Drug death statistics

[Zeuzzz]

Stumbled across this, which I found interesting.

http://www.thedea.org/statistics.html
The death rate for MDMA, assuming that there really were about 60 deaths directly caused by MDMA in 2000, would be roughly 2 in 100,000 users. The death rate from smoking, by contrast, is on the order of 400 per 100,000 users. Even alcohol, America's official "it's not really a drug" drug, nets about 50 deaths per 100,000 users each year:[3]

[.....]

[3] Death numbers are based on 'rough justice': The US Centers for Disease Control reports over 100,000 alcohol related deaths per year, with close to 200 million Americans using alcohol. CDC also reports over 400,000 smoking related deaths per year out of about 100 million smokers. The 'ecstasy related' drug deaths number is based on an assumption of about 60 deaths (in all probability there were only a handfull of purely 'ecstasy' deaths) out of a user population of about 3 million (based on the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Statistics, conducted by SAMHSA.)


Think that this is an accurate representation? Or are the figures unreliable in some way? Would be nice to see some published figures in a science journal. If true, its quite outstanding really when you think about it. The drug MDMA is illegal everywhere in the world and causes on average 2 deaths in every 100,000 users, yet Alcohol is legal and actually pushed and mass marketed around the whole world to the general population and causes 40 deaths per 100,000 users. :eye-poppi And tobacco is even worse. :eye-poppi

[Zeuzzz]

Anyone know of any comprehensive published paper that shows the number of deaths per n users of various drugs?

[Wolrab]

Over the years, this topic has interested me. Recently there was an ad on the radio stating that there are more ED visits caused by prescription drug abuse than caused by heroin and marijuana combined. It sounds pretty scary if you don't dig deeper.

I just found this site with minimal effort. I don't know the veracity of the claims but I wouldn't be too surprised to find it correct.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/dawn/ED-trends.htm

I remember Dr. Dean Edell asking if you would go out and purchase drugs if they were all made legal. I just can't see everyday Joe's deciding to shoot up just because it is legal. Everything is available if one sets their minds on getting it.

[Wolrab]

Anyone know of any comprehensive published paper that shows the number of deaths per n users of various drugs?

The link I linked above has stats up the wazoo. Again I can't vouch for veracity.
I would be suspect of any official stats because of the government's need to justify their policies. (EEK! I'm a conspiracy nut!)

[Axiom_Blade]

I would be suspect of any official stats because of the government's need to justify their policies. (EEK! I'm a conspiracy nut!)

Not really. The government has lied in the past. However, their latest policy regarding illicit drugs appears to be slanting the truth, not outright lying. They play fast-and-loose with the facts. (A simple example of this is highlighting and exaggerating all of the negative effects of a target drug, while remaining silent on the drug's positive effects.) As always, it's a good idea to check your sources. I find the Erowid.org (http://www.erowid.org/) website very helpful.

MDMA is, of course, not alone here. There aren't any deaths from LSD, or psilocybin mushrooms, or cannabis; yet they're all ridiculously illegal. You can get put away for 20 years to life, just for producing and distributing LSD.

Most of our current drug prohibition laws are a result of a culture war that started in the 60s.

[Ziggurat]

Think that this is an accurate representation? Or are the figures unreliable in some way? Would be nice to see some published figures in a science journal. If true, its quite outstanding really when you think about it. The drug MDMA is illegal everywhere in the world and causes on average 2 deaths in every 100,000 users, yet Alcohol is legal and actually pushed and mass marketed around the whole world to the general population and causes 40 deaths per 100,000 users. :eye-poppi And tobacco is even worse. :eye-poppi

The stats might be true, but they're also fairly meaningless. Particularly in the case of cigarettes, both the usage patterns and the primary fatality mechanism is so different (daily use vs. occasional weekend raves, long-term heart and lung disease vs. acute dehydration) that the comparison just doesn't have any significance. Plus, of course, the legality or illegality of a drug isn't just (or even mostly) a function of its potential lethality.

[BenBurch]

Marijuana is mostly harmless, yet the State sees fit to destroy people's lives over their use, growing, or selling of it.

I used to think sense would prevail, but it never will.

[Axiom_Blade]

Marijuana is mostly harmless, yet the State sees fit to destroy people's lives over their use, growing, or selling of it.

I used to think sense would prevail, but it never will.

Well, many states have medical cannabis laws, which is a big step forward, and many cities have taken the step of making it a "lowest priority". So there's been slow progress. The reason for this is its ubiquity: it's relatively easy to grow, non-addictive, and has pleasant effects for most users.

Hallucinogens, though, are a whole other mess. You have to have specialized training to make many of them, and the effects aren't always pleasant, and can even be downright disturbing. As a result, there's much less push for legalization.

Plus, of course, the legality or illegality of a drug isn't just (or even mostly) a function of its potential lethality.
I thought that was the whole point. If there's no harm, why make it illegal?
That's what is used to determine if a drug gets prescription-only, or over-the-counter status, right?

The drug MDMA is illegal everywhere in the world and causes on average 2 deaths in every 100,000 users, yet Alcohol is legal and actually pushed and mass marketed around the whole world to the general population and causes 40 deaths per 100,000 users.
When speaking of MDMA deaths, it's worth noting that some casualties weren't a direct result of the drug. For instance, one girl's death was attributed to MDMA, but it came out later that she actually died from hyponatremia (water intoxication). Some users, worried about dehydration, overcompensate and wind up drinking far too much water. You have to balance out your body's salts. It's bizarre to think that a bowl of pretzels could've saved this girl's life. Of course, her parents were all over the TV talk shows talking about how Ecstasy killed their daughter. Education is a big issue here.

[Dancing David]

Anyone know of any comprehensive published paper that shows the number of deaths per n users of various drugs?


Well Zeuzzz, here is the issue, death statistics collection.

Many deaths do not have an autopsy, some (a large percentage) do not have a toxicology. Given the nature of illicit and abused legal drugs you are not going to get an accurate sample.

Then there is the whole 'cause of death' issue, which is commonly part of death certificates. Often unless there is an inquest it is not very elaborate. So it might just say "cardio-vascular event' or some such. It might not say CVE due to methamphetamine use. Or auto accident as opposed to ‘auto accident secondary to alcohol use’.

