so far seems to make this a much straighter base forum than I may have thought.

and yes although I am not "proud" of it in terms of "I did this ....so I must be cool", but I am not in the least ashamed either that I very actively pursued wide ranging and at times excessive recreational drug usage to get "alternated" from reality.  For 3+ decades.

but I was built robust and wanted to explore, and it was just a minor part of the excitement of the expansive experiential mind blow of being alive and doing a world of high impact adrenaline pursuits not to forget the wine women and song.

 Low tolerance to boredom! 

...............G'day stuffin   I know where you've been


.........reality is for those who cannot handle drugs

Now I'm not pushing for anyone else's use at all  ....none of my business, but I am a fierce advocate for making drug use personal choice with total education and total decriminalisation.







...don't do drugs

[plethora]

Now I'm not pushing for anyone else's use at all  ....none of my business, but I am a fierce advocate for making drug use personal choice with total education and total decriminalisation.

^This.

[Paperbackslave]

Tried various things when I was younger - shrooms, lsd, coke.  I was always terrified of crack and injectables.  Never went there.

But - I pretty much always smoked some pot, with various periods away from it.  Just a bowl at night in front of the TV - kinda like that glass of wine that others have, I guess.  Never have been a drinker.

If it was legal,  I would definitely use - much the same as I always have.  Doubt I would buy it though.  Probably grow it instead    I have no interest in the other drugs anymore, though.