Uploaded by Delzepp
1274x715 PNG 1.15 MB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH safe2283506 +-SH screencap303237 +-SH azure velour250 +-SH flashdancer102 +-SH pacific glow561 +-SH pony1716953 +-SH g42140184 +-SH my little pony: friendship is magic268659 +-SH the saddle row review1606 +-SH bipedal53114 +-SH butt252702 +-SH cap7401 +-SH clothes686276 +-SH club pony party palace37 +-SH dancing11889 +-SH debate in the comments293 +-SH discovery family logo12686 +-SH hairband2522 +-SH hat135299 +-SH necklace35818 +-SH not pinkie pie429 +-SH pacifier3516 +-SH pants25276 +-SH pigtails7492 +-SH plot156701 +-SH rave782 +-SH shirt45655 +-SH sweatband796 +-SH tank top11632
Source
not provided yet
Loading...
Loading...
“The rest of the fandom”
An overwhelming majority here preferred Pacific Glow. We had a vote. 4channers who don’t even came to this site added their votes because “lolz drugs”, and Pacific Glow still won. So while your individual experience may lean towards that name, hard data would seem to contradict the assertion that most people prefer that name when presented with the two as a choice.
I think we need to regulate masturbation.
I’m happy to be wrong. It’s super hard to admit you’re wrong, but the more often you’re wrong the more right you become.
I think we ultimately agree, though,
I think a good benchmark to use might be pornography or masturbation - those are both addictive, and something more addictive than those should probably warrant some caution. Any less, though, and it should probably be more about the financial, safety, and crime dynamics aspects of it.
Edited
the ironic thing is oxycodone really does make you addicted to heroin. a lot of people have to turn to heroin on the streets when their oxycodone prescription runs out. it’s a huge source of heroin addicts in the usa.
and heroin itself was thought up by bayer inc, sold as a non-addictive alternative to opium.
I know a little about MDMA, and I can assure you that its euphoric effects aren’t any more addictive than jogging. I’m not just saying it could be worse, I’m saying that it’s not bad enough to make a difference. it is a dumb drug to consume in my opinion, but it should be schedule III at most.
usa law goes like this: schedule IV has low potential for abuse, schedule III has medium potential for abuse, schedule I and II have high potential for abuse. oh by the way any drug not marketable by big pharmaceutical companies is schedule I no matter how dangerous it is.
seriously, that’s how the law reads. “no accepted medical use” = schedule I even if it’s addictive as dirt. it’s a power grab by the medical industry, literally disregarding any measurement of a drug’s potential for abuse.
and uk has class A etc, but they pretty much parrot usa policy so as not to make the usa government look bad.
I honestly don’t know a whole lot about this drug in particular. I’d be open to the idea of it joining the ranks of drugs like Dilaudid and Oxycodon as a regulated medication, perhaps more akin to other SSRI medications in its application. In short, I would be open to the idea of the medical community getting a chance to research it and let them argue about it, but I’m still against the idea of “recreational” use.
But I will still respond on at least one point; saying the effects MDMA has on a reward cycle is negligable compared to cocaine is not a particularly strong defense. “It could be worse” does not mean it isn’t bad.
As I often say, people who study psychology and neurology and spend their entire professional lives in the science - even they sometimes make mistakes and cause bad things, and they have to proceed extremely carefully. This is why I think “self-medicating” is a foolish concept - which is what we get into, talking about the legality of these things.
Edited
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but making drugs illegal doesn’t stop criminals from selling them. it drives up prices, which gives them even more power to influence the police, and even the government itself. if it’s the people, not the drug, then can’t we do something about the people, instead of (failing to) ban the drug?
and MDMA does not cause a huge pleasure surge. it causes a mild euphoria, that doesn’t deplete dopamine levels, and doesn’t cause mood crashes, or cravings. the war against anything that feels good is a stupid thing to defend; it’s neither just, nor valid. any minor effects that MDMA has on our reward cycle is nothing compared to what cocaine will do to you.
it’s sad because MDMA genuinely has potential for harm in its inhibition of serotonin reuptake. but because serotonin depletion isn’t as sexy a malady, people immediately point a finger at the pleasure response and wrongly equate E with horrible things like meth. and then I just can’t take them seriously.
It’s not just the drug, though, it’s also the person. Some people can drink responsibly - but many become abusive husbands and fathers, shrug off responsibilities they’re needed for, and ruin their lives with it, all for some stupid temporary pleasure that’s only a substitute for strength of character that they need to develop, anyways. It not only keeps them from becoming productive members of society but acts as a crutch to keep them from getting better.
That’s to say nothing of nicotine.
People point to those and say we should legalize other ones. I think it’s just the opposite. It’s such a shame that making those things illegal didn’t work, I don’t want to add something else to the list.
As for dependence - as I said, it’s not that MDMA doesn’t and other things do - it’s that other things do to an extreme degree, and MDMA can as much as any other huge pleasure surge. You can’t have the pleasure surge without the addiction in many people. It does nothing but create a means whereby to exploit someone’s poor mental and emotional state for profit - this is why gambling is illegal in most states, as well.
the problem is that not every drug turns you into a criminal and a detriment to society, but some do
when legislators take these dangerous drugs, and legally associate them with not dangerous drugs, just to satisfy some business interest in making them more forbidden and locking down the market, that’s a very dangerous practice, because now people don’t take you seriously when you try to warn them about the actually dangerous drugs.
the usa is basically the boy who cried wolf, when it comes to drug legislation. that doesn’t mean there aren’t wolves out there.
“the stuff creates dependence” is factually untrue for MDMA, LSD and good old THC. “the stuff creates dependence” is frighteningly true for cocaine, opium (heroin,morphine,codeine,same thing), and methamphetamine. because those are all wrongly grouped into “class-A” we sound ridiculous when we try to claim that drugs are bad.
as for drunk driving, why can’t we just forbid people from driving when taking MDMA?
The rest of this is just the same sort of “It’s not that bad” kind of argument.
People complain about corporations and businesses being corrupt, and hate the Tobacco company’s lobbying, then turn around and argue that this stuff should be legal, as if a large company selling a highly addictive mind-altering substance would somehow be better.
Not everyone who takes a drug turns into a criminal and a detriment to society who lies, cheats, and steals and is generally grossly irresponsible, but enough of them do that legalization would lead to huge issues.
The stuff creates dependence, really screws with your head, and frankly serves no higher purpose. It’s stupid and there’s really no good reason for it. Almost all my points from here @Cirrus Light remain. You had might as well legalize drunk driving, first.
you might as well say it’s a “dumb meanie-pants” drug because that’s how well founded “class-A” is.
Edited
They’re debating recreational drug use, not arguing over a pony’s name….
Could you please actually read the conversation that’s going on before just going around telling people to stop “because mods”?
@Background Pony #4AE9
Guys it’s over, the site mods have already decided. Arguing further isn’t going to make a difference.
“which is true of any substance, including air”
But if you didn’t breath air, you would die very quickly. A good number of methods of execution are based on that. It’s a pretty solid fact. I don’t think there are execution methods based on restricting someone’s access to class-A psychoactive drugs.
The key point on part 2 is “eventually move on to”.
As for the gateway drug thing - this is actually why the Mafia grew so big during prohibition. Drinking was illegal. People drank. It got them used to breaking the law, so it became a more corrupt area where there was less fear of violating the law. That’s what I’ve heard, though, I’m somewhat dubious about it, writing it.
In any case, I could say the exact same things about scientists that warn about global warming.
that’s fascinating, but I would exercise caution. there is a lot of money in keeping certain drugs illegal, and professionals have spent their entire careers upholding that market rigging with massively funded misinformation campaigns.
in particular, a huge red flag goes up when I read things like,
“the only way to ensure that a person comes to no harm from ecstasy use is for them not to take it.”
(which is true of any substance, including air, so clearly they’re trying to scare people about it)
“92% of individuals who use Ecstasy will eventually move on to use other illicit drugs.”
(fallaciously implying that ecstasy gets you addicted to cocaine, when in reality it’s because crackheads have more access to ecstasy)
“individuals who manufacture the drug for export from Canada to the U.S. also frequently use methamphetamine or other dangerous substances to produce the drug”
(because driving the drug trade further underground will totally have the same effect as taxing and regulating it for quality control)
trained, studied, impartial professionals have been screaming and hollering about “gateway” drugs, ever since anyone ever made a billion dollars off of making drugs illegal. it’s about as legit an argument as to say women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they get too hysterical. not saying these professionals aren’t qualified, but… that doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth.
