bikeperson45 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 Sorry, didn't read page 2, you expect me to read 15 pages before I make a reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) PROS Trials is fun. CONS It costs a lot. You can get hurt. You look silly on a trials bike. It's illegal. See where I'm going with this? For riders the fun outweighs the cons... pretty sure it's the same with drugs. Trials is good for you physical fitness (apart from when you damaged yourself) It can be mentally rewarding with regards to creative expression - actual riding and also filming/editing It is very social, you make lots of friends Gets you outside into the fresh air and sun which is also good for you People can give you lots of respect - good spectating sport (if this floats your boat) I'm sure there are more depending on who you are! I mean you could say Trials - Pros - potential good time Cons - potential bad time This would be more accurate (or consistent) considering the first Pro being so generalised. Be wary of what I would call higher level abstractions and comparing them to lower level ones! I apologise for being a pedant Edited June 11, 2008 by rowly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 Trials is good for you physical fitness (apart from when you damaged yourself) It can be mentally rewarding with regards to creative expression - actual riding and also filming/editing It is very social, you make lots of friends Gets you outside into the fresh air and sun which is also good for you People can give you lots of respect - good spectating sport (if this floats your boat) I'm sure there are more depending on who you are! I mean you could say Trials - Pros - potential good time Cons - potential bad time This would be more accurate (or consistent) considering the first Pro being so generalised. Be wary of what I would call higher level abstractions and comparing them to lower level ones! I apologise for being a pedant You more to the point proved what I meant. What I wrote was very biased, seeing only the bad side of trials. Drugs can improve DJ'ing skills (Sounds daft but my friend Nick plays damn good on pills). You meet loads more new people because you lose all shyness... Whilst drugs are not good, and I don't do them, I see a lot more plus points than "They make you feel good for a bit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hI-OOPS-CAPS Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 "They make you feel good for a bit". care to list these please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCircus Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 care to list these please? INCREASED WIN THROUGHOUT YOUR BODY AND MIND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 care to list these please? It might help if you consider the context of that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) care to list these please? Rowly mentioned a fair few about a page back? And Mike another one just then? mega pro: YOUR FRIENDS DO IT! Edited June 11, 2008 by Max Quinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boon racoon Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) I'd be interested to hear from people who have never taken certain drugs what they think their effects actually are, how they make you react, feel, etc. Obviously the effects can differ for different people but do drug effects even come into drugs education or do most people think that taking any drug harder than weed takes you into a state similar to a man who's just had 12 pints only is more likely to rob your house for drug money? Edited June 11, 2008 by boon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted June 11, 2008 Report Share Posted June 11, 2008 Moctezuma: Social skills increase (Unless you're a twat and take too much, but that goes for Alcohol and stuff too). From what I gather, it makes a great night out even better because you're happier / feel more of the music. In my friends case, his DJ'ing improves because he gets more energy / gets into it more. My last night out cost me £45 and was average. Cost my friend £8 and he had an awesome night. 2 pills and free glasses of water. And my hangover was worse than his. They are just some quick "Pro's" I thought of, but you get the idea. You can get anything and have one Pro and list loads of Cons, that's my point. I'd say in this case the Pro's and Con's are almost evenly matched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Clarke Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) 16 pages about ecstasy! IMO weed and stuff are one thing, pills are completely different, what i mean is don't do it Edited June 12, 2008 by Sonny Clarke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boon racoon Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 IMO weed and stuff are one thing, pills are completely different, what i mean is don't do it How though? Obviously they are, but why have you put it like that? Because it's more harmful? Harm rating by experts.. And so we're back to the beginning of the arguement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_addison Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 There pretty shit to be honset. Only took Gurners once and the ups wernt worth the downs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam F Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 My head hurts reading all this/trying to make out what some of these complex words mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 How though? Obviously they are, but why have you put it like that? Because it's more harmful? Harm rating by experts.. And so we're back to the beginning of the arguement.. yay a proven fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCircus Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 How though? Obviously they are, but why have you put it like that? Because it's more harmful? Harm rating by experts.. And so we're back to the beginning of the arguement.. I'm no Scientist, but 'harm level' sounds pretty suspect. It's hardly a quantifiable medium, it would be interesting to see how they came up with the HARM LEVEL THREE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 It was from the Lancet which is pretty much the most reputable medical journal there is. Obviously if you really wanted to get to the bottom of it, you could read the original article and it would say how they've come about this 'harm rating' but I really can't be arsed. I don't see any real reason to suggest that it's not accurate? There's no crystal meff on there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 How though? Obviously they are, but why have you put it like that? And so we're back to the beginning of the arguement.. Alchol is quite high in that graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 probably base it on hospital visits/costs + deaths caused by it? meh, looks about right. wonder what class they'd make tobaco and alcohol. who on here would continue drinking and smoking if they made it class C or higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 probably base it on hospital visits/costs + deaths caused by it? meh, looks about right. wonder what class they'd make tobaco and alcohol. who on here would continue drinking and smoking if they made it class C or higher? OK, it was done by adding up the opinions of about 30 consultant psychiatrists specialising in addiction. 