They're not drugs

With all the information and web sites I've been reading on these "legal marijuana alternative" drugs, I'm really not seeing any of them as drugs. Including the ones that are illegal - pot, (regular) shrooms, and peyote. They're not drugs. They've been in existence for thousands of years and are still used by people in cultures that haven't evolved or modernized. They are just plants that have chemicals that have an effect on us. And isn't that how some of our prescription drugs came about? I really can't consider anything so natural a 'drug'. Just food for thought, that's all.

 

a drug is something that you take that changes your body/mind they are drugs just natural drugs,i do think that natural substances that have been around and used for thounsands of years are illiegal

 

To me, a drug is something man-made, bad for you, and illegal. I don't think anything that is naturally occouring on this planet should be illegal. That's just my opinion.

 

The definition of a drug is not an opinion. A drug is a chemical substance that effects the central nervous system. THC fits this perfectly, as well as psylocibe and mescaline. These are three chemicals that are produced in nature, and they all satisfy the definition of a drug, whether you like it or not

 

Well, technically speaking, cannabis, mushrooms, and peyote aren't drugs...they're vegetation; however, they contain compounds that would be considered "drugs." Just because something is a "drug" doesn't make it illegal (OTC drugs, pharmies, alcohol and nicotine...are all drugs). It should also be duely noted that "man-made" compounds (or synthetic, for a lack of a better term) are all derived from plants and are generally safer than their sources due to the fact that you are ingesting only one, isolated compound rather than several hundred compounds, some of which maybe toxic.

 

My OPINION is that you should FUCK OFF because I am definately allowed to have an opinion that the definition of drug is WRONG. And if you could both read AND comprehend what I said, you would have known that's what I was referring to.

 

Well, you can't have an opinion on a definition. A definition is an axiom. Clearly, the word 'drug' has a different meaning in your head, but this is just a mistake on your side. You could just as well say that a 'dog' is a type of mechanical pencil, but don't expect anybody to change the English language to suit your opinions.

But of course, saying that a natural plant that has been in use for thousands of years is not a drug according to the definition used by the government in their "war on drugs" is a valid opinion. Rather than fighting for definitions, which are meaningless anyway, fight for actual facts.

 

yeh, its clear that your definition of a drug is the result of government conditioning.

the food you eat is a drug. it just doesnt affect your brain mostly (at least in ways you can determine)

your bodu produces dugs all teh time

most conventionally know 'drugs' come from outside the body, and these drugs often affect your bodies in ways that do not occur naturally with the foods you need to survive on. because the body is so complex, many drugs have multiple effects, detrimental and better for you. if they were only better for you then the body would produce that chemical in large amounts!

the body needs balance. most 'drugs' change that balance, for the good for your health, for the pleausre of your mind, to kill you, anything really.

as said, it doesnt matter what your oppinion of a definition is. its not a matter of oppinion. dont worry what the govt tells you. nothing the govt tells you is for your interests remember, tis for their interests. in order for a govt to stay in power, they need to try and make their interests SEEM to be your best interests too, sometiems they are and sometimes theyre not. someteims they are to the people who have power to keep the govt in power too.

 

ROFL. Someone needs to lay off the PCP. Where did you go to school? A definition is factual information. Your opinion that the word "drug" should have a different definition probably stems from the negative connotation around the word 'drug' stamped into your skull by your society. The FACT is, the word drug has a set meaning that is not going to change, but what you associate the word with can.

 

The big problem is (imho), that there are different kinds of drugs:


- legal drugs that you can buy without any restrictions and which are known to be drugs (like alcohol, or psychopharmaca, which are sold without prescription)
- legal drugs that you can buy without any restrictions, but which aren´t sold as mind-changing drugs (like DXM in cough syrup, or some kinds of plants/plant seeds)
- legal drugs which you can get with prescription only (psychopharmaca)
- illegal drugs that you can buy free (like some RCs that are sold for research purposes only)
- illegal drugs that you normally can´t buy legally

All substances belonging to one of these groups are drugs! But it depends on every individual´s opinion, if he sees one of the group as a drug or not.
Example: more than 30% of the people in America neither think that alcohol is a drug, nor that it can be dangerous. Why? Because it´s legal!
Or this: more than 80% of the people treated at hospitals because of benzodiazepine-addiction (e.g. "Valium") for the first time, haven´t heard so far, that they´ve been ingesting a dangerous drug. Why? Because they think that their doctor wouldn´t prescribe them something dangerous (and why should you read the information sheet...).

The terminus "drug" has multiple meanings, so it´s no wonder, that people have very different opinions about drugs.

And remember: until the 7th century, the most popular drugs in Europe were mushrooms and hemp (Yes! This plant´s origins are located in central Europe, from where it was exported to Asia around 500 B.C.). Alcohol was already known, but not very important. With the christianisation of Europe, the old drugs were pushed away and replaced by alcohol, esp. wine.
Same thing happened in America. Alcohol was nearly unknown by the American natives until the (christian) European settlers arrived. And now take a look at the current situation...

So if you want to blame anyone for the current situation in drug legislative, blame the christian church (which is still in the first row, when it comes to damn drugs other than alcohol (isn´t it, George W.? *)). :X

One more interesting fact: in every corner of the world, animals have learned to use local drugs. Man has learned from animals about these drugs, where to find them and how to use them. But mankind is (scientifically) not more than a very developed race of apes. So it´s just natural, that man uses all kinds of drugs for his purposes! Any restriction in this respect is (imho once again) a threat to our rights to develop freely as humans!

--------------------------

* Don´t you thinks it´s bigot, that when Bill Clinton said that he had smoked pot once, lot´s of people said that someone like him couldn´t be president, but that it was no problem for the majority of the American people to elect an ex-alcoholic for president?

 

yeh thats totally fucked. a president who smokeS pot every now and then would very likely have more of an idea how to run things than some right wing alchoholic

hell one of the most loved (so im led to believe) presidents of your country was an amphetamine addict

 

Digitalis is a drug that has been in use for quite some time, and comes from the Foxglove plant. It has both saved lives and improved the quality of life for millions. It is extremely toxic. Define drug however you want to, but EVERYTHING is chemistry. The difference between medication and poision is all in the dose, not the compound.

Cabbage contains over 300 active chemical compounds. . .

 

ever tried smokin human brain?

 

No, but I suspect I could get high from yours. . .

 

well if i ever have a lobotomy ill be sure to ask for the piece of brain

 

good idea. . . sell it by the gram!

 

but do you recon.. you actually could get high?

if you ate like a whole brain

not cooked

caus.. theres all those neurotransmitters

maybe youd just get a seizure and die

 

This reminds me of the final scene of "Hannibal", where Dr.Lecter let´s his victim eat his own brain... brrr, what a disgusting thought...

 

I doubt it. I imagine the acid in your stomach would destroy them.

 

What if you snorted that shit? Or slammed it maybe?