Then there is the issue of hiding, suicide is often not recorded as suicide, for example.

[Ziggurat]

I thought that was the whole point. If there's no harm, why make it illegal?

Lethality is not the only form of harm. I'm not much of a fan of current drug policy, but dishonest arguments won't work to change them, and not acknowledging the other forms of harm drugs do (which can be considerable) is dishonest.

That's what is used to determine if a drug gets prescription-only, or over-the-counter status, right?

That is an entirely separate issue, but no, I don't think potential lethality is the only difference between OTC and prescription.

[BenBurch]

I think I would also make an exception on Stropharia Cubensis and related species, Axiom Blade, just because you DON'T need to worry about synthesis and no home chemist is going to make something that isn't QUITE the target drug and maim people (and this does happen.) And don't ask me how I know this, but home cultivation is pretty simple if you have a pressure canner.

[Dancing David]

I would not myself, it takes a really clean practice and following the rules as well. But I do know someone who has done so, many times.
I also avoid serotonergic hallucinogens. It is better for me to take Zoloft. No panic attacks (no buzz either).

[Zeuzzz]

Best avoid MDMA then. SSRI's completely blunt its effects. My current breif citalopram regimen means I cant use MDMA for another three months till I've fully tapered. But considering I only use it once or twice yearly, its not gonna make that much difference anyway. Although MDMA is not really a hallucinogen at all, you dont actually see things or hallucinate. Just makes you very 'loved up', and surrounds everything you think of in an empathogenic glow, thus why its proven so efficacious for curing people with PTSD and people with traumatic pasts with lots of bad memories. I only use it for the theraputic aspects really, not recreationally. Its like a truth serum, gives you unrivalled powers of truthful self introspection that enable you to look at yourself from a different perspective and see what actions will make you happier. Its like an instantly acting breif but powerful SSRI, to an extent.

The main downside to it is the comedown, but this can be combatted with serotonin precursors like 5-Hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP). And you've got all the other uneducated idiots that use it more frequently and in higher dosages than the clinical studies have shown are perfectly safe, and so make all the scary news headlines. Plus, the fact its illegal and thus is more likely to contain contaminants is a bummer, unless you clean it with a simple acetone wash or test it with a marquis reagent.

MDMA is to SSRI's what Amineptine is to tricyclic antidepressants.

[Zeuzzz]

Anyone know the number of deaths per n number of users of aspirin or paracetemol? Probably very low, but would be interesting to see.

[Zeuzzz]

Then there is the whole 'cause of death' issue, which is commonly part of death certificates. Often unless there is an inquest it is not very elaborate. So it might just say "cardio-vascular event' or some such. It might not say CVE due to methamphetamine use. Or auto accident as opposed to ‘auto accident secondary to alcohol use’.


Thats what I thought. If someone jumps off a bride a day after doing acid did they commit suicide? Did the acid kill them? Did the impact kill them? What would get put on the autopsy? Hard to say. Same goes for every drug I suppose, so you'd expect them to roughly average out.

right?

[Pink Booties]

I can tellya, the ER where I work sees many heroin cases, but more pharmaceuticals. Trouble is, many pts. come in with a cocktail of many things in their system.

And the ignorance of what they're taking disturbs me, especially now in this age of the interwebs, where one can look up information about the drug before taking it. Many pts. cannot relate what it was that they even took, and tests are needed to reveal the info before actual treatment can begin.

Lately kids are coming in claiming to have taken "methadrone", which is variously claimed to be from China and Japan, and kids get it in tabs which they crush and snort. They wig right the **** out.

[Pink Booties]

Also I should say many of the suicides we see are kids who took a boatload of Tylenol. Never ever OD Tylenol, it won't kill you but you'll wish it had. If any of you have angst-ridden teenagers, with a history of attempts or spoken ideations, pass that on in a gentle, nonsuggestive way.

[Zeuzzz]

Lately kids are coming in claiming to have taken "methadrone", which is variously claimed to be from China and Japan, and kids get it in tabs which they crush and snort. They wig right the **** out.


I suspect your talking about mephedrone, or 4-Methylmethcathinone. The fact that its a beta ketone analogue of methcathinone and legal nearly world wide means that its popularity has expolded recently. Despite there being no studies on it at all in the literature. Meph is to methcathinone what methylone is to MDMA (methylone being the beta-ketone analogue of MDMA, and also sold in many countries as a designer drug). But methylone has been studied quite a lot and has been around for many years and has proven much safer in trials, mephedrone is still completely unstudied. Not one paper. Its sold in many legal highs party pills. I've tried it once (personally in tiny amounts, <100mg) with some friends at uni, its similar to MDMA but with more stimulating properties. But I'm staying clear of that one until some studies are done. People have reported some very nasty side effects recently from using it too much on erowid. I've seen people doing silly amounts of it nearly daily (grams of the stuff), and they haven't died, theres been just one death I think out of hundreds of thousands of users, but no one knows the long term effects. So definately best to avoid.

[BenBurch]

Also I should say many of the suicides we see are kids who took a boatload of Tylenol. Never ever OD Tylenol, it won't kill you but you'll wish it had. If any of you have angst-ridden teenagers, with a history of attempts or spoken ideations, pass that on in a gentle, nonsuggestive way.

So, in your ER, how many patients have you had to treat for Marijuana or Hashish overdose?

[Zeuzzz]

I'd like to pre-empt and say that there have been loads. But not one has ever resulted in a fatality in history, only people thinking they might die.

[BenBurch]

I'd like to pre-empt and say that there have been loads. But not one has ever resulted in a fatality in history, only people thinking they might die.

True, but those aren't actual ODs. :)

[Dancing David]

Anyone know the number of deaths per n number of users of aspirin or paracetemol? Probably very low, but would be interesting to see.

Actually they are bad drugs, when used to commit suicide.

You wake up and say "Wow, i am alive", then you die from painful liver failure two weeks later.

[Dancing David]

I can tellya, the ER where I work sees many heroin cases, but more pharmaceuticals. Trouble is, many pts. come in with a cocktail of many things in their system.

And the ignorance of what they're taking disturbs me, especially now in this age of the interwebs, where one can look up information about the drug before taking it. Many pts. cannot relate what it was that they even took, and tests are needed to reveal the info before actual treatment can begin.

Lately kids are coming in claiming to have taken "methadrone", which is variously claimed to be from China and Japan, and kids get it in tabs which they crush and snort. They wig right the **** out.


I knew some people who died from the tylenol thing (two former clients), I forget what this one girl took in the ED, I think it was darvoset or something, she was really nauseous. To say the least she was miserable.

The scary one was this guy who would huff paint thinner.

(I am not a doctor, I was a mental health screener.)

[Dancing David]

Best avoid MDMA then. SSRI's completely blunt its effects. My current breif citalopram regimen means I cant use MDMA for another three months till I've fully tapered. But considering I only use it once or twice yearly, its not gonna make that much difference anyway. Although MDMA is not really a hallucinogen at all, you dont actually see things or hallucinate. Just makes you very 'loved up', and surrounds everything you think of in an empathogenic glow, thus why its proven so efficacious for curing people with PTSD and people with traumatic pasts with lots of bad memories. I only use it for the theraputic aspects really, not recreationally. Its like a truth serum, gives you unrivalled powers of truthful self introspection that enable you to look at yourself from a different perspective and see what actions will make you happier. Its like an instantly acting breif but powerful SSRI, to an extent.

The main downside to it is the comedown, but this can be combatted with serotonin precursors like 5-Hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP). And you've got all the other uneducated idiots that use it more frequently and in higher dosages than the clinical studies have shown are perfectly safe, and so make all the scary news headlines. Plus, the fact its illegal and thus is more likely to contain contaminants is a bummer, unless you clean it with a simple acetone wash or test it with a marquis reagent.

MDMA is to SSRI's what Amineptine is to tricyclic antidepressants.


No, I avoid any serotonergic hallucinogens. I am prone to addiction to them and then panic attacks. I avoid them, not seek them out. Period.

[Zeuzzz]

If thats your rule, then stick to it. You'd know better than I would about you... of course.

[Zeuzzz]

Then again I wouldn't call MDMA a hallucinogen at all, most people call it a slightly stimulating empathogen. Its a very odd mix, and a very unique chemical in its effects. Or I think that Nichols, Shulgin et al coined the term entactogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathogen-entactogen) in the literature to distinguish it from normal hallucinogens.

As much as i hate quoting wiki, I think this article is quite respectable:

The terms empathogen and entactogen are used to describe a class of psychoactive drugs that produce distinctive emotional and social effects similar to those of MDMA ("Ecstasy"). Putative members of this class include MDMA, MDA, MDEA, MBDB, and AET, among others. The chemical structure of most entactogens contains a substituted amphetamine core, and most belong to the phenethylamine class of psychoactive drugs. When referring to MDMA and its counterparts, the term 'MDxx' is often used with the exception of MDPV. Entactogens are often incorrectly referred to as major hallucinogens or stimulants, although their effects are often somewhat characteristic of such.

The term "empathogen" was coined in 1983 by Ralph Metzner to denote chemical agents inducing feelings of empathy. "Entactogen" was coined by David E. Nichols as an alternative to "empathogen", attempting to avoid the potential for improper association of the latter with negative connotations related to the Greek root "pathos" (suffering); Nichols also thought the word was limiting, and did not cover other therapeutic uses for the drugs that go beyond instilling feelings of empathy. The word "entactogen" is derived from the roots "en" (Greek: within), "tactus" (Latin: touch) and "gen" (Greek: produce) (Nichols 1986: 308). Neither term is dominant in usage, and, despite their difference in connotation, are essentially interchangeable, as they refer to precisely the same chemicals.

These drugs appear to produce a different spectrum of psychological effects from major stimulants such as methamphetamine and amphetamine or from major psychedelic drugs such as LSD or psilocybin. As implied by the category names, users of entactogens say the drugs often produce feelings of empathy, love, and emotional closeness to others. However, there have been only very preliminary comparisons of these different drugs in humans in properly-controlled laboratory studies.

If MDMA is taken as a representative entactogen, the pharmacological mechanisms of this class—increased extracellular dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine—closely resemble those of methamphetamine. In a study of rodents, MDMA was recently shown to induce release of oxytocin, a hormone and neurotransmitter involved in social bonding.[1] This may contribute to the emotional effects of MDMA. However, many other serotonergic drugs also increase oxytocin without producing the unusual effects of MDMA. Entactogens other than MDMA have received relatively little scientific attention, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the mechanisms of entactogens in general.

[Axiom_Blade]

Best avoid MDMA then. SSRI's completely blunt its effects.

I thought MDMA caused your brain to make more serotonin, so that if you were taking an SSRI, you'd wind up with WAY too much serotonin in your brain, and you'd get very sick.

[Travis]

Too much serotonin is deadly isn't it?

[paximperium]

So, in your ER, how many patients have you had to treat for Marijuana or Hashish overdose?
You can't really "OD" on marijuana but you can drive your car off a cliff or kill someone else when you drive impaired. I've seen 2 so far, many many more alcohol related.

[paximperium]

Too much serotonin is deadly isn't it?
Serotonin Syndrome is a dead giveaway :D

[paximperium]

I knew some people who died from the tylenol thing (two former clients), I forget what this one girl took in the ED, I think it was darvoset or something, she was really nauseous. To say the least she was miserable. Tylenol(Acetaminophen) is one of the most common suicide drugs. It will kill you in 24-72 hours by causing fulminant liver failure. Not pretty.

Good thing, we have an antidote if we treat you within 8-24hours.

[wackyvorlon]

Seritonin sickness, as I recall. I have a friend who is on disability now because of the effects.

Personally, my feelings on the use of drugs are very negative. Not only are they illegal, they are hazardous and their manufacture is not regulated. You really have very little knowledge of what you're actually taking. It's your brain, if you want to melt it, that's your own business, IMO. As for me, however, I will have fun doing something far more interesting.

[paximperium]

Seritonin sickness, as I recall. I have a friend who is on disability now because of the effects.

Personally, my feelings on the use of drugs are very negative. Not only are they illegal, they are hazardous and their manufacture is not regulated. You really have very little knowledge of what you're actually taking. It's your brain, if you want to melt it, that's your own business, IMO. As for me, however, I will have fun doing something far more interesting.
Amen, brother. I have little need or desire for mind altering substances. I seldom drink and seriously dislike being drunk and or tipsy. I only use caffeine and have used provigil in the past to prevent me from dying from falling asleep at the wheel.

That's about as much interest I have with drugs except for dealing with fallout effects with some of my "customers". I have no idea what the hell's the appeal.

[Dancing David]

In my case I fely better after the use of serotonergic agents for about 3 weeks. For a while I enjoyed the active phase, but I began to crave it as well. Now only caffine. (And I am tapering the Zoloft after 8+ years).

[BenBurch]

You can't really "OD" on marijuana but you can drive your car off a cliff or kill someone else when you drive impaired. I've seen 2 so far, many many more alcohol related.

True. And then there is just being too sleepy. Or talking on the cell phone. Or eating a hamburger. Or having an unrestrained dog in the car.

I'm betting all of those cause more highway deaths.

[Zeuzzz]

I thought MDMA caused your brain to make more serotonin, so that if you were taking an SSRI, you'd wind up with WAY too much serotonin in your brain, and you'd get very sick.


As it I understand it, MDMA doesn't block it like SSRI's, but makes it operate in reverse, effectively pumping out the 5HT stored. SSRIs simply stop it working, preventing reuptake. And thus largely blunts the effects.

So while MDMA causes a rapid peak of serotonin in the synapse by dumping all the stored serotonin at once, SSRIs on the other hand tend to "flatten" synaptic serotonin levels by blocking reuptake but simultaneously inhibiting release.

Neither MDMA or SSRIs affect how much serotonin actually gets produced inside the neuron as this is controlled seperately, but you can boost serotonin production to some extent by taking serotonin precursors such as 5HTP.

Very comprehensive and well written article here which covers this:

http://www.mdma.net/
Alas, adopting a prophylactic SSRI regimen isn't a realistic long-term option for frequent MDMA users either, or at least not if they intend to continue using their hugdrug of choice. This is because a sustained regimen of SSRIs largely blunts MDMA's empathogenic and entactogenic effects. SSRIs inhibit the binding of MDMA to the serotonin transporter. Thus pre-treatment with SSRIs prevents MDMA-triggered serotonin-release; and this in turn reduces dopamine-release in the striatum. Some SSRI users who like to rave nonetheless continue to take MDMA. They consume abnormally high quantities of pills to gain the desired E-like effect. At this dosage range, the persistence of metabolite-induced MDA-like states of consciousness the next day is not unexpected. In practice, the after-effects are often modulated by cannabis and alcohol.

Tolerance to MDMA itself develops quite rapidly with steady use. If MDMA is taken several days in a row, amphetamine-like and eventually dysphoric effects start to predominate. Monoamine neurotransmitters, most drastically serotonin, are depleted from the axon terminals; serotonin synthesis is choked off following oxidative inactivation of tryptophan hydroxylase; and the nerve-cell receptors re-regulate. Thus MDMA is not addictive in the conventional sense. Taken chronically, it soon ceases to be rewarding. Even dedicated ravers typically don't binge more than once a week. Wiser heads save the drug for "special occasions". Yet MDMA's non-addictive profile is no guarantee that (as was once fondly hoped), "once you get the message you hang up the phone." The mind/brain isn't built like that. If you really like a drug-delivered message, you want to hear it again and again. But with MDMA, the message can subtly change with time; and its primal magic gets sullied or forgotten.

[Axiom_Blade]

You can't really "OD" on marijuana but you can drive your car off a cliff or kill someone else when you drive impaired. I've seen 2 so far, many many more alcohol related.

Here's something I've always wondered:
How do you tell if the person was on cannabis? Blood test?
The cannabinoids stay in your body for a long time after you sober up, at least a few months. How can you tell if the person smoked a joint on the night they were driving, or a week ago?

You really have very little knowledge of what you're actually taking.
That's why education is so important; so you know what you're putting into your body.
If you're worried about the drug being cut with something harmful...that's a common problem with MDMA, but not necessarily with others. It wouldn't make any sense to cut LSD, for instance, because it's so cheap to produce in the first place. The dosage is so minute that anything you cut it with wouldn't have an effect, anyway.

As for me, however, I will have fun doing something far more interesting.
People don't always do them for fun. Sometimes you just need to clear your head out, or get a new perspective.

[Zeuzzz]

True. And then there is just being too sleepy. Or talking on the cell phone. Or eating a hamburger. Or having an unrestrained dog in the car.

I'm betting all of those cause more highway deaths.

Yup, for sure. Ban the dogs and hambrugers! I think schedule II at least.

Infact I watched a program where they tested people who were smoking cannabis against people who were drinking and a normal group. The drunk people hit loads of cones and went faster, the normal group went normal speed and hit a couple of cones, and the people who had smoked cannabis were much more precautious and drove slower, and thus didn;t hit any of the cones on the course. So theres even the argument while driving stoned yuour actually more precautious and safer. But then again this depends on your level of intoxication, and whether your a regular smoker whos used to it, or are inexperienced and more 'out of it'.

[Zeuzzz]

How can you tell if the person smoked a joint on the night they were driving, or a week ago?


I think that they can tell by the amount of THC in the blood. As THC has such a long half life (~50 hours) its quite easy to detect amounts, but then again theres the question of wherther they've just smoked load the weeks before and its still in their system, or whether they've just smoked a bit just then when they've been driving. I'm sure theres other methods they use, but I dont know them as I dont smoke weed at all anymore. Just makes me sleepy.

If you're worried about the drug being cut with something harmful...that's a common problem with MDMA, but not necessarily with others.

There are ways to A) test the purity and B) purify the product (I listed a couple above) Its always worth doing this with black market chemicals without controls. I do every time. But I've never found anything to be contaminated, generally if dealers were selling contaminated crap they would lose their customer base. So it is extremely rare, but not unheard of.

[blutoski]

Lethality is not the only form of harm. I'm not much of a fan of current drug policy, but dishonest arguments won't work to change them, and not acknowledging the other forms of harm drugs do (which can be considerable) is dishonest.



That is an entirely separate issue, but no, I don't think potential lethality is the only difference between OTC and prescription.

That's correct: the two ms in "M&M" are "morbidity" and "mortality" - morbidity is much more common.

[Pink Booties]

So, in your ER, how many patients have you had to treat for Marijuana or Hashish overdose?

Hard to say... in round numbers, zero... :)

Trouble with that'n is I spent many a day trying really very much to OD on THC and believe me when I say, it must be nearly impossible, for a few 12, 15 years yours truly was practically living on it

[BenBurch]

Hard to say... in round numbers, zero... :)

Trouble with that'n is I spent many a day trying really very much to OD on THC and believe me when I say, it must be nearly impossible, for a few 12, 15 years yours truly was practically living on it

I have to say I miss it. I am too old and nerdy to have any connections any more. Been well over a decade. Probably just as well; With my luck I'd get busted with it.

[paximperium]

Yup, for sure. Ban the dogs and hambrugers! I think schedule II at least.
Actually several states HAVE banned any distracting activity while driving. If you want to smoke weed do it responsibly and don't justify dangerous behavior just because "it is less dangerous".

Infact I watched a program where they tested people who were smoking cannabis against people who were drinking and a normal group. The drunk people hit loads of cones and went faster, the normal group went normal speed and hit a couple of cones, and the people who had smoked cannabis were much more precautious and drove slower, and thus didn;t hit any of the cones on the course. So theres even the argument while driving stoned yuour actually more precautious and safer. But then again this depends on your level of intoxication, and whether your a regular smoker whos used to it, or are inexperienced and more 'out of it'.
No.
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-05/who-drives-better-drunks-or-stoners

I actually don't care. If you want to drive altered, go do it on your own time and own road. You hurt anyone while high, you take responsibility for whatever damage or injuries you cause which includes manslaughter. Don't justify these behaviors because "it is less dangerous", that's just a cop-out.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I wonder if the development of life-saving drugs would be negatively affected if illicit drugs were legalised?

Why would pharmaceutical companies bother to spend huge sums of money on R&D when they could make billions and billions from a sizeable proportion of the world's population becoming psychologically and/or physically addicted to their new 'lifestyle' products?

[blutoski]

Actually several states HAVE banned any distracting activity while driving. If you want to smoke weed do it responsibly and don't justify dangerous behavior just because "it is less dangerous".

No.
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-05/who-drives-better-drunks-or-stoners

I actually don't care. If you want to drive altered, go do it on your own time and own road. You hurt anyone while high, you take responsibility for whatever damage or injuries you cause which includes manslaughter. Don't justify these behaviors because "it is less dangerous", that's just a cop-out.

There's also a false dichotomy: that there are only two choices: prohibit everything or nothing. That's too rigid a worldview. The situation is that alcohol is grandfathered, and the decision is to not open the genie bottle for even more mind-altering chemicals, given that the one that's already legalized (alchohol) already causes so much unnecessary death and misery.

[BenBurch]

Oh, I do agree, never drive impaired.

But that has nothing to do with why the State feels they can utterly destroy a person's life for possession of a few ounces of a nearly harmless substance. That IS criminal.

[paximperium]

Oh, I do agree, never drive impaired. It has partly to do with the OP.

But that has nothing to do with why the State feels they can utterly destroy a person's life for possession of a few ounces of a nearly harmless substance. That IS criminal.Uh, not to step on your toes here but possession of said "nearly harmless substance" is illegal. Many, myself included don't think it should be.

However, until it is legalized, if you buy the stuff and get caught, you are breaking the law. They are repercussions for breaking the law.

[paximperium]

There's also a false dichotomy: that there are only two choices: prohibit everything or nothing. That's too rigid a worldview. The situation is that alcohol is grandfathered, and the decision is to not open the genie bottle for even more mind-altering chemicals, given that the one that's already legalized (alchohol) already causes so much unnecessary death and misery.
Don't get me started on alcohol. On any given night at least a quarter of the patients in the ER have some alcohol or drug related problem.

[Ivor the Engineer]

There's also a false dichotomy: that there are only two choices: prohibit everything or nothing. That's too rigid a worldview. The situation is that alcohol is grandfathered, and the decision is to not open the genie bottle for even more mind-altering chemicals, given that the one that's already legalized (alchohol) already causes so much unnecessary death and misery.

Exactly.

But what you have to remember is the people on the pro drug legalisation side of this argument never admit to having a problem with their use of alcohol/marijuana/heroin/cocaine/etc. Bad stuff always happens to other people and they don't really care about the consequences for others, just so long as they can access the drugs they want legally.


"What! You expect me to deny myself access to a small pleasure so others don't end up in a living hell!?"

[BenBurch]

It has partly to do with the OP.
Uh, not to step on your toes here but possession of said "nearly harmless substance" is illegal. Many, myself included don't think it should be.

However, until it is legalized, if you buy the stuff and get caught, you are breaking the law. They are repercussions for breaking the law.

Correct. Just like there were repercussions if a black man married a white woman. And with about the same amount of moral justification.

[paximperium]

Correct. Just like there were repercussions if a black man married a white woman. And with about the same amount of moral justification.Woah...I know this is probably something you really care about but come on. That just sounds exceedingly dumb. No they are not the same, not even close.

If you want to advocate for what you believe in such hyperbole just makes your cause silly. Yes, the persecution of marijuana users is not fair but to say that is the same(or even attempting to insinuate) as what interracial couples went through is just dumb.

[BenBurch]

No, they are the same; In either case the State sees fit to;

1. Regulate victimless personal behavior.

2. Criminalize that regulation such that if caught and convicted they take many years of your life away from you.

Neither are things that ought to be done unless the compelling interest of the State required it. And as far as I can see neither was in the compelling interest of the State, but were entered into due to concerns of morality.

EDIT: Lest I forget - Each has its origins in racism. Marijuana was criminalized because blacks and hispanics were users of it. This is well documented.

[blutoski]

Exactly.

But what you have to remember is the people on the pro drug legalisation side of this argument never admit to having a problem with their use of alcohol/marijuana/heroin/cocaine/etc. Bad stuff always happens to other people and they don't really care about the consequences for others, just so long as they can access the drugs they want legally.


"What! You expect me to deny myself access to a small pleasure so others don't end up in a living hell!?"

My wife and I talk about this sometimes. We live in Vancouver. She's from the Caribbean, and looks like your typical Ras Tafarian. It's akward because she constantly counsels her patients to abstain from drug use, as it so obviously and rapidly makes their mental health crater.

She had a patient who was doing so well, then decided that he was 'better' and could do a fattie. Four hours later, he's on a bridge talking about jumping.

We work for a nonprofit in the Downtown East Side, and the stories are just so depressing. Had a job and a house and a family before doing recreational drugs; now unemployed, divorced, estranged, living in a weekly-rate hotel and HIV+.

It's rare for somebody to die from drug use, but it's not rare for people to suffer as a consequence of chronic use. Unfortunately, it's impossible to predict who will be so negatively affected in advance. It's Russian roulette.

[Dancing David]

Hard to say... in round numbers, zero... :)

Trouble with that'n is I spent many a day trying really very much to OD on THC and believe me when I say, it must be nearly impossible, for a few 12, 15 years yours truly was practically living on it

there were some Victorian studies with hashish where they fed huge amounts to dogs. Who slept and then ate a lot.

[Pink Booties]

there were some Victorian studies with hashish where they fed huge amounts to dogs. Who slept and then ate a lot.

Dooood...woof...

[Axiom_Blade]

It's rare for somebody to die from drug use, but it's not rare for people to suffer as a consequence of chronic use. Unfortunately, it's impossible to predict who will be so negatively affected in advance. It's Russian roulette.

This is why rehabilitation services should be available to anyone who needs them.
Perhaps you could even tax the substances to pay for the rehab services.

[Zeuzzz]

I actually don't care. If you want to drive altered, go do it on your own time and own road. You hurt anyone while high, you take responsibility for whatever damage or injuries you cause which includes manslaughter. Don't justify these behaviors because "it is less dangerous", that's just a cop-out.


I should have made it more clear that I was not actively advocating driving under the influence of cannabis, just that driving while under the influence of cannabis is far safer than alcohol. And in that example also safer than sober, though I dont think this would have been shown if the trial had been more extensive (there was only one test subject, so it wasn't really statistically significant)

Unless theres a drug thats been shown to actually improve your driving abilities then there is no case when someone should drive in an altered state. Maybe some nootropics would count. But they dont seem to have much evidence going for them nowadays.

[paximperium]

This is why rehabilitation services should be available to anyone who needs them.
Perhaps you could even tax the substances to pay for the rehab services.
When is enough?

I've seen some who has been on rehab over a dozen times. Is it worth it to continue expending resources on these individuals when there are many others waiting or in need of such resources?

[paximperium]

Drug death statistics do tend to be very large, and still are somewhat underplayed - its in the best interests of the drug companies and multi nationals to underplay.

If you think about it, the drug companiew would go out of business if their focus was primarily on health and preventative health versus capitalizing on sickness and disease. Their share holders would not allow it! These organizations are all driven via financial interests, nothin else.

I could go on, but will only suggest looking into a product found at www.mmshealthy4life.com (http://www.mmshealthy4life.com) - its called mms and is a cheap and amazing product that addresses many health issues, and prevents many more...

To good health...No.

[Dancing David]

When is enough?

I've seen some who has been on rehab over a dozen times. Is it worth it to continue expending resources on these individuals when there are many others waiting or in need of such resources?


There is very little large scale research as well.

I favor the relapse prevention models myself, it may or may not help to remove people from the environment in which they need to use the skills.

[3point14]

It has partly to do with the OP.
Uh, not to step on your toes here but possession of said "nearly harmless substance" is illegal. Many, myself included don't think it should be.

However, until it is legalized, if you buy the stuff and get caught, you are breaking the law. They are repercussions for breaking the law.

Yeah, just ask Rosa Parks.


Exactly.

But what you have to remember is the people on the pro drug legalisation side of this argument never admit to having a problem with their use of alcohol/marijuana/heroin/cocaine/etc. Bad stuff always happens to other people and they don't really care about the consequences for others, just so long as they can access the drugs they want legally.


"What! You expect me to deny myself access to a small pleasure so others don't end up in a living hell!?"

You expect me to be bound by draconian regulation because a very small portion of the population can't cope? Ban all the cars because some people drive like idiots. Ban alcohol, because some people can't handle being drunk. Ban peanuts because some people are alergic to them. Ban everything that you can find someone that can't deal with it. That makes sense.

[paximperium]

Yeah, just ask Rosa Parks. I really hate this whiny nonsense. I'm sympathetic but this kind of hyperbole just shows how inane some proponents of this topic can be.

Yes, she had the balls to take it. Why don't you go in front of some cops and smoke a joint to make a point? Otherwise stop whining.

[3point14]

I really hate this whiny nonsense. I'm sympathetic but this kind of hyperbole just shows how inane some proponents of this topic can be.

Yes, she had the balls to take it. Why don't you go in front of some cops and smoke a joint to make a point? Otherwise stop whining.

I think you may have missed my point. the point is this:


Sometimes the law is wrong.

[paximperium]

I think you may have missed my point. the point is this:
Sometimes the law is wrong.
I know, but the hyperbole does not help.

[3point14]

I know, but the hyperbole does not help.



But it does illustrate the point quite nicely sometimes.

[Axiom_Blade]

I really hate this whiny nonsense. I'm sympathetic but this kind of hyperbole just shows how inane some proponents of this topic can be.

Yes, she had the balls to take it. Why don't you go in front of some cops and smoke a joint to make a point? Otherwise stop whining.

This is not about people fighting for their right to paaaarrrrtttyyyy. Partying is fun, and useful, and people should be allowed to do that however they wish (as long as it harms no one, blah blah blah)....BUT it goes A LOT deeper than that.

Many groups throughout history have used these substances for spiritual pursuits. We have separation of church and state in our constitution, so that the state cannot tell you how to worship, or what to worship...but if your method of spiritual enlightenment involves a substance that the state thinks is immoral, you're SOL. I don't see how this is different from the state telling you who you can marry or sleep with.

The term for this is cognitive liberty: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Cognitive_Liberty_and_Ethics)

We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, the religious sensibility.

