[Drug Legalisation] Should I then become a heroin addict? [Archive]

Nancarrow

12th May 2006, 04:36 AM

If you tax them heavily then they will still sell them illegally and you accomplish nothing.

Surely it depends on exactly how much you tax it? It seems fairly obvious to me that there is a huge price difference between the untaxed retail price of a legal supply, and the current black market prices. That's a hell of a lot of wiggle room to determine an appropriate rate of tax.

Legalising heroin would obviously lead to more people becoming addicts. That is not a good thing.

Not so fast. What would be the conditions under which they become addicts? What options would they have available to overcome their addiction? How would society treat them? How much money would it cost them to support their habit? How much risk of contamination or overdose would there be in each dose?

Other things being equal, more addicts = bad. But other things are never equal.

The reason governments spend money on the heroin problem is that it is quite possible for most people to control their drinking.

My beef with drug laws is not that governments shouldn't spend money dealing with the problems that drugs can (not inevitably do) cause, but that the proposed solution we have had for the past century or so, has been totally counterproductive.

There are not many people who control heroin. It is much more, directly, physically addictive.

I certainly wouldn't dismiss that claim out of hand, but I must say it would be good to have some reliable figures for that claim.

It is also easy to OD on it. People who take it get tolerant and usually move onto the needle in the end which causes other health problems, not least AIDS.

Of course needles->AIDS is not an absolute causative chain. The user just has to be careful.

I think the idea that you can sell in in special shops, all nice and pure, educating the public and it not be a problem is pure fantasy.

I agree. I don't think proponents of drug legalisation generally claim that it would lead to a totally drug-problem-free society. The issue is whether the problems would be greater or less than those caused by our current system.

Drug legalisation doesn't have to lead to a utopia. It just has to be better than what we have now. Certainly, I fail to see how ensuring the purity and strength of the supply, and providing proper education as to safe usage, would make things worse. That way of thinking gives us abstinence-only education, and things like the religious debacle over the herpes virus vaccine. (Not that I think you support those for a moment)

Carnivore

12th May 2006, 06:59 AM

I've heard that one major drawbacks of using heroin, or any other opiate, is the
constipation that it causes. I suppose that being a heroin addict would be OK
as long as the person also doesn't mind sucking down laxatives as well. ;)

While getting chemo for small cell lung cancer, my Dad was on large doses of liquid morphine. The resulting constipation defied pretty much all laxatives short of drain cleaner and became life threatening when he was unable to regain weight between chemo courses. I'm wondering if it is possible to to become dangerously malnourished when on a high opiate 'diet'?

Random

12th May 2006, 09:11 AM

I think the idea that you can sell in in special shops, all nice and pure, educating the public and it not be a problem is pure fantasy.
Don’t sell it. Give it away for free at government run clinics. Allow any registered drug addict to come in, watch a ten minute video about drug addiction, and receive an appropriate dose under the supervision of a trained physician. You keep the private sale of drugs illegal however. This gives users two choices: Safe, Free, and Legal, or Unsafe, Expensive, and Illegal. Then you just let market forces take over.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 09:58 AM

Actually, it's probably less troublesome than alcohol addiction. Addicts can function relatively normally while high on heroin, something that cannot be said for alcoholics. Given, I wouldn't want my surgeon or bus driver to be nodding out, but it's certainly less of a hindrance for, say, your average office worker than being drunk is.

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be high on heroin?

shemp

12th May 2006, 10:00 AM

Hagrok

12th May 2006, 10:08 AM

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be high on heroin?
Heroin Tester?

Random

12th May 2006, 10:08 AM

Network TV producer
Radio station DJ
Catholic Priest
Professional golfer
Lottery Winner

drkitten

12th May 2006, 10:24 AM

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be high on heroin?

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be drunk?

Cecil

12th May 2006, 10:24 AM

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be high on heroin? Allowed by whom? The government shouldn't be in the business of telling people which substances (legal) they can or cannot be using while at work, unless that job involves public safety concerns (bus driver, pilot, etc). I can't imagine any employer allowing its employees to come to work high, just as no employers now allow their employees to come to work hammered.

The fact that no employer wants its employees to be high doesn't imply that being high isn't less impairing than being drunk. It is quite easy to seem normal while high; it is next to impossible to seem normal while drunk.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 10:25 AM

Heroin Tester?
:D

That's not what I meant...

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 10:27 AM

Network TV producer
Radio station DJ
Catholic Priest
Professional golfer
Lottery Winner

Why should any of these be allowed to be stoned?

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 10:29 AM

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be drunk?

None. But there's a difference between taking a drink and shooting up on H.

Allowed by whom? The government shouldn't be in the business of telling people which substances (legal) they can or cannot be using while at work, unless that job involves public safety concerns (bus driver, pilot, etc). I can't imagine any employer allowing its employees to come to work high, just as no employers now allow their employees to come to work hammered.

The fact that no employer wants its employees to be high doesn't imply that being high isn't less impairing than being drunk. It is quite easy to seem normal while high; it is next to impossible to seem normal while drunk.

I asked you a question.

Cecil

12th May 2006, 10:44 AM

I asked you a question. I don't really feel like playing along with your games, Claus. If you have a point, make it.

To answer your question, no, I can't name 5 occupations where the person should be allowed to come to work high, mainly because I think being sober is more conducive to getting work done. It will always be in the employer's best interests to prohibit being high at work.

drkitten

12th May 2006, 10:44 AM

None. But there's a difference between taking a drink and shooting up on H.

There are several, but none that are relevant (as far as I can see) to the question I asked.

Heroin is illegal while alcohol is legal, but that's exactly the question under discussion.

Heroin is typically smoked or injected while alcohol is drunk, but the method of administration is beside the point.

Heroin typically affects judgement and behavior less than alcohol, so the difference there would suggest that there are more occupations where heroin use should be allowed than alcohol.

Heroin users typically build up a greater tolerance over time -- again, I fail to see the relevance.

What difference is there between the work-related impairment caused by heroin and the impairment caused by alchohol such that the first should be illegal, while the second isn't?

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 10:50 AM

Heroin typically affects judgement and behavior less than alcohol

You got any evidence of that?

Heroin users typically build up a greater tolerance over time -- again, I fail to see the relevance.

Evidence?

What difference is there between the work-related impairment caused by heroin and the impairment caused by alchohol such that the first should be illegal, while the second isn't?

Heroin is not legal because it is far more dangerous than alcohol. Want to take a drink? You can function well under most circumstances.

Want to shoot up? I wouldn't trust you to sit quietