Thread: Ecstasy on the Rise...What's your take? :D

Originally Posted by Neruo

Good point.

-

Never done Ecstasy. Personally, I really don't see why it is mostly used at parties with crappy music. If I would ever do it, I would do it in a peaceful place, with some decent music. Research also show it isn't all that harmful, nor addictive. (That doesn't change the facts that there are idiots that take to much to often.)

I'll watch the docu some other day. DAMN YOU BBC, for making so many good/interesting documentaries.

Crappy music as in trance/techno? If you listen to it while on methyldioxmethaphetamine(ecstasy) you can feel the sounds, the highs and the lows if you close your eyes you can feel the music envelop your body.. All sorts of music are stimulating, but trance music in general has a different feel that makes you orgasmic while on them.

Their are idiots that eat too much food, people can't be stopped from over-consumption till they solve some inner problems.

My only beef lies with dealers of ecstasy, not MDMA itself.

I don't use it any more, mainly for that reason [although there are others].

Because of the way ecstasy is advertised [being that it is restricted the black market, I mean], it makes it easy for someone without any common sense to take whatever a dealer puts in their hands. Eat it is the motto, know about what your eating is sometimes not even an afterthough. And that's where I think things go wrong.

Granted, that's the users fault for not being educated, but it's also the dealers fault for not being honest.

As with a number of other drugs [but not all], there is potential for MDMA to be beneficial, in my humble opinion. However, there is a large window for risk involved in ecstasy as well [like most drugs].

Personally, I wish there were still a testing center available. I look at it the same way I look at abstinence; if it's known that people will put themselves at risk over something despite the possible consequences, the least that can be done is provide accurate information to those who insist on taking said risk.

Keep in mind, in saying this I don't judge anyone who takes it, I'm just putting in my two cents.

What is the actual motivation for governments prohibiting drug use?

I feel like that's a multi-faceted question...

For starters it's a form of entertainment/education that they receive no benefits from.
Also it promotes a general worldview that does not support governmental authority, in most cases [because drug-use by definition disregards such authority].
It also provides a useful scapegoat for the government; one in which they can assume moral authority over, and also find a multi-demographic enemy with which people can relate to.

There are more, but I suppose those are the first three that spring to mind.

What do you mean by recieve no benefits? If it were legal they could tax it...

I would guess that actually the majority of voters have used drugs at some point.

Good ideas though. I asked the question because I really have no clue...

Originally Posted by Xei

What do you mean by recieve no benefits? If it were legal they could tax it...

But it's not. So at this point they don't. That second sentence hit it on the head.

Unless you count the fact that certain civil-service authority organizations receive/spend tons of money on "fighting" drugs.

Which is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Uh think about it for a bit. The question is 'why do governments make it illegal'.

The answer isn't 'because they can't tax it because it's illegal because they can't tax it because it's illegal because'...

If it were legal, which is whole point of the question, they could tax it, so there's an incentive.