[paximperium]

But it does illustrate the point quite nicely sometimes.
I suggest you use the Prohibition against Alcohol to illustrate your point and not something like Rosa Parks or other Civil Rights examples.

[Axiom_Blade]

I suggest you use the Prohibition against Alcohol to illustrate your point and not something like Rosa Parks or other Civil Rights examples.

What kind of an issue is it, if not civil rights?

[3point14]

I suggest you use the Prohibition against Alcohol to illustrate your point and not something like Rosa Parks or other Civil Rights examples.

I think I'll use what I like to illustrate my point. The law is an ass on occassion, and your insistance that people suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law immidiately made me think of race laws, buses and Ms Parks. I thought it was very appropriate and a reasonable parallel.

By all means respond how you wish, but please don't try to dictate how I choose to make my argument.

[paximperium]

I think I'll use what I like to illustrate my point. The law is an ass on occassion, and your insistance that people suffer the consequences of breaking an unjust law immidiately made me think of race laws, busses and Ms Parks. I thought it was very appropriate and a reasonable parallel.

By all means respond how you wish, but please don't try to dictate how I chose to make my argument.
You must have missed the part where I used the word "suggest".

You can use whatever example you wish and I and most people who sit in middle can continue to think how inanely stupid it is. But heck, go about insulting the plight of African Americans in the 50s by attempting to claim it is the same as folk who want to get stoned.

I eagerly await a Rosa Parks of stoners who is willing to grow some balls and flaunt the law to prove how unjust it is.

[blutoski]

This is why rehabilitation services should be available to anyone who needs them.
Perhaps you could even tax the substances to pay for the rehab services.

In Vancouver, rehabilitation is available to anyone who needs them. It's part of our healthcare offerings.

However, the pivots around whether anybody wants rehab services. Their lives aren't ruined because they're unable to get help - their lives are ruined because they define 'help' as 'provide free drugs and food and shelter so I can continue my habit uninterrupted.' They have no intention or interest in stopping use.

The big debate here is whether the government should provide clean needles and safe injection sites. The argument is that this makes the situation less expensive in the long run.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

You expect me to be bound by draconian regulation because a very small portion of the population can't cope? Ban all the cars because some people drive like idiots. Ban alcohol, because some people can't handle being drunk. Ban peanuts because some people are alergic to them. Ban everything that you can find someone that can't deal with it. That makes sense.

It's a small portion of the population because of the "draconian" regulation. Believe it or not, most people abide by the law. If made legal, the market for illicit drugs would be expanded greatly, as would the amount of harm done to individuals and society.

Recreational drug use provides virtually zero benefit and substantially harms the functioning of society. The two drugs that are legal do more than enough harm already. Go spend some time in A&E late on a friday or saturday night, or visit the heart/lung/cancer wards at your local hospital if you don't believe me.

[BenBurch]

It comes down to who owns your body, doesn't it?

If the State owns your body, well, then they can do whatever they wish with it, and your desires mean exactly nothing.

If you do, then you can do whatever you wish with it that does not directly harm another.

Same argument I make on sexuality.

Same argument I make on dangerous sports.

Same argument I make on military draft.

If we have surrendered ownership of our meat to the State, then what the mind that lives inside it wants or does not want is utterly irrelevant, and you had better hope that the State is merciful. (ha!)

[Ivor the Engineer]

It comes down to who owns your body, doesn't it?

<snip>

No. It comes down to being considerate enough to realise we live in a society and not in an isolated, sound-proofed bubble.

If you don't want others to have a say in what you can and cannot do, I suggest you move to an uninhabited desert island where your choices will affect no one else.

[dlorde]

This article helps put the relative harm of various drugs into perspective: Drug Rankings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm).

I have noted elsewhere on these forums that surprisingly few people are aware that Portugal decriminalised (not legalised) all drugs in 2001, and their experience has been remarkable in comparison with their European neighbours. Trafficking remains illegal, but possession is now just an administrative violation. I can't help wondering why there hasn't been more any mention of it in the media... :rolleyes:

Dire predictions of soaring drug use, and becoming a Mecca for 'drug tourists' did not materialise. Below is the conclusion of a report for the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080) into the results:

"None of the fears promulgated by opponents of Portuguese decriminalization has come to fruition, whereas many of the benefits predicted by drug policymakers from institut-ing a decriminalization regime have been realized. While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001. In certain key demographic segments, drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the decriminalization framework, even as usage across the EU continues to increase, including in those states that continue to take the hardest line in criminalizing drug possession and usage. By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts. Those developments, along with Portugal’s shift to a harm-reduction approach, have dramatically improved drug-related social ills, including drug-caused mortalities and drug-related disease transmission. Ideally, treatment programs would be strictly voluntary, but Portugal’s program is certainly preferable to criminalization. The Portuguese have seen the benefits of decriminalization, and therefore there is no serious political push in Portugal to return to a criminalization framework. Drug policy-makers in the Portuguese government are virtually unanimous in their belief that decriminalization has enabled a far more effective approach to managing Portugal’s addiction problems and other drug-related afflictions. Since the available data demonstrate that they are right, the Portuguese model ought to be carefully considered by policymakers around the world."

[Axiom_Blade]

It's a small portion of the population because of the "draconian" regulation. Believe it or not, most people abide by the law. If made legal, the market for illicit drugs would be expanded greatly, as would the amount of harm done to individuals and society.
Evidence?
Which drugs are you referring to?


Recreational drug use provides virtually zero benefit and substantially harms the functioning of society.
Well, perhaps this is true, but not all illicit drug use is recreational.
I would argue, however, that illicit drugs help many people through rough points in their lives. This has certainly been true for me. However, you only hear about the people who tried drugs to get through a rough point and failed. And then, of course, the drugs are blamed, not the individual.

The two drugs that are legal do more than enough harm already. Go spend some time in A&E late on a friday or saturday night, or visit the heart/lung/cancer wards at your local hospital if you don't believe me.
Again, it depends on what drugs you're talking about. For instance, cannabis, LSD and mushrooms are many times safer than tobacco or alcohol. When was the last time you heard about a musician or movie star overdosing on any of these? It's always alcohol, heroin, and/or cocaine, right?
Lumping all drugs together doesn't help your argument.