9 categories, : Physical harm split into 3 subcategories (Acute, Chronic, Intravenous harm), Dependence (Intensity of pleasure, Psychological dependence, Physical dependence), Social harms (Intoxication, Other social harms, Health-care costs). Each drug was scored (from 0 to 4) within each subcategory, and all the scores added up and averaged. So yeah, it's fairly arbitrary and it's only the opinion of the authors who are mostly professors of psychiatry. Take that as you will - I doubt they've ever tried heroin or ecstasy but on the other hand they see the effects of misuse on a day-to-day basis. Note it doesn't really talk about the benefits of the drugs anyway - only the harm. The paper basically says that the current system of class A/B/C is way too vague and inaccurate, and this is an attempt to create a more realistic classification system. So I guess you can use this to weigh up the risks against your own perceived benefit, and that's up to you because no two people are alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 OK, it was done by adding up the opinions of about 30 consultant psychiatrists specialising in addiction. 9 categories, : Physical harm split into 3 subcategories (Acute, Chronic, Intravenous harm), Dependence (Intensity of pleasure, Psychological dependence, Physical dependence), Social harms (Intoxication, Other social harms, Health-care costs). Each drug was scored (from 0 to 4) within each subcategory, and all the scores added up and averaged. So yeah, it's fairly arbitrary and it's only the opinion of the authors who are mostly professors of psychiatry. Take that as you will - I doubt they've ever tried heroin or ecstasy but on the other hand they see the effects of misuse on a day-to-day basis. Note it doesn't really talk about the benefits of the drugs anyway - only the harm. The paper basically says that the current system of class A/B/C is way too vague and inaccurate, and this is an attempt to create a more realistic classification system. So I guess you can use this to weigh up the risks against your own perceived benefit, and that's up to you because no two people are alike. I think it's certainly going to represent a more accurate view than that of politicians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme_biker0 Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 probably base it on hospital visits/costs + deaths caused by it? meh, looks about right. wonder what class they'd make tobaco and alcohol. who on here would continue drinking and smoking if they made it class C or higher? Alcohol is on there. For the record I've never experienced the terrible lows that have been mentioned the day after. Seems a bit suspect to be honest, and I know someone's given an explanation about fatigue in the happiness chemical glands or whatever from being overworked, but alcohol makes you feel happy in exactly the same way. Saying that i'm by no means an expert, and have only used it a couple of times, out of curiosity. I completely agree with the relative 'harm' rating of ecstasy and alcohol though. If i were to succinctly describe the effects from the point of view of the taker of the two it's something like this Alcohol: Happy, confident, assertive Ecstacy: Happy, content, curious Obviously this is my specific feelings, though we're all human so it's gonna be similar. And you can see why someone taking alcohol might be more agressive and start fights. I think the harm level takes this into account. Maybe ecstacy is worse for you (I have no reason to believe it is however), but alcohol, the social acceptableness of absolutely binging on it, and the behaviours it induces, are (IMO) definately more dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sheehan! Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Its alright if you know what your doing. Just do enough to keep you going, and dont just stop a session, sniff half a pill, then a quarter, then a little bit of it and you wont have a bad comedown. Don't get me wrong, i havent done it and im not planning to, im just saying its quite safe in the right hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hI-OOPS-CAPS Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 hmm maybe i was a little naive, so as silly as this may sound, whys it a class A drug? (im just gonna assume it means its highly punishable if found on your person or supply etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Alcohol: Happy, confident, assertive Ecstacy: Happy, content, curious The only thing is with harder drugs like ecstasy and stuff like LSD and mushrooms is that they change your thought patterns in a way that alcohol simply can't. There's a lot of potential for them changing the way you look at things and that scares me. I had a good friend who had a really bad trip on mushrooms and it was horrible, really freaked him out and he was acting really weird (He was convinced that he couldn't remember people's faces any more and he'd have to live the rest of his life not recognising or remembering people). The brain is very finely balanced in a state of equilibrium and I'm not very sure it's a good idea to upset the balance every Friday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boon racoon Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) hmm maybe i was a little naive, so as silly as this may sound, whys it a class A drug? Most probably because it was classified after or during the rave culture of the late 80's / early 90's when its availability and use was becoming more and more widespread, and it was a fairly new drug. When it was classified back then you had a.) The panic of not fully knowing it's effects and no long term research to prove or disprove anything. Hence it was classified on the side of caution, understandably. b.) Some deaths taking place making it out to be more dangerous than it actually was. However I should imagine the majority of the deaths wern't to do with Ecstasy itself, they were to do with dehydration. Imagine the huge raves going on in warehouses, squats and such in remote parts of the country - thousands of people with no air conditioning / ventilation and probably no access to water. Dehydration is so unlikely to happen these days because of modern clubs, free access to water and people being a lot more aware. Obviously when a new drug hits the big time the government have to do all they can to minimise its effects and cover their asses until they understand it fully, but there's absolutely no reason why it should still be a class A. Edited June 12, 2008 by boon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts