Options
7 Illegal Drugs That Are Surprisingly Good Medicine
_radioamerica
Posts: 4,921 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I've heard of a few of these before and I always wondered why there arent further studies into what good effects can be found by using illegal drugs.
Some of these uses are very surprising.
http://www.oddee.com/item_97276.aspx
Some of these uses are very surprising.
http://www.oddee.com/item_97276.aspx
0
Comments
Scientists are always coming up with new arguments for and against and learning various side effects over time.
Mind you self-medication blah blah blah
Also though, cannabis. Wonderful drug THC proven to reduce cancer cells, and spastiscity in MS patients.
Shouldnt use them thogh, theuy are dangerous to your health....You might get a gang of uniformed thugs break into your hous ransack your stuff steal your medicine kidnap and extort you and callYOU a criminal.
#
I F*cking love this society :rolleyes:
Decent scientific method is clouded by faudsters and those with political agendas.
Every drug has positive and negative side effects.
Being criminalised should NEVER be one of them.
Decent if it goes along with your ideas you mean?
It's also used in the treatment of rabies, under the Milwaukee Protocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol
What do you mean?
No, I mean that the irrefutable evidence that psilocybin and lysergic acid are the ONLY effective tratments for cluster headaches, that canabis has been proven to reduce cancer cells, that diamorphine is the best painkiller and MDMA isan effective teatment for PTSD and so on is suppressed. Im not saying they don't have negative effects, jesus just look at the state of a smack addict. What I am saying though is that criminalising their use and stifling their medicl application on the grounds of a (false) morality is so massively retarded that I cant even find the words.
Can I also add to this group of drugs with an ethical drug that scares the hell out of people. Thalidomide is a very good drug for certain indications it was however inappropriately used in one indication with historically well know consequences. Perhaps the same applies here, these drugs can be used in a regulated environment but allowing the man in the street to decide what is good and bad for him is rather unwise.
A more open and honest aproach to the whole issue of drugs, both medical and illicit is needed. As a society we are woefuly misinformed by government authorities about the relative harms that drugs do and the entire issue is deliberately clouded with sentimental, emotive arguments that do not rely at all on any independabt research.
Drugs, especialy illlicit ones are highly political from their growth and harvesting right through to their illicit use and abuse. Governments in the production countries and our own government all have agendas that have very little to do with the relative effects of drugs on people and their right (or not) to use them. I think the entire subject needs looking at afresh and a system devised whereby people are able to enjoy the medical and recreational benifits of whichever drugs are apropriate to them in an atmosphere of enlightment and educated awareness.
Of course there is fat effing chance of anything as sensible as this comming into practice in my lifetime but I think it's worth posing the idea from time to time. Certainly the way governments have treated drugs and drug use for the last 50 odd years is doing nothing to aleviate the impoverishing and detremental effects of drug use and abuse, yet they keep on with the same tired message and policy of disinformation. So stuff em I say.
Meh, about the only people who endorse his views are knee-jerk liberals and stoners.
To paraphrase his own "safe extasy pill" argument, if it could be proven that sex with kids wasn't intrinsically harmful would we all want the law to be changed so that people could have sex with kids?
Thought not.
Sometimes the "right" thing to do is simply what the majority wants.
And what does the majority want?
What a load of tosh, how is sexua abuse of children anything like the decision to put a substance into one's own body.
Are there political parties that endorse the legalisation of drugs?
How'd they do at the last general election?
I personaly have nothing against the idea of the government getting their cut of any money raised through the sale of drugs and think if done correctly could be very benificial. Also if the government were suplying peoples drug requirements there would be far less scope for organised criminals to do so (not that our government isn't a large organised crime sidicate on some levels)
I agree 100% with the above.
If you can keep to the Ole saying " You use the drugs,
Do not let the drugs use you" then there is nothing
wrong with recreational use IMO.
Are you actually able to answer my question?
Well why would they want to risk having people on the board who might just put forward reasoned and researched ideas that would get right in the way of the load of old bollocks that they want to push on us. (sorry for the mental image)
Unless you can find a sufficient supply of ethically sourced drugs any legalised supply of drugs in the UK would be endorsing organised crime, murder, corruption and child labour in countries that produce the drugs.
My answer was implicit in my previous response.
If the majority of people wanted drugs to be legalised we'd currently have a government sympathetic to that cause.
That is a ridiculous comparison to use.
They already do dude.
It's useful to be able to link the two subjects together so that using drugs can be directly compared to abusing children, thus creating a clear idea in peoples minds about what the dangers really are.