Salvia vs. Cannabis vs. Other drugs

[Sorbus666]

I just want to raise some conversation and make you people think.

IMO, even though I like to trip myself, psychoactive and all the rest of the drugs should be illegal. I seriously think that everyone who wants it, gets it in the world these days, but if every store was able to sell cannabis, LSD, etc. The world would go down even faster. I bet nobody here wants to see kids trying drugs just for the sake of trying / being kids, and then getting hooked and possibly begin criminal actions. (No, not all, or even a majority of cannabis users for example are criminals, but you get the point).

Okay, so cannabis is illegal, why should salvia remain it's legal status where it is still legal? It's a stronger psychoactive than marijuana.

IMO, the only reason why salvia is still legal in so many places, is the fact that it's, an unknown drug for most, and most thing about officinalis / cooking when they hear the word salvia. In my home country salvia is illegal, but if I get it here I won't spread the word around, otherwise it will get more tightly watched eventually, etc.

I hope this post makes any sense, I am quite fuzzy. 

[Arcygenical]

One of the major reasons I dislike legalized dope, is the stringent regulations and pricing schemes the government would undoubtedly put in-place. I love getting an overweight gram of white rhino for 10$ on the corner of my street. I don't want to be supplied swanky, crappy weed, at 12.50 (or whatever, just look at the price of cigarettes...) a gram.

IMO, the only reason why salvia is still legal in so many places, is the fact that it's, an unknown drug for most

I fully agree with this. Which is why It's important to get lots of growers around, get the knowledge out, so when it eventually does become criminalized... cultivation information will be easy to find.

but if every store was able to sell cannabis, LSD, etc. The world would go down even faster

That one's hard to say though... Demand would decrease for a multitude of reasons, like availability, social stigma, can't make money from it anymore. But the drugs would also be safer... No weed laced with cocaine, no meth with a bunch of Draino left in it, etc. ad nausium. Crime rates would also drop drastically, as most crimes are "drug related" crimes. This would lower the burden on social assistance and correctional problems, health care systems and the justice and police systems. Stringent age limitations (I fully support a "no drug sales to individuals under 19 or so) would do more to prevent children from buying it, than the current "Fend for yourself" system.

It's not an easy one to call... But I personally don't care. I agree, if you want it, you get it. And I'm fine with that.

[Paradoxic]

As far as the drug policy goes, I think what we have in the United States is backward. We are making drug users into criminals. And the reality is we are all drug users, most of us just stick to the legal ones. If anything will make the world go down faster, its making more people into criminals. Not doubt drugs can be harmful and there needs to be regulation, but how does throwing someone in jail for simply liking to smoke weed help anyone at all? There are other, more effective ways to deal with the problems brought on by drugs. For example, in the Netherlands their philosophy on drugs is: "Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter." To me this makes the most sense. The Netherlands has taken this approach to drugs and it has not "made their country go down faster." In fact fewer people use drugs there than in the United States. If you are interested in more information about their drug policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

As far as Salvia being illegal, at this point I think there is more chance it will stay, for most all intents and purposes, legal. Although it does have intense effects, most find it rather unpleasant and do not continue to use it. Also it is short-acting, so theres not much potential for serious abuse. Also it would be almost impossible to control because it looks like any old houseplant and does not give off an odor like marijuana. On top of all that many scientists across the world believe it has tremendous medicinal potential. There are plenty of legal "drugs" available that will mess you up a lot more, for a longer amount of time, and that are much much more dangerous than Salvia. Some examples are: nutmeg, datura, Aminita muscaria, kratom, etc. etc. 

One of the major reasons I dislike legalized dope, is the stringent regulations and pricing schemes the government would undoubtedly put in-place. I love getting an overweight gram of white rhino for 10$ on the corner of my street. I don't want to be supplied swanky, crappy weed, at 12.50 (or whatever, just look at the price of cigarettes...) a gram.

I disagree with this because if it was legal anyone could grow it and if you can grow it you can make it good and cheap. And if you don't grow it I'm sure you'd know someone who did and they would sell it to you cheap. I think this is on of the big reasons MJ is staying illegal, because this government knows it would be very difficult to tax and make a lot of money from.

[Darty]

I disagree with this because if it was legal anyone could grow it and if you can grow it you can make it good and cheap. And if you don't grow it I'm sure you'd know someone who did and they would sell it to you cheap. I think this is on of the big reasons MJ is staying illegal, because this government knows it would be very difficult to tax and make a lot of money from.

