On Drug Use

[Engler]

Drugs are bad. Don't do them. And now you know.

[Izzi]

Originally Posted by aperson

it is the job of the user to research the drug and understand these properties before he or she takes it.

You'd think so, but if the person were to go that far i dont think they would be dumb enough to want to do it in the first place.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by Engler

Drugs are bad. Don't do them. And now you know.

Please do think before you post in CT.

Originally Posted by Izzi

You'd think so, but if the person were to go that far i dont think they would be dumb enough to want to do it in the first place.

You act like we don't know what we're talking about first-hand. But we do.

Personally, ever since my first drug experience gave me a shock, I have researched every chemical I have ever ingested carefully before doing it. One of those chemicals was salvia. I still do salvia on a regular basis. So apparently I was still "dumb" enough to do it. But actually there was negligible risk in my taking salvia. How is that dumb, exactly? And I know someone is going to get me on the negligible risk part, but I'm going to counter that before it even comes up: almost everything we do every day comes with SOME sort of risk. Driving comes with a risk to your life. Even just walking outside. But we don't stop doing these things. I'm sure you can think of a million examples now that I've cleared the air.

You just insinuated that every drug user is "dumb", which is far from the truth. I don't even need to prove my point here, we've got living examples in this thread: aperson and jewpin, and probably some others. And depending on how intelligent you consider me, there is also myself.

PS I have not discussed any illegal activities in this thread. Salvia is legal.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Izzi

You'd think so, but if the person were to go that far i dont think they would be dumb enough to want to do it in the first place.

I was anti-drug until I started researching them. Maybe you should learn to speak for yourself and stop being such a judgmental person, Izzi. I have a feeling you haven't researched drugs yourself, and your statement is just coming from some blind bias that you have arbitrarily developed from hearsay. Evidently, you haven't even put in the time to read through this thread before you dole out your quips.

[Izzi]

Wow i think you totally misunderstood where i was coming from there. You are way to quick to jump at stuff like that. Also that was only a 1 liner how do you get all of that out of it. How am i acting like i dont know what you are talking about? My statment wasnt even an arguement against anything you said. I was just throwing it out there. Please, calm down sir.

If you think about what i said the situation would be more like this.

"Hey i think im going to try cocain" "lets research it because it might be dangerous!" "Omg, its addictive and can ruin your life, omg" *does it anyways*

Please dont take this into a huge arguement. I read your post and this isnt an attack against you at all.

[flawofhumanity]

Originally Posted by Izzi

Wow i think you totally misunderstood where i was coming from there. You are way to quick to jump at stuff like that. Also that was only a 1 liner how do you get all of that out of it. How am i acting like i dont know what you are talking about? My statment wasnt even an arguement against anything you said. I was just throwing it out there. Please, calm down sir.

If you think about what i said the situation would be more like this.

"Hey i think im going to try cocain" "lets research it because it might be dangerous!" "Omg, its addictive and can ruin your life, omg" *does it anyways*

Please dont take this into a huge arguement. I read your post and this isnt an attack against you at all.

Ugh...The problem here is that you're generalizing all drugs to be as horrible as cocaine, thus the assumption that you haven't researched drugs well (I haven't either, though I did recently do a bit of research on marijuana, not the other drugs mentioned in this thread). The point these guys are trying to make, or the one that I'm getting at the very least, is that the media and the general population is very one-sided towards drug use, mainly because of the education (or lack thereof) provided to us.

Personally, I'm a firm believer of "My rights end where yours begin," therefore I haven't had any problems with psychadelic drug users for quite some time, though as others have mentioned, drugs like "opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, and certain depressants like GHB" can be physically addictive (I think, if I'm incorrect someone call me out on it) which can lead to the detriment of others not abusing said drugs.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Izzi

Wow i think you totally misunderstood where i was coming from there. You are way to quick to jump at stuff like that. Also that was only a 1 liner how do you get all of that out of it. How am i acting like i dont know what you are talking about? My statment wasnt even an arguement against anything you said. I was just throwing it out there. Please, calm down sir.

If you think about what i said the situation would be more like this.

"Hey i think im going to try cocain" "lets research it because it might be dangerous!" "Omg, its addictive and can ruin your life, omg" *does it anyways*

Please dont take this into a huge arguement. I read your post and this isnt an attack against you at all.

Sorry bud, but this is Critical Thinking. If you say something inflammatory like that, you better back it up with something good. As Chrissi pointed out You didn't, and your e-ass was raped for it.

Originally Posted by flawofhumanity

drugs like "opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, and certain depressants like GHB" can be physically addictive (I think, if I'm incorrect someone call me out on it) which can lead to the detriment of others not abusing said drugs.

I actually had to look this up just now, but GHB is addictive (I, for some reason, didn't think it was). It's fairly mild when taken as a low dose sleeping aid, but it's deadly when taken at recreational doses. It's more commonly known as the date-rape drug and it can put you in a coma and even kill you. More dangerously, it can made from common household cleaning agents. But some people like take it because it gets you hella krunk, ya know wut i m sayin?

[uselessaccount]

I don't know a great amount about each drug, but I think laws are obviously there for a reason. The same way that a rail protects you from falling off a bridge or something, the laws kind of help to stop people from eventually overdosing or messing up their life. Most people won't fall off a bridge, but the fact that it's there stops the few that would've fallen off as opposed to if it wasn't there. Also truth is, whether you yourself are affected drastically by illegal drugs or not, it does drag down communities and countries. The line shouldn't be drawn where one person or a group of individuals feel that they have self control, because there are always people that can't control themselves. I guess what I said isn't too relevant to drugs themselves but I think it's a fair explanation of why anti-drug laws are the way that they are.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by uselessaccount

I don't know a great amount about each drug, but I think laws are obviously there for a reason. The same way that a rail protects you from falling off a bridge or something, the laws kind of help to stop people from eventually overdosing or messing up their life. Most people won't fall off a bridge, but the fact that it's there stops the few that would've fallen off as opposed to if it wasn't there. Also truth is, whether you yourself are affected drastically by illegal drugs or not, it does drag down communities and countries. The line shouldn't be drawn where one person or a group of individuals feel that they have self control, because there are always people that can't control themselves. I guess what I said isn't too relevant to drugs themselves but I think it's a fair explanation of why anti-drug laws are the way that they are.

I think you'd be a bit surprised at the history of some of our drug legislation then. There are quite a few ties to racist legislation against Mexican immigration in the early 1900s that account for marijuana being illegal, and Harry Anslinger was the man who led the crusade for it's illegalization. I suggest you read this link and come to your own conclusions about what kind of rails our government is building.

That's not the only one though. Ecstasy in unadulterated form is a drug known as MDMA (3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine) (note, this doesn't mean it's methamphetamine just because it has that inside the name. It's a totally different drug that simply has the amphetamine group inside of its chemical structure). There were studies done in the mid 90s that demonstrated that MDMA could cause holes in the human brain. This study was led by a man named George Ricaurte who was receiving funding from the government. Funnily enough, he retracted his paper in 2002 when it came to light that his test subjects were given methamphetamine instead of MDMA. Let me say it again, he administered the wrong drug on which the entire study was based. The government still cites this study as one of the backbones for the illegalization of MDMA. No studies since have been able to demonstrate any kind of serious serotonin loss from controlled use of MDMA.

When MDMA was originally synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, he saw it as a tool that could help therapists with patients who were suffering from Post Tramautic Stress Disorder and sent the drug out to psychologists that he knew. Additionally, the man responsible for the initial large-scale distribution of ecstacy was a standing member in the Christian church who saw it as a way to help people come to a purer, more insightful understanding of their problems. (search for the video documentary Ecstasy Rising if you want to learn more about this).

Both the non-medical and therapeutic use of MDMA were made illegal in 1985 despite the Drug Enforcement Administration Administrative Law Judge Francis Young's recommendation that physicians be permitted to continue to administer it to their patients. (from http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/x_01.htm)

These are just examples of the government enacting completely asinine legislation for two drugs. I won't even get into how absurd I believe its legislation of psychedelic drugs is, that's a diatribe for another day. But hopefully you should understand that the government is not always out for "what's best for you." Organizations like the Drug Enforcement Agency thrive off of continually being able to capture and arrest "drug abusers" and those that distribute drugs. Without a large scale drug problem, these people don't bring home any money to their families. This creates quite a bit of an agenda for them to keep pressuring legislation against all kinds of drugs, whether it is proper or not.

I hope that you actually do choose to look into and research issues of law like this, because a society that blindly accepts whatever rule structure the government feeds down to them is quickly going to become oppressed.



Edit: Oh, that's why I get Albert Hoffman mixed up as Alexander Hoffman. It's Albert Hoffman and Alexander Shulgin. My brain is dyslexic in the most subtle of ways...

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Izzi

Wow i think you totally misunderstood where i was coming from there. You are way to quick to jump at stuff like that. Also that was only a 1 liner how do you get all of that out of it. How am i acting like i dont know what you are talking about? My statment wasnt even an arguement against anything you said. I was just throwing it out there. Please, calm down sir.

If you think about what i said the situation would be more like this.

"Hey i think im going to try cocain" "lets research it because it might be dangerous!" "Omg, its addictive and can ruin your life, omg" *does it anyways*

Please dont take this into a huge arguement. I read your post and this isnt an attack against you at all.

Even though you've already been ripped apart for this I feel you still need it cemented in your brain. Your first post was an absolutely idiotic blanket generalization about all drugs. My entire first post was about how not all drugs appear as they seem, and that we should come to a deeper understanding about all the drugs around us before we choose to both demonize or use them.

You, on the other hand, completely ignored it and chose to make an uninsightful comment about how no one with adequate research could possibly want to do any drug. Also, way to back it up with another idiotic generalization in this post. I researched cocaine heavily before I tried it and decided it was worth it if for nothing else than to catalogue the experience. it was a pretty uneventful experience; I haven't done coke since.
Additionally, a personal counterexample to your pile of tripe would read like this:

"I researched mushrooms for several months before I decided to do them. I came to the conclusion that they were a powerful drug which could be very insightful if given proper respect. Therefore, I tried shrooms and had an absolutely fantastic experience."

I have little patience for people who are both judgmental and ignorant like you. Ignorance is fine and understandable, but as soon as you start making value judgments about something you don't understand you only cement the misinformation that has been plaguing the world of drug legislation for so long already.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by uselessaccount

I don't know a great amount about each drug, but I think laws are obviously there for a reason. The same way that a rail protects you from falling off a bridge or something, the laws kind of help to stop people from eventually overdosing or messing up their life. Most people won't fall off a bridge, but the fact that it's there stops the few that would've fallen off as opposed to if it wasn't there.

Most people would fall off a bridge accidentally, not because they went into something ignorantly that has obvious risks. And the laws unjustly persecute those who know what they're doing with drugs.

Originally Posted by uselessaccount

Also truth is, whether you yourself are affected drastically by illegal drugs or not, it does drag down communities and countries. The line shouldn't be drawn where one person or a group of individuals feel that they have self control, because there are always people that can't control themselves. I guess what I said isn't too relevant to drugs themselves but I think it's a fair explanation of why anti-drug laws are the way that they are.

I'd argue this, but I need to know exactly what you mean by "drag down communities." How so? There are many ways you could specifically mean this.

[jewpinthethird]

Really, I can't say anything that hasn't been said or than there is only one 'f' in Hofmann.

It's a common mistake. I only noticed it after I was typing up the citation for my essay.

ps. My professor (a chemist) admitted to have done his own experiments with LSD...which can be interpreted however you like, I guess.

[SonicFlasher]

I've been into Coricidin and Robotussin the past year almost, taking as high as 40 tablets of Coricidin and getting the trip of my life. Sometimes I'll take 16 coricidin and 2 bottles of robotussin. Wat could be the effects of this?

[aperson]

Originally Posted by SonicFlasher

I've been into Coricidin and Robotussin the past year almost, taking as high as 40 tablets of Coricidin and getting the trip of my life. Sometimes I'll take 16 coricidin and 2 bottles of robotussin. Wat could be the effects of this?

Liver failure and death.

Coricidin Cough & Cold contains acetaminophen, the same stuff that's in Tylenol. That's the reason they warn you not to take too much Tylenol; acetaminophen is metabolized in the liver and causes toxic metabolites to be released which damage the liver. In sufficiently high concentrations (read: around the doses you're taking), acetaminophen can cause liver failure, which leads to death. If you're taking Robitussin to trip you should be taking something that has ONLY Dextromethorphan HBr as the active ingredient. Check the back of the label, if anything appears besides that (such as acetaminophen or guafenesin), get something else.

Also, it's been hypothesized (but not proven) that taking high doses of DXM often can lead to either brain lesions or serotonin syndrome. You don't want either of these, so I'd recommend tripping on it no more often that once every 3 weeks.

[uselessaccount]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

And the laws unjustly persecute those who know what they're doing with drugs.

Laws basically account for everyone, even when there people who know what they're doing. I don't think there will ever be a way around that. To say that "those who know what they're doing deserve more rights and freedom" leads to "it's just too bad for those who don't know what they're doing". However, I do feel that the government has their laws not to protect us really, but rather just based on the principle that drugs are wrong. Honestly though, I wouldn't prefer another system even though ours is faulty.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I'd argue this, but I need to know exactly what you mean by "drag down communities." How so? There are many ways you could specifically mean this.

Even though it may not be the core of the drugs themselves, I can't say that they haven't negatively impacted people. I've seen people and friends turn into criminals and dropouts over the years, but I'm pretty sure everyone has seen that in some way.

And Aperson, I know you're educated and really informed on the topic but my main standing point is that even though drug use doesn't seem to be a problem for you, it is and will be for others and also (this may not be important depending on your view of social life) people will judge you solely on the fact that you take drugs. Even with all you know and study, your going to be classified and discriminated against because just like there will always be people that go too far with drugs, there will always be people who just see "the pothead" and never look any further. With my knowledge, I don't have the authority to say that drugs are wrong, but I think we can both agree that a lot people have been seriously messed up by drugs and still will be.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by uselessaccount

Laws basically account for everyone, even when there people who know what they're doing. I don't think there will ever be a way around that. To say that "those who know what they're doing deserve more rights and freedom" leads to "it's just too bad for those who don't know what they're doing". However, I do feel that the government has their laws not to protect us really, but rather just based on the principle that drugs are wrong. Honestly though, I wouldn't prefer another system even though ours is faulty.

If it was based on that principle then alcohol would be illegal. I don't see why the government needs to be a nanny that has to watch over my shoulder. It's insulting to know that the government thinks that they know what's best for me better than I do. Additionally, you don't see them making stuff like motorcross racing, bmx biking, or skydiving illegal even though you could probably classify it as much of the same thing: A high risk activity that's chasing a thrill. There are people there that know what they're doing and idiots who don't know their limits and end up hurting or killing themselves. If you put a stupid enough person into near any activity, they'll wind up finding a way to hurt themself, so why the arbitrary disdain for drugs?

And no one is saying that "...Those who know what they're doing deserve more rights and freedoms." What carbo and I are saying is that the government is stripping away freedoms we should all already have based on their misinformed opinions about safety. Stupid people and smart people alike should have the right to do drugs. If you get burned, too bad, there are risks in life. People die skydiving but you don't see anyone racing to make that illegal do you? No, because we understand that there are risks involved and know that those people have decided that the utility they get from skydiving outweighs the risk. This concept also applies to drug use.

Even though it may not be the core of the drugs themselves, I can't say that they haven't negatively impacted people. I've seen people and friends turn into criminals and dropouts over the years, but I'm pretty sure everyone has seen that in some way.

Blame the drug user, not the drug. Who isn't to say they wouldn't have turned into unproductive members of society otherwise as well. You just want something that you can easily pin them on for being a drain on society. Lots of people who turn to drugs for wrong reasons really weren't going anywhere before they were doing drugs. I've got evidence of drugs positively impacting me and the people around me (because of the way I interact with them) so the issue can go both ways. Just more proof that the drug user is at fault, not the drug.

And Aperson, I know you're educated and really informed on the topic but my main standing point is that even though drug use doesn't seem to be a problem for you, it is and will be for others and also (this may not be important depending on your view of social life) people will judge you solely on the fact that you take drugs. Even with all you know and study, your going to be classified and discriminated against because just like there will always be people that go too far with drugs, there will always be people who just see "the pothead" and never look any further. With my knowledge, I don't have the authority to say that drugs are wrong, but I think we can both agree that a lot people have been seriously messed up by drugs and still will be.

