[d2viant]

It's a good point you make about alcohol, but I think the difference is that the "pure/regulated" alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm. I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario. It's not simply a matter of them being laced with something that makes them dangerous.

[pyre]

Actually a lot of drugs can be full of other toxic substances that are cheaper than the drug itself. One that you tend to hear a lot about is Ecstasy. I don't know how common it is, but I remember hearing that sometimes it could be full of stuff like rat poison, so if you wanted to score some you wanted to have a dealer you trusted, not just some random guy at a rave.

[d2viant]

Completely agree, but my point is that even if you score it from a trusted dealer -- the so-called "pure" ecstasy you're getting is still dangerous to your body and mental state, even in the absence of additives.

[Zak]

MDMA does have known harmful effects. So does ethanol, and from what I can tell, ethanol is more dangerous. What would be your argument for maintaining a ban on MDMA and not banning ethanol[0], or do you believe ethanol should be banned as well?

[0] For human consumption

[pmichaud]

MDMA is not harmful by any reasonable definition. It's possible for overuse to cause problems, it's possible for certain people with specific preexisting conditions to have problems. That's true for asprin as well.

You can't OD on MDMA. You can OD on water.

[mike_esspe]

One reverse example.

LSD is mostly safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Poss...

Alcohol is mostly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Al...

[idm]

> alcoholic being sold can be consumed in a safe manner without any physical harm

> I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario.

One of these statements is wrong, and one is right. Which is which?