So the longitudinal studies showing ecstasy to be a trigger for long-term depression have been disproven? I'd certainly like to know more about THAT.

Hardly - it's a X is not as bad as Y thing. It isn't that ecstasy is SAFE; but that it's 'safer' then other drugs when you compare its addictiveness or damage it causes to society.

Think of it this way - you could inject flour into your veins, or you could inject drain cleaner. Obviously Drain Cleaner is MORE bad for you, but that doesn't mean boiling up some nice yummy flower with a spoon and injecting it is good for you...

I understand that, but it would seem to me that the long-term effects of ecstasy would be worse than the effects of marijuana--in general. If someone smokes marijuana every day, there is a loss of motor skills, a loss of learning ability, and a probably loss of fertility in males. Hard to judge...

Re: Post #3 by Diane

Daily hemp use does not cause a loss of motor skills, a loss of learning ability, nor loss of fertility in males!

These are long rejected hypotheses from on people who do not understand the difference between correlation and causation, who do not understand the scientific method, nor who know how to properly interpet medical studies.

Therefore you should refrain from posting statments like this that have no basis in fact, and might mislead people who do not know better.

I failed to say "temporary," which is what I meant to say; perhaps I thought I implied it. Marijuana does, of course, cause temporary losses in these areas. My point was that the problems created by marijuana are temporary, as opposed to the probable more long-lasting effects of ecstasy. Checking with me about that would have been appropriate.

There's another issue to address here. Sure, doing any of these drugs is worse for your health than not taking them. That seems pretty clear. SO, why are some drugs granted legal status while others are not? What criterea are we using to determine which drugs are okay and which are not? It certainly is not solely dependent upon health implications. After all, it is WELL-documented that marijuana is less-addictive and less-harmful than nicotiine (not to imply that inhaling smoke of any kind is going to help your immune system). Nevertheless, cigarettes remain legal (even as nicotine content is continually raised) while pot use marks the criminal. Outlawing everything is certainly not the option - unless increased levels of organized crime is a desirable outcome (see prohibition). So, the question becomes, How do we rectify this lapse in logic which has resulted in an ineffective and costly war -- not that one, the one on drugs.

During prohibition, alcohol use went up, organized crime took over the market, and there were gun battles in the streets. I’d suggest the following:

1) Legalize all drugs.
2) Do not allow advertising of any drug, including the ones that are advertised today; let's not remain a society of overmedicated fools.
3) Put a vice tax on all recreational drugs.
4) Ensure that the vice tax must be used only for public service anti-drug advertisements and for rehab programs for the drugs that are addictive. (Yes, this part will be difficult, but not impossible.)
5) Set a minimum age for recreational drug purchase, something that is a tad difficult to do with today’s drug dealers.
6) Enforce no drugs and driving laws, which is currently a real problem, at least in the case of alcohol. (Of course, cell phone while driving is just as bad. That should be enforced too. But, this is a tangent.)
7) Sell all recreational drugs from behind the pharmacy counter to prevent advertising in the display.
8) Reduce deaths from overdose due to inconsistent drug strength.

This will have the effects of:

1) Freeing up space in prisons for real criminals.
2) Freeing up court staff and police for law enforcement of real crimes with real victims.
3) Instantly putting gun-toting drug lords out of business.
4) Reducing drug use.
5) Reducing the ill effects of drug addiction on society.
6) Increasing respect for increasingly rational laws.
7) Saving money, as all costs to society from drug use will now be paid by the drug users.
8) Reducing transmission of AIDS and hepatitis from injected drugs. Presumably, these would now be sold in single use syringes.
9) Putting the profits in the hands of profiteering drug companies and politicians, the latter through lobbying. This is bad, but a lesser evil than gun-toting drug lords, at least hopefully so.

As an aside, I read that in one of the years soon after 9/11, we spent $800 million on making sure that our borders are secure against a nuclear threat, when $2 billion would have been required to do it right. In that same year, we spent $4 billion on the war on drugs. So, there's also a priorities issue to me. This may have been from a MoJo article. I’m no longer sure. Even if these numbers are incorrect though, I think we have better ways to spend this money than on protecting us from victimless crime.

I am in total agreement with Misanthropic Scott on this. It all makes perfect sense.

Thanks Paul Miller.

BTW, I forgot to post a link to the original article in The Lancet, a British medical journal. You'll need to subscribe to read the article, but it's free and relatively painless. Here's the link.

http://tinyurl.com/2jgut4

If I had kids the one thing I would say to them about drugs is to not mix certain things, like uppers and downers. I'd be a hypocrite if I told them to not do drugs at all, but the few people I've known who have actually died from drugs, it was because they drank and lot AND took ecstasy, or mixed pain killers and cocaine. That's what will kill you, or at least make you very sick.

what i think most people miss is the fact that the war on drugs is a business.what would all the DEA gestapo agents do if they weren't chasing potheads and allowing crack and heroin to be sold in an open air type market place.they know prohibition doesn't work but with billions of dollars at stake you won't see ant repeals of our current drug policies.until we have a complete government overhaul the status quo will remain in effect.always remember the war on drugs is not a social issue at all its big business.in rebuttal to the loss of motor skills and learning disabilities i am a college graduate forester and arborist working on my doctorate in tree biology, also i have been climbing trees for almost 20 yrs which i might say takes quite a bit of physical prowess and a high amount of agility and yes i am an avid marijuana user.maybe i am the exception or maybe not i have many friends who are business owners and all around successful people in their business lives and personal lives.so maybe diane should smoke 1 and ponder on it.