Drug Discussion (Split from Stokes Thread)

[Rfc4Ever]

Same could be said about legal substances such as bananas.

What an intelligent statement.

 

[Rosy]

Another thing I wonder about is the effect of legalisation of drugs on Indigenous cultures. I can't see how it could be a benefit considering the existing problems with alcohol and drug abuse.

Any comments or opinions about the above? Would it be a good idea or not?

 

[AngryAnt]

What happens when someone dies after taking a "safe" dose of drugs? Who wears the blame? I'd suggest it's the person/people who passed laws permitting it. If I was a parent I'd sue the government into bankruptcy.

Strange then how the courts aren't full of people suing the government because their relos died from tobacco related heart disease. Or alcohol related liver disease.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Strange then how the courts aren't full of people suing the government because their relos died from tobacco related heart disease. Or alcohol related liver disease.

What's the safe number of cigarettes per day?

 

[AngryAnt]

What's the safe number of cigarettes per day?

Your Doc would probably say zero... heaps of toxic chemicals straight into your lungs/bloodstream etc. Whereas a pharmaceutically pure form of heroin would have almost no health effects.

Re: What are the damaging effects of pharmaceutically-pure heroin?

Date: Fri Sep 17 12:42:00 1999
Posted By: joshua rodefer, Research Fellow in Psychobiology & Lecturer
Area of science: Medicine
ID: 937541156.Me
Message:

Hi Robert,

You ask a good question.

The short answer is few to none (beside the obvious respiratory depression
- and that is a big one!)

Opioids (opiate refers to the natural compounds from the poppy, opioid
refers to all natural, synthetic, and semi-synthetic compounds) are,
perhaps, the most valuable medicinal compounds available today. They have
multiple therapeutic uses and are quite efficacious in managing pain, GI
disturbances, and coughing (among others).

Every medication, natural or synthetic, has desired and undesired (side)
effects. Moreover, EVERY drug can produce toxic effects, it just depends
on the dose you are examining. Even water can produce nasty side-effects;
water intoxication is a syndrome that resembles drug-induced intoxication,
but is a result of electrolyte imbalances in the body following excessive
water intake - either orally or through some other means like dialysis or
iv fluids.

Clinically used opioids mimic what our body does on its own. That is, we
produce our own natural opioids (endorphins; often talked about with
regards to marathon athletes and the runner's high). As such, clinical
administration of opioids, like morphine, simply artifically enhances our
body's own efforts.

Now, you noted that there are plenty of health risks that are indirectly
associated with opioid abuse, like HIV & AIDS, hepatitis C, dependence,
addiction, and respiratory depression. However there are relatively few
risks that are directly associated with opioid use in a clinical, health
care setting. One of the classic early studies was done by Bozarth and
Wise (see below) and noted the distinct health differences between rats
that self-administered cocaine or heroin. There have been a few studies
that reported health risks like kidney damage, pulmonary edema, or stroke -
but most of these focus on more chronic administration.

With regards to short-term administration, opioids have two main risks to
my knowledge: 1. Allergic reactions (almost everyone knows someone who had
a bad reaction to the codeine the dentist gave them following a root canal
or extraction); 2. Suppression of the immune system. This latter one has
obvious implications for persons who abuse opioids and are at risk for
contracting HIV, however, the suppression over the short-term is minimal is
this is more likely a risk factor for chronic opioid users.

Finally, an interesting thing to note is that the drug you mention --
heroin (or diacetylmorphine) - is a Schedule I drug in the United States.
Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no medical purpose or use (other Class
I drugs that you might know are LSD and PCP). Only schedule II-V drugs can
be prescribed by a physician/dentist. The justification for this is that
the active metabolite of heroin is morphine, which is a schedule II drug
and can be prescribed. However, physicians in Great Britain can prescribe
heroin for various medical conditions. Just one of the many differences
that depend on which side of the pond you call home.

Thanks for the good question,
Cheers,

Josh Rodefer, Ph.D.
Harvard Medical School



Reference:
Bozarth, MA, Wise, RA (1985).
Toxicity associated with long-term intravenous heroin and cocaine
self-administration in the rat.
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), vol 254, pp 81-83.

Amazing what you learn around this place eh Lee? :hihi

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Your Doc would probably say zero... heaps of toxic chemicals straight into your lungs/bloodstream etc. Whereas a pharmaceutically pure form of heroin would have almost no health effects.

Amazing what you learn around this place eh Lee? :hihi

What, no mention of respiratory problems, weakened immune system, insomnia, depression, loss of appetite, impotence, amenorrhea, rotten teeth or a host of other documented side effects? Why isn't this stuff in our drinking water?

 

[AngryAnt]

What, no mention of respiratory problems, weakened immune system, insomnia, depression, loss of appetite, impotence, amenorrhea, rotten teeth or a host of other documented side effects? Why isn't this stuff in our drinking water?

Generally due to heroin cut with unknown additives and impurities, poor/unhygenic administration, etc etc.

But yeah, as per your original hypothesis - if it WAS legal then the chance of anyone suing the government is exactly the same as for tobacco/alcohol.

If you want to play the game that the current legal recreational drugs of tobacco and alcohol are "safe", then see if this reminds you of anything

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

But yeah, as per your original hypothesis - if it WAS legal then the chance of anyone suing the government is exactly the same as for tobacco/alcohol.

If you want to play the game that the current legal recreational drugs of tobacco and alcohol are "safe", then see if this reminds you of anything

My comments were in the context of Knighters' postulation that there is a safe dose for everything. Someone, presumably the government, would need to specify what that safe level is. It won't be the AMA, unless their coffee is spiked.

 

[AngryAnt]

My comments were in the context of Knighters' postulation that there is a safe dose for everything. Someone, presumably the government, would need to specify what that safe level is. It won't be the AMA, unless their coffee is spiked.

Oh, you were being rhetorical then.

 

[wammo]

My point was that people seem to have an idea, supported by legislation, that "drugs" can be easily classified as nasty or nice. All substances are harmful in certain doses...even fairy floss.

The fixation on "ice" elevates the chemistry to almost magical proprtions and those who are arguing for more legalisation are made to sound as though we are advocating the sale of "ice". That just isn't the case.

But some of these drugs are classified as dangerous and illegal without good evidence. All I am saying is leave the preaching and "demon drugs" and "reefer madness" nonsense at the door and get some real gold standard clinical tests for some of these substances and classify them accurately. MDMA, for example, (Extacy is one form of this) is being tested for its possible benefits to sufferers of PTSD. So if the testing finds that in controlled doses this substance is not dangerous
why not change its legal status and let people enjoy theselves without the spectre of a criminal record?

What I have been trying to point out is that people turn to chemicals to change their mood or forget their problems and we should be trying to find out why. Focussing on the drugs misses the point. You have a few drinks (or drop an eky or some acid) to loosen up or because of the situation (party, holiday etc.) Drinking a whole bottle of tequila or taking heroin or meth or ice suggests a different motivation. It isn't the drug it is the state of mind or situation of the person that matters.

Knighter, I agree with a great deal of what you have posted in this thread, but have some interest in the idea of drugs being classified as nasty or nice that you mentioned.
While I'm largely (but cautiously) in favour of legalisation of a number of currently illicit drugs, although I'm not sure of the best model to follow in pursuing this idea, I do have doubts about treating all drugs equally.
I think some drugs are more damaging than others and, as such, require different classification. I have a number of reasons for feeling this way, but a simple anecdote explains it quite simply.
I was reading Ronnie Woods autobiography, a man who had a clear desire to explore what a wide variety of substances could do for his enjoyment of life and no fear about explaining this to whoever was interested enough to listen.
After years of drug abuse and good times he was introduced to crack cocaine and then, he reckons, I think I'm quoting him correctly, " that was me for 5 years", effectively meaning that his next five years were lost.