Yep, I'm a pothead, people are going to think I'm stupid and that's the way it's always going to be. Jesus Christ dude, listen to yourself. The whole reason I'm getting out here and posting this stuff is so that I can hopefully change some peoples' opinions in this regard. In the 1950s and 1960s, black people didn't sit on their asses crying about how everyone viewed them as inferior people. They got out, protested, and demonstrated that they are just the same as everyone else. Because of that, lots of people changed their perception of them, and I'd say the world is a much better place in that regard since then. I'm not going to sit on my ass crying while a bunch of ignorant people demonize me for something they don't understand. I'm going to educate them and demonstrate why they shouldn't view me that way. If they continue to judge me negatively, then I will just get more vocal until they have no choice but to concede to reason.

You're right though, there will be people that view me as a dumb pothead no matter how hard I try... Just like there are still a few idiotic racists who still cling onto their old-hat beliefs. But when you suppress the maligned views, you affect policy, and that's what I want to do.

[FyRe-AnT]

Very interesting post, and point of view, very thankful for your opinions and yea, personally Ive seen that drugs have a tendency to make you not wanna do anything but sit there lol, so yea that is a problem for younger folks like me because well this is the time in my life when I really think I need to buckle down a bit and do some right stuff, because I have been wasting what little time I left, but also drugs bring out a creative side to you, well what my friends tell me is that it helps them be more creative in art and music, for me though its just a way to help me deal with society, but I produce music myself, just techno and rap beats. Ive seen drugs take people's lives over and that is a sad sight, but ive also seen it not effect a person at all. I think people should do what makes them happy, well not anything because you cant just go around killing people but I hope you understand me . Also I try to keep my opinions simple so if you have anything to add go ahead, I just throw in a understanding point of view ;P.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by aperson

Now you're having to climb a slippery slope to get to your point. I could use the same argument to show that junk food should be removed from society because it is unhealthy and in large quantities keeps us from being functioning members of society.

Me and my boyfriend had an argument about the recent happenings where I live about the fact that there's no junk food allowed in school's anymore. I thought it was good, he thought it was bad. Also, are you aware of the controversies going on with unhealthy foods right now?
eg: http://www.bantransfats.com/
Not that much of a slippery slope I think.

Originally Posted by aperson

Additionally, the direct harm of violent crime associated with the drug trade is all because they are illegal. The same thing happened with alcohol when it was legal, and the crime associated with alcohol disappeared when it was legalized.

I take it you don't go out to the bar district on Friday and Saturday night at 2pm much, do you?
On another note, I really don't think it'd be OK to have stores selling crack or meth just like any other business.

I'm perfectly alright with marijuana being legalized. In fact, you can't end up in jail for taking or using it unless you're an established dealer in Canada; an odd situation for sure, but also a tentative step towards recognizing that it's largely undetrimental.

Originally Posted by aperson

Additionally, you're implying that psychedelics incapacitate you for a day. Did you know that Crick was on LSD when he discovered the double helix structure of DNA. Beyond that, who is to say people don't have a choice to do what they want in their leisure time.

I was thinking more of a CEO tripping during a board meeting, although I suppose you're right, shouldn't be drunk during one of those either.

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Off the top of my head, Aldous Huxley, John Lennon, Jack Kerouac, Ken Kesey, and Albert Hofmann were all advocates of LSD and other psychedelics while at the same time not only functional members of society, but some of the most influential people in modern history.

Originally Posted by aperson

When MDMA was originally synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, he saw it as a tool that could help therapists with patients who were suffering from Post Tramautic Stress Disorder and sent the drug out to psychologists that he knew. Additionally, the man responsible for the initial large-scale distribution of ecstacy was a standing member in the Christian church who saw it as a way to help people come to a purer, more insightful understanding of their problems. (search for the video documentary Ecstasy Rising if you want to learn more about this).

Both the non-medical and therapeutic use of MDMA were made illegal in 1985 despite the Drug Enforcement Administration Administrative Law Judge Francis Young's recommendation that physicians be permitted to continue to administer it to their patients. (from http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/x_01.htm)

Freud prescribed cocaine for his friend's opiate (heroin or morphine I believe?)addiction, as well as for his patients, in good faith.