[Axiom_Blade]

But heck, go about insulting the plight of African Americans in the 50s by attempting to claim it is the same as folk who want to get stoned.


Wow, there's a Straw Man if I ever saw one.

[blutoski]

This article helps put the relative harm of various drugs into perspective: Drug Rankings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm).

I have noted elsewhere on these forums that surprisingly few people are aware that Portugal decriminalised (not legalised) all drugs in 2001, and their experience has been remarkable in comparison with their European neighbours. Trafficking remains illegal, but possession is now just an administrative violation. I can't help wondering why there hasn't been more any mention of it in the media... :rolleyes:

Dire predictions of soaring drug use, and becoming a Mecca for 'drug tourists' did not materialise. Below is the conclusion of a report for the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080) into the results:



I'm not so concerned about dire predictions, so much as the interpretation by Cato, which has a terrible track record of omitting important details.

It's important to observe that there was a major shift in policies and resource allocation, which has offended libertarians in other ways: the borders and ports are more intrusively searched, and trafficking has more severe penalties. Yes, you can possess and use drugs, but where are you going to get them if people are terrified to be caught selling it?

In this light, the policy change is not very material, and the downswing in use is arguably more a consequence of the severe post-9/11 economic downturn Portugal endured.

There is also an increase in therapeutic policy, but it looks basically like what we have in Vancouver - a place with Canada's highest use problem. It's just not clear what works and what doesn't, and apparently policy effects don't transfer reliably from culture to culture.

It should also be argued that while the claim is that the substances are decriminalized instead of legalized, I don't understand why this claim is made. The products cannot be advertised for sale, cannot be sold, imported, exported, and so on. Possession is limited to very small quantities. There are absolutely restrictions on these substances, which is technically legalization rather than decriminalization.

[dlorde]

... If made legal, the market for illicit drugs would be expanded greatly, as would the amount of harm done to individuals and society.Given that the drugs market is pretty well saturated now, despite all the attempts at prohibition - anyone who wants it get it pretty much as if it were on sale at the corner shop, and at rock-bottom prices (no pun intended), I'm not so sure that would happen.

[blutoski]

Given that the drugs market is pretty well saturated now, despite all the attempts at prohibition - anyone who wants it get it pretty much as if it were on sale at the corner shop, and at rock-bottom prices (no pun intended), I'm not so sure that would happen.

I really doubt that's a good description of the situation.


advertising expands markets - that's its purpose
corporate investment in physical plant would reduce costs of production, and this would translate into lower pricepoints at the till
lower prices usually translate into more consumption
business is very motivated to increase the addictiveness of its products


Most people who advocate decriminalization that I have met have eventually switched to a modified legalization framework, with restrictions on advertisement and sale volumes, and enforcing a minimum age for use.

[BenBurch]

Still we have a situation where the State destroys lives over possession of a drug that has much, much less potential to harm life than drugs that are legal and from which the state gets a financial cut of skimmed right off the top Mafia-style.

How can you justify taking away somebody's life over this? You take a young man in his prime earning years and send him to a prison with hardened criminals where (and I have a particular prisoner in mind here) he is subjected to beating and rape for ten years. Then when he gets out no employer will employ him.

What kind of Monster advocates that?

[Zeuzzz]

What kind of Monster advocates that?

..


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/h/bush_door_noexit.jpg

[dahduh]

I wonder: do people get screwed up because they abuse drugs, or do they abuse drugs because their lives are screwed up? The experience of Portugal would seem to suggest the former is not the case. And if so, then then so-called war on drugs is merely stamping on a symptom, not addressing the cause. Stop wasting money on jails and the DEA and start investing in social workers.

Blutoski's points: perhaps a statistical view would take the moralistic sting out of the fact that some people appear to be total dead-beats. In a large population there will always be dead-beats, and one might say "there but for the grace of the FSM go I." If one simply accepts and addresses the fact some fraction of people will always be a drain on society then one can consider this to be a kind of meta-insurance taken out from behind our veil of ignorance.

[blutoski]

I wonder: do people get screwed up because they abuse drugs, or do they abuse drugs because their lives are screwed up? The experience of Portugal would seem to suggest the former is not the case. And if so, then then so-called war on drugs is merely stamping on a symptom, not addressing the cause. Stop wasting money on jails and the DEA and start investing in social workers.

Blutoski's points: perhaps a statistical view would take the moralistic sting out of the fact that some people appear to be total dead-beats. In a large population there will always be dead-beats, and one might say "there but for the grace of the FSM go I." If one simply accepts and addresses the fact some fraction of people will always be a drain on society then one can consider this to be a kind of meta-insurance taken out from behind our veil of ignorance.

My impression is that people use drugs because it's part of their social lives, but a few cannot handle it, and that it's not about their character. I don't consider abusers to be deadbeats. Just unlucky.

The fact that we can't predict who will be unlucky is the reason I use the Russian roulette analogy.

[Axiom_Blade]

My impression is that people use drugs because it's part of their social lives, but a few cannot handle it, and that it's not about their character. I don't consider abusers to be deadbeats. Just unlucky.

It's not necessarily about character. I think a lot of times it's about neurochemistry.

You could say the same thing about alcohol or coffee: if you can't handle it, you shouldn't do it. WIth an addictive drug, like alcohol, quitting can be very hard, but with a non-addictive drug like cannabis, it's much easier.

If your friends won't hang out with you if you won't do drugs, then get new friends. Sure, it sucks, but that's life. At what point do people have to take responsibility for their actions?

[Zeuzzz]

Since this thread has sorta wondered away from death statictsics (dont care, its all interesting debate) I just found this brilliant clip from stephen fry who gives his views on prohibition, in a very elequant and straight forward way. All of which I TOTALLY agree with. As with most other things fry says,

iAaeg6XDjYM

[Zeuzzz]

Oh yeah, if you dont like an accent that sounds english, gay and very posh, dont watch the above cip :) I know some people find it very annoying.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Stephen Fry's remarkable observation: In general rich people suffer less from their vices than poorer people do.

Who'd of thought it?

[Dancing David]

Certainly not any body connected with the legal system.