I’m not ignorant. I just despise drug abuse.
If you’re calling prescription drug abuse an issue (and yes I agree it’s an issue, it just wasn’t relevant to the topic), then why is using a drug without a prescription at all not a problem? Are you saying that using these things doctors have told you to, but outside of how they’ve told you to, is a problem, but using things they told you not to use at all isn’t?
Look, professionals who’ve spent their entire careers studying psychology and neurology are very careful when it comes to prescribing any mind-altering substances, and they still have moderate success and still make mistakes sometimes. So why do people think it’s safe to alter their state of mind in far more drastic ways?
And again, you’re only assuming that we’re not already against alcohol and smoking - yet these things have become so deeply engrained into society, as prohibition showed, good look rooting them out.
(And don’t start the “prohibition didn’t work so we should legalize it” nonsense. Alcohol was already legal beforehand, meaning businesses depended on it, people drank regularly, it was culturally engrained as “okay” already, and many people even had a regular routine of going somewhere to drink already. It’s a wildly different animal than currently illegal drugs)
These kinds of laws are not unheard of, though. As one source pointed out, it’s like laws with regard to seat belts, lifeguards, FDA regulations, speed limits, etc.
Arguing that recreational drug use can be okay if done “responsibly” is like arguing that drunk driving is perfectly okay if someone’s a “good driver.” Will doing it once kill you? Probably not. Will doing it on a regular basis kill you or someone else? Maybe. But it’s best not to find out.
“…if it doesn’t harm me or others.” Yes, drunk driving can sometimes harm not you or others, also, and maybe “I’ve only had one drink,” but there’s still good reasons it’s a stupid and illegal thing to do.
To say nothing of the fact that addictive predispositions are genetic and somewhat random. Any random person usually won’t be able to tell if they have them, but by the time they find out, it’s too late. According to the source linked above, it’s roughly one in six people who try drugs that will end up dependent on them. That seems like pretty good odds. Those are also your odds in a game of Russian Roulette.
Also, even if I were ignorant, that’s a much lesser problem than willful ignorance. Did you really cite these sources to say that ecstasy is safe?
[Why do people die on ecstasy?]
[e-statistics]
And that thing about dismissing study results because they didn’t explicitly rule out use of other drugs is a pretty weak objection. Regardless of how you spin it, those results are still there.
Grouping recreational [illicit narcotic] users with “druggies” is pretty ignorant. I refuse to use any illicit narcotics (including marijuana) or alcohol (especially alcohol), but I’m not about to call anyone who occasionally (or at least doesn’t use it all the time) partakes in its use a “druggie”. As long as one is being responsible with it, I personally don’t see the problem. E stats:
http://www.drugwise.org.uk/why-do-people-die-after-taking-ecstasy/
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-statistics.htm (And with articles like this [from the same site] it makes no mention of whether or not the participants used any other substances at the same time, which affects the results.)
Prescription medications (or rather, the abuse of said medications) are more of an issue than other narcotics, but I don’t see you mentioning that. See:
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/prescription/abuse-international-statistics.html
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
Besides, statically speaking, alcohol causes much more harm than many other narcotics. And yet it’s still legal. See:
http://m.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/mskpages/Drugs_some_facts?open
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/alcohol/international-statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
Yet I doubt you’re going to claim that everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
Then there’s cigarette smoking. Again, legal, but this time there’s zero medical benefits (unlike wine, which has some benefit to it when a small amount is consumed) and no physiological reward to it; aside from the one you get when you’re already hooked to the nicotine. Not going to bother to site this one, as the extensive health implications are quite obvious. But you’re welcome to search it yourself.
TL;DR: Don’t be ignorant (generalizing) and learn the facts.
Oh, lol, well, yes. They have them. They’re mammals :p
I was just joking about canon pony nipples. That’s all really.
I don’t see the problem…
Nipples are now kind of canon!
Just please don’t mention the baby bottles we already saw in season 2.
Edited
I don’t really see a problem there
ponies, just like horses, can breastfeed their babies, just that theirs are a little to close to… well, you know