There are some drugs that I think maybe better of kept away from people. Crack is one and I don't know enough about it at this point, but I suspect ice may be another.
Would it be the case that if speed and cocaine were legalised and the price of acquiring them subsequently reduced, that crack and ice would become obsolete anyway?

 

[Baloo]

i dont really want to bring two threads together but am I right in saying those saying to leave it all to the people to decide, self-regulate and remove government interference in this thread are the same ones totally opposed to that way of thinking in Gia's economic debates?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Arsenic occurs naturally in greyhounds (and humans) in trace amounts. Administering a small dose of arsenic makes a greyhound run faster, but that doesn't make it a good idea to dose greyhounds with a scientifically-determined correct amount of arsenic. My old man told me of one trainer who had two dogs drop dead after passing the post on the same night.

What happens when someone dies after taking a "safe" dose of drugs? Who wears the blame? I'd suggest it's the person/people who passed laws permitting it. If I was a parent I'd sue the government into bankruptcy.

Examples? Who is dying from taking "safe doses" L2?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

i dont really want to bring two threads together but am I right in saying those saying to leave it all to the people to decide, self-regulate and remove government interference in this thread are the same ones totally opposed to that way of thinking in Gia's economic debates?

Sounds about right.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Not me. I said it "can" not that it always does or is a "given". Do you dispute that?

No, fair cop.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Examples? Who is dying from taking "safe doses" L2?

I don't know. You suggested some drugs currently regarded as "bad" (i.e. illegal) could be beneficial under certain conditions, including controlled doses.

Maybe proponents can find out the precise reasons for specific drugs being banned and get the laws changed. The authorities will probably want to see the results of your medical trials, though.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I don't know. You suggested some drugs currently regarded as "bad" (i.e. illegal) could be beneficial under certain conditions, including controlled doses.

Maybe proponents can find out the precise reasons for specific drugs being banned and get the laws changed. The authorities will probably want to see the results of your medical trials, though.

You can buy 100's of toxic chemicals down the paint shop. I wouldn't recommend drinking them and doing so would likely be fatal. Should they be sold only by prescription?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

You can buy 100's of toxic chemicals down the paint shop. I wouldn't recommend drinking them and doing so would likely be fatal. Should they be sold only by prescription?

The warnings on the packaging should be enough to deter people.

Bottoms up!

[youtube=560,315]0RX59Jo3t4w[/youtube]

And metho is my friend
Yes, our love has one end
We'll be wed 'til death or blindness part

 

[Giardiasis]

i dont really want to bring two threads together but am I right in saying those saying to leave it all to the people to decide, self-regulate and remove government interference in this thread are the same ones totally opposed to that way of thinking in Gia's economic debates?

Yep, I'm the only one that's consistent ;D

The reason why is that the people that agree with me in regards to drugs have bought into the utilitarian argument, but not so for economics. I maintain that while the utilitarian argument for removing government from drugs (and economics) is sound, it is the ethical argument that comes out trumps. Violent coercion to control drug usage/production, just like preventing people from engaging in any mutually beneficial exchanges (that do not hurt third parties physically or fraudulently) is morally wrong.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The warnings on the packaging should be enough to deter people.

Bottoms up!

[youtube=560,315]0RX59Jo3t4w[/youtube]

And metho is my friend
Yes, our love has one end
We'll be wed 'til death or blindness part

So what you are saying is grown ups can determine for themselves whether they should ingest potentially harmful substances? I agree.

I am also saying that some substances are currently classified as dangerous and illegal not because there is good science to back this up but becuase puritanical old farts once declared them so and we haven't moved on.

 

[lamb22]

Any comments or opinions about the above? Would it be a good idea or not?

It would be a good idea. Drugs would be safer and cheaper, less people would die, less people would go to jail, more people would get medical help, there would be less violence and usage rates would not increase,