?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Pondering....

a girl is pissed out of her noggin and walks out in front of a bus - MDMA is found in her urine from three days previously. so, of course, she died from ecstasy use. WTF??????


that's total bollox - and i challenge ANYONE to convince me otherwise.

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
cokephreak
Mar. 6th, 2003 06:05 am (UTC)
err.. if she died how do they know (i mean KNOW, not make educated guess's at) that it was only from 3 days earlier?

OK, i guess you can test for these things, but that incedent 34 days ago could have involved her taking 50 pills over a 20 hour period, in which case i would say she would still be too fucked to look after herself crosing the road. adding alcohol would only worsen matters.

OK, so it may be unliky in this case, but under those circumstances i would say it would be fair to claim E killed her.
If you think thats unfair look at some of the ways people die to classify as being killed by alcohol.


Incedentally, i don't actually believe this, but i love a challenge :)
ultrareality
Mar. 6th, 2003 04:15 pm (UTC)
You'd be surprised...
How many of the "E-death" statistics include completely irrelevent deaths attributed to E.

Shining examples include deaths from pills sold as E - although the cause of death was from other compounds within the pill, and not the MDMA; cases where death has been caused by dehydration due to intake of alcohol as well as MDMA are attributed to the E statistics, and not alcohol related deaths... I also heard a rumour that secondary deaths caused by vehicular accidents also tally towards the end statistics, but not confirmed.

It's ridiculous, but what do you do? There are so few actual deaths from MDMA usage they have to fabricate them from somewhere... -_-
cokephreak
Mar. 7th, 2003 12:54 am (UTC)
Re: You'd be surprised...
well, yeah... but like i said, some of the ways people go to be classed as dying from alcohol are pretty stupid aswell.

I'm not saying its right, but at least its a level playing field.
ultrareality
Mar. 7th, 2003 03:14 pm (UTC)
Not when...
The media jump on the fact that "E-deaths grow by 20% in last year Shocker!" - when all that's happened is, someone's walked in front of a bus.

Just a personal bugbear, no more. :p
cokephreak
Mar. 10th, 2003 09:24 am (UTC)
Re: Not when...
yeah, but i think most people are intelligent enough to realise that the deaths p/a due to E are still less that 1% of those cuased by alcohol.

They're increasing at a worrying rate, you say? Well,maybe they'll tail off when they hit the same sort of level as alcohol use. maybe they'll never get that high.
ultrareality
Mar. 11th, 2003 02:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Not when...
I didn't mean it was a worrying rate. I know the actual levels of death from MDMA usage pure and simple are... beyond negligible - less than a fraction of a percent of those caused by alcohol.

I just see the fact that the media can jump on "increasing rates" (hence the inverted commas) as an obstacle to E being decriminalised. Which pisses me off. What you do, or do not, put in your mouth should not be enough to class you as a criminal, or otherwise.
goddesssnoweh
Mar. 11th, 2003 03:04 pm (UTC)
Re: Not when...
The last figure i heard was 200,000 people take pills in the UK EVERY WEEKEND

being that current death rates bearly top 100 a YEAR taking pills is, quite simply, safer than eating cherries or crossing the street.
ultrareality
Mar. 12th, 2003 04:29 pm (UTC)
Re: Not when...
Mmmhm.

And out of those 100 deaths in the UK, you have people walking in front of buses, going on E and alcohol binges, etc etc.

*shrugs*

It's why I'm not overly concerned about those bitter little pills doing me in. :p
goddesssnoweh
Mar. 12th, 2003 05:35 pm (UTC)
Re: Not when...
Nor am i TBH - i don't even look at branding 90% of the time now - unless it's to choose between what i think is better
cokephreak
Mar. 12th, 2003 03:40 am (UTC)
Re: Not when...

I just see the fact that the media can jump on "increasing rates" as an obstacle to E being decriminalised.


I cannot bring myself to care about this, as i can only see people with either bad infomation or crap knowledge of statistics thinking this is a reason to keep e illegal, and (nieve of me I know) I can't see people without those things having any say on what is illegal and what is not.

Have you ever read Ben Eltons "High Society"? I really recomend it, its a good read and has a lot to say about the legal status of drugs.
The main point is that the main reason drugs are dangerous is because they are illegal, rather than them being illegal because they are dangerous. ie you must involve yourself and pay money to criminals in order to get them. If not directly then indirectly.

As a personal example both times i've been mugged i was going to pick up.

Also you have to consider that the current laws (drug related and otherwise) turns most of the country into criminals. How are the police meant to be able to do anything when 95% of the country does not want to get involved out of fear of incriminating themselves?

Also the current drug laws are diverting millions of pounds into the hands of some very dodgy people indeed...

well, read the book. Ben Elton is much more articulate tham I.


ultrareality
Mar. 12th, 2003 04:53 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately...
Those selfsame people without knowledge of the drug, or the music scene, or chemistry in general, are the ones who are running our country, and who vote in elections. They very much have a say in what happens, and what doesn't. That's democracy.

I have, and if you enjoyed that, you might enjoy the slightly more sociological study of Stuart Walton's, "Out of It", available in most good bookshops. It details the human use of the major intoxicants, the law, and many more things besides.

Pushing a subculture into the hands of criminals ends up benefitting few, and fuelling more crime; to spend money fighting an urge that is inherent, if not intrinsic, is moronic, and if so doing pushes money into the hands of those you're hoping to defeat, then doubly so.

There are a few objective newspapers left - well, a few newspapers who make their profit based on relaying a more "objective" view, for the cynics - who are trying to push the case for drug decriminalisation. Surely, then, if we wish to stop our archaic drug laws from impinging upon our lives, we must concern ourselves with fighting ignorance every step of the way?

That's why biased, erroneous, selective, and just downright bollocks newspaper stories bother me so much.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

September 2016
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 
Powered by LiveJournal.com