Exactly. I recently found this book online: http://deoxy.org/pdfa/ccrime.htm (the whole thing is there, let me know if the link doesn't work for you) that has some excellent points about the war on drugs in the US. One of them is another reason why marijuana remains illegal is not because of the mild high you can get off it, but because of all the other uses hemp has, including, if grown in abundance, the ability to reduce our foreign oil demands by 90%. That is reason enough for anyone with interests in oil and power (bushy, oil companies) to keep it illegal; among others. Definitely check out this book, you can just click and read what interests you.

[Paradoxic]

Yeah hemp is a wonder crop for sure. I dont know about reducing 90% of oil needs, but it could definitely help as a biofuel. However, I think as an alternative to cotton and such it is incredibly more productive. It's a fact that the cotton industry spends lots of money to lobby against MJ legalization.

Thats link is pretty sweet, certainly has some good points. I love this quote:

Life is a sexually transmitted terminal illness.

lmao

[Darty]

Hahaha. Yeah, there are tons of good quotes in the whole book. The website it's hosted on http://deoxy.org is an amazing site full of I guess you can say "dark information" or just stuff you wouldn't typically find. It's a very enlightening place once you sift through it. This section contains lots of links to other drug freedom related issues: http://deoxy.org/pdfa/index.htm

[MstryShovel]

entrenched money is entrenched.

Oil, pharmaceutical, cops, all get put out of jobs or at least out of a major cash flow.  A friend was telling me how pharma's are lobbying to make OTC  vitamins/herbal suppliments prescription only, the idea CT (conspiracy theory) being too many people are staying healthy by taking vitamin suppliments (self medicating) ect. Now i don't know if this is complete bullocks or not, but its so crazy it could be true.

even if its not true, its a great example to use as a real-world application to why things that _could_ possibly be helpful (read: SD derivatives for mood/addiction Weed for its painkilling and such effects ect ect) are simply trashed. PharmaCorps cant make the money off of thier asprin that took them 30 billion dollars and 15 years to get passed through the fda, if some little punk, family, or small buisness potfarm can grow his own weed and cure his headache for generally free.  (to round out the examples i used: cops confiscate/cut/consume the drugs they get, or make money off of bribes from the underground smuggling rings. Oil is owned by or owns the pharmaCorps, they both dont want the cheap alternative to thier dwindiling power source becoming mainstream)

its the same reason free energy device inventors dissapeared in the mid 60's, just imagine if all these huge corporations suddenly had no demand because someone else can cure them/feed them/warm them for generaly free (not only that but does infact give away thier invention for practicaly free)?

FEAR is great isnt it. POT GIVES YOU AIDs. Reading gives you cancer. and rebellion gets you shot

sorry </soapbox>

[Arcygenical]

pharma's are lobbying to make OTC  vitamins/herbal suppliments prescription only, the idea CT (conspiracy theory) being too many people are staying healthy by taking vitamin suppliments (self medicating) ect. Now i don't know if this is complete bullocks or not, but its so crazy it could be true.

I'm actually FOR some sort of government regulation for Vitamins and Mineral suppliments... Currently, there's nothing. I could go grind up talcum powder, press it into pills, and market it as a cure for AIDS to no (legislative) ill recourse.

[MstryShovel]

well, yeah there would be recourse though, because its deceptive marketing let alone any FDA time to prove your claim and insure that all that talcum wont hurt anyone. I mean i could bottle my feces and sell it for the same(cure for ____), but the thing thats stopping me is the regulations in place for materials being sold for injestion... appologies for the rudeness of my rebuttal,

what im saying is vitamins are sold as Vitamins, Vitamin C is sold as "Vit.C", not "cold medicine", as the old wives tale sudjests. there are wording that sudjests this, of course like "used for", or "common usage". to be sold vitamins and any other item with intended usage for consumption has to pass tests to make sure its not harmfull.  its the same way you see lightbulbs with "120w" instead of "Bright as the sun" on the front of the box unless it is infact enclosed in quotes. because not only is it an obvious fallacy, but a claim, that cannot be backed up. same reason "best cracker anywhere" is in quotes(or simmilar), only one person has to say it, but its an endorsement thats the idea behind it.

there is legal recourse for this stuff though. Like in your example. you could go around selling your tablets as TacTabs or something and say, They cured my ____," or "somebody told me it cured thier ____"  but you couldnt market it as "THE CURE FOR____!" without solid research behind it.