From the half hour of research I've done on MDMA, it seems there's not been enough research done to prove its harm. However, the single thing I've seen a few places, this one from wikipedia "The use of ecstasy can exacerbate depression[citation needed] and may produce temporary depression as an after-effect for some users.[17] Some individuals also might experience irritability in the first couple of days following use of MDMA.", and after reading all the chemicals is messes with, is certainly enough for me to not want to use it, and I would not be surprised if well-done studies in the future were to show more negative effects of this type, (which sound similar to cocaine) particularly if used frequently. Although, you know, they could show it's largely harmless.

Originally Posted by aperson

It's insulting to know that the government thinks that they know what's best for me better than I do.

The government doesn't think what's better for you as an individual; it does what's best for society as a whole, or at least tries.
This goes to a point I thought of raising earlier, and it's that not everyone has the time or drive to research every single topic that affects their health on their own. If they did, then we'd all be rigorous scientists and philosophers. I can see what you're saying that it's a lack of freedom, but it's also a security blanket. (I can't believe I'm not siding with you here, I'm sounding sooo conservative!) At some point, people need to defer to something higher for what's safe and not, and it's for protection. The whole idea behind laws and government IS to protect people. I think it's fine for the government to limit people's access to Schedule I drugs, drugs of high abuse; what's currently classified as high abuse is another story.

Originally Posted by aperson

Additionally, you don't see them making stuff like motorcross racing, bmx biking, or skydiving illegal even though you could probably classify it as much of the same thing: A high risk activity that's chasing a thrill. There are people there that know what they're doing and idiots who don't know their limits and end up hurting or killing themselves. If you put a stupid enough person into near any activity, they'll wind up finding a way to hurt themself, so why the arbitrary disdain for drugs?

Now you're making a slippery slope argument. I suppose you're of the mindset that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Ever seen Lord of War? (It's a good movie; I suggest it, aside from the sake of this argument.) The whole thing with this argument is that guns make it that much easierfor people to kill people, just like drugs of abuse make it that much easier to **** up your life and the lives of people around you.

Originally Posted by aperson

And no one is saying that "...Those who know what they're doing deserve more rights and freedoms." What carbo and I are saying is that the government is stripping away freedoms we should all already have based on their misinformed opinions about safety. Stupid people and smart people alike should have the right to do drugs. If you get burned, too bad, there are risks in life. People die skydiving but you don't see anyone racing to make that illegal do you? No, because we understand that there are risks involved and know that those people have decided that the utility they get from skydiving outweighs the risk. This concept also applies to drug use.

Except drugs hurt people in not quite so obvious ways as hitting a tree does. They can be almost insidious if you've not done your research properly. But then again, it's much harder to research what happens when you hit a tree versus take a drug. What you call an arbitray disdain for drugs I hardly think is arbitray; it's a fear of the unknown mixed with an extremely common view in our society, that hard work is all we need, and accomplishment, gain and pleasure should come about because of solely/mainly it. Someone earlier pointed this out quite nicely when they said they'd rather be utterly depressed but functional than be a quadrapalegic yet be happy all the time.
I agree that more education about them would be ideal to simply "this drug's good, this drug's bad", but a big issue are those people who end up doing drugs stupidly, particularly at a young age, are often those who don't pay attention when authority tries to teach them. You yourself said you thought drugs were all bad for awhile and you're getting a degree in Math and neuroscience; you can't use yourself as an example. There's quite a challenge to educate North America about drugs.
As to feeling your freedom is being surpressed by having your drugs of choice not legal, I take it you're not in jail right now. You're smart, and because of that, your freedom to use drugs really isn't being impeded. You don't need protection from the government, or for them to tell you what's good or bad. Not everyone's as resourceful or intelligent as you though, and some people don't mind and in fact almost need a higher authority, like the government, to dictate what's going to hurt them and what's not. Then there's everyone else, who, if they had the time and urge to, would learn about them. But that would require, as I said, time.

[Cavernio]

My bad for double post, but this is significantly different to merit one I think.

I was just thinking about how I personally would be affected if all drugs were legal, and there'd be an easier way of getting them than knowing the right people (which I don't at all, and don't particularly want to know). Like if I could go to a store and get them. I'd probably either be dead or be being looked after because I'd have ****ed up myself badly. I think I'm far better off alive and kicking.

[frankiesmithra24]

Drug abuse is very dangerous and so is alcohol poisoning.