Well, I certainly didn't know Meth had been around since 1893.

I've been reseraching this more thoroughly (I'm bored, and it's Sunday afternoon...). Both Crystal Meth and Amphetamine Sulphate are both amphetamine-based, but chemically different:

"Meth is meth-amphetamine, which is a type of amphetamine. The "meth" from Meth-amphetamine comes from the chemical name "methyl". The chemical Methamphetamine is composed of an amphetamine molecule with an additional methyl group attached to its nitrogen (amine group). A methyl is one of the simplest atomic groups which can be added to a molecule: it is a single carbon atom with a set of (usually) 3 hydrogens.

...

While similar in backbone structure, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and ritalin are all quite unique drugs, with somewhat similar, but distinct, effects."

(src: http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.cgi?ID=2846)


Chemically (and I'm guessing here from the name), Amphetamine Sulphate differs from Crysta Methamphetamine in that it (1) doesn't have the additional methyl group attached to its nitrogen, and (2) is the amphetamine salt of sulphuric acid.

But I'm no chemistry student!

Finally, what amounts to a conclusion:

""Speed" most commonly refers to amphetamine sulphate (also known by its trade name, Benzedrine).

But there is also dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine or "Dexy's Midnight Runners"), and the most potent, methamphetamine (Methedrine or "Meth")."
src: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/amp...nes/basics.htm

Ecstasy, or MDMA, is an amphetamine too. MDMA stands for methylenedioxymethamphetamine. It has many effects in common with normal amphetamines, but also many different ones, so it is regarded as a different drug.

Maybe others who have used meth can testify to this. I don't know is this is true of evryone or just me. But, the first and last time I snorted meth, my dick was out of comission. i couldn't of gotten a hard one if my life depended on it.

Maybe gays have a higher risk factor because..ohhhh they're much closer than straights, in terms of hanging out?

Or that the selling of meth occurs more often in areas where there's a higher amount of gays?

Logic doesn't say gay people get it more often, so it's all about the anal.

Gays arent spreading AIDS to heterosexuals... why do you care so much?

libertarians prefer to let people make their own choices and suffer the consequences and rewards, instead of trying to control their choices for 'their own good'

Gays tend to socialize more often with other gays, in a more open manner, in mainly gay bars.
It's kind of like how sometimes you'll have those S&M clubs. They like to socialize/stick together.

Yes.

Oh?

being on speed has saved peoples lives in warfare situations
i'm damn in favor of my girlfriends choice to take it up the ass this morning
and my girlfriends husband is on speed for his ADD

every choice has risks, and the only one who should make that choice are the parties involved, social censure for poor choices is great, but legal limits are wrong

JLB.
Mustard can kill people.

Should we ban it?

Now you are targetting a specific group of people, which you like to call goths.
If you didn't know, goths, and gothism, derives from the Goths, a barbaric group of people, as well as Gothic architecture, which was considered barbaric when it first came out.

Simply put, goth = barbaric.
So you believe young barbarians like to run around snorting up drugs and whatever not?

And only when people choose to do things like that we should care?
Mm...yes..to hell with anyone who doesn't choose to have something happen, or to hell with the potential dangers of another thing...or let's ignore some other things like cigarettes which contain more poisons than most "dangerous" drugs.

MDMA (and the many other methoxyamphetamines) also has a resemblance to mescaline(which is 3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine (amphetamine is phenethylamine with a methyl group attached to the carbon next to the nitrogen; it's an acronym for alpha-methyl-phenethylamine)).

point being that it's not always good, or bad, it depends on the situation, and the only one qualified or entitled to make that call is the person who has to live with the consequences of their own decisions

oh, he knows, he may have been with one of his girlies at the time, polyamoury is fun

sure, there are reasonable limits that can be put in place to prevent people from harming others. and regulation of driving under the influence on public roads is definitely worthwhile, though i haven't seen the actual studies of how speed use affects accident probabilities, the general concept is sound.

not only no, but hell no
the right to ruin your own life is inherent in being free

I have seen actual truck wrecks, not studies, that prove the opposite.

anecdotal evidence never proves anything. sure some people smoke pot and get in accidents, but studies of driving behaviour and reaction time show that accident probabilities are lower for stoned people, due to their tendency to drive slower and more carefully.
alcohol on the other hand, can demonstratably increase accident probabilites, as can driving tired. until i see a study on various forms of speed and the effects on accidents i prefer to reserve judgement one way or the other

If your life affects nobody else, I could care less. It never does though.

"do unto others as you would have others do unto you"
i want others to leave me alone and give me the freedom to live my life as i choose
so conversely i must allow them the same right to make their own choices

guns should be legal
drugs should be legal
some people make bad choices, others may get hurt in the blowback, but it
's a small price to pay for freedom

governments are no more likely to make good choices than individuals, and far more likely to fuck things up. the best course is to devolve decision making power down to the lowest level needed, which is frequently the soveriegn citizen

And 13.7% of accidents in which ONLY drugs were present (probably meaning Alcohol+Drugs made up the other 9.3%), and Amphetamines were 3.7%.

TABLE 6: RELATIVE RISK BY SPECIFIC DRUG GROUPS


DRUG GROUP NO. RELATIVE RISK SIGNIFICANCE
All Accidents
Drug Free 532 1.00
Alcohol only 278 6.00 P<0.001
Alcohol plus drugs 97 9.00 P<0.001
Drugs only 138 1.40 n.s
Cannabis only 43 0.60 n.s
Stimulants only 21 1.60 n.s
Opiates only 13 2.30 n.s
Benzodiazepines only 11 1.90 n.s
Multiple Vehicle Accidents
Drug Free 344 1.00
Alcohol only 73 3.40 P<0.001
Alcohol plus drugs 27 6.00 P<0.001
Drugs only 86 1.40 n.s
Cannabis only 27 0.60 n.s
Stimulants only 9 1.20 n.s
Opiates only 9 14 P<0.02
Benzodiazepines only 7 1.90 n.s

but without knowing what percentage of miles driven in australia were by drivers on amphetamines, it's impossible to say if that 3.7% is a higher or lower incidence than for undrugged drivers

here's a more informative study
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/s16p6.htm

it's based off testing of all the drivers in an accident, and the determination of fault

shows a slightly higher chance of accidents for amphetamines, roughly equivelent to the lower chance of an accident for those on marijuana
neither of which is statistically relevent according to the researchers

accident odds ratio
marijuana .6
undrugged 1
amphetamines 1.4
alcohol 7.6