Now on the other hand, what could work (or you could get away with) is selling TalcTabs, not making any claim about them other than they are talcum and in tablet form. then, under the table find someone to make a huge noise about how they started using talctabs and it somehow cured thier ____. make enough noise and people will listen. and thats not to say it also hasnt happened, because it has and it does happen all the time. You just have to have the loudest voice. and people have to listen

[Arcygenical]

I totally understand that deceptive semantics are used to allow the sale of products, with inferred uses. This actually supports my views though. You don't see antihistamines sold as a sleep aid or ibuprofen as the cure for a sore throat (although both can be used for these purposes). What you do see, are things like vitamin B compounds sold as "Stress relief formulas", vitamin C, zinc and echinacea sold as cold suppressants, shark-fin sold as an anti-carcinogen, and a bevy of antioxidants as the panacea for a healthy life.

Regulating these types of products, through bodies such as the FDA, prevent these "associative" suggestions.

[MstryShovel]

Ok I see your meaning and point, but do you think that the regulation should really be up to the point of requiring a doctor to prescribe you Vitamin C when your sick or ect.

wait let me rephrase; I agree with you that there should be regulated and understood better than we do now (hell i just read an article about how certain vitamins/minerals are bad for you (in excess, ect ive known this to an effect, but not this in depth)) but I just dont think it should be to the point of requiring a doctor's prescription.  I guess I'm on the side of things where I beleive everything should be made available to anyone (almost child regulations are a good thing) but anyone, meaning any adult.  And its the consumer's job to do some research, on past research. People should inform themselves. But there should also be a tonne more research into things like vitamins, herbal alternatives to drugs, where we have little to no knowledge, the only thing is noone is going to pay for such research because figuring out something in plant A cures sicknes B, makes them little to no money, because plant A grows readily in anyones back yard.  My point being the potential for a "free"(or redily available drug, read: vits herbs) would be more than enough for farmacorps to lobby for that "free" substance, especialy when it conflicts with thier15$ a pill prescription.

[Arcygenical]

Ok I see your meaning and point, but do you think that the regulation should really be up to the point of requiring a doctor to prescribe you Vitamin C when your sick or ect.

Oh, absolutely not. But I don't ever see that actually happening.

[JD1stTimer]

I think that requiring complete lists of ingredients, and accurate amounts is the primary regulation that's needed.  All the information you need could be amassed into one big website (SupplementFacts.com or whatever).  Most people aren't really as gullible as the media wishes they were.  And if you are dying of some disease, what right does anyone have to tell you not to try X, as long as any harmful effects/interactions are freely available.  Maybe require all manufacturers to put a web address on the label that has links to all major studies done on the ingredients.  That wouldn't be an undue hardship, you can even get websites for free that any computer geek could update for you very easily.  And if you're in the business of selling the items it's certainly a reasonable responsibility to keep educated about it.  If you were an auto manufacturer in the 70s making engines that require leaded gas it would just be idiotic not to be aware of the upcoming ban on lead, and make your customers aware of the fact that they will need to buy octane boosters if the are trying to drive your car.  Those are the sorts of regulation within the constitutional authority of the U.S. government, it falls under an implied contract that the item will be fit for it's advertised/generally accepted use, and contract enforcement is one of the things the government is allowed to take care of.  That's all people need to avoid getting ripped off if they are maintaining the least responsibility for their own lives, which is actually one of the simple requisites for a mentally functional adult to live in any condition besides slavery.  If you don't do that you will practically be owned by all the slimy swindlers, scammers, and hucksters out there.  If you let the guy who has leftover tar who you've never heard of repave your driveway, well, then someone else should be responsible for controlling everything you do lest you cook steaks on charcoal inside your house and die of CO poisoning.  Living up to normal responsibility is the only way to enjoy the pleasant effects of freedom, and if you are unable or unwilling to do the one you can't be trusted with the other, but it's not actually up to the state to decide different classes of people.  We tried that once, and it was absolutely vile, heinous, cruel, and just plain evil.

[DrYRHead]

Ok I see your meaning and point, but do you think that the regulation should really be up to the point of requiring a doctor to prescribe you Vitamin C when your sick or ect.

Oh, absolutely not. But I don't ever see that actually happening.

Yes, but most OTC cold meds may some time soon be by prescription only.  The FDA banned PPA, and the DEA have made ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine very controlled. DXM will likely be next. As for the phenylepherine that the DEA forced the pharm-chem companies to put in cold meds, it is more toxic then the other 3 decongestant drugs. It is also much less effective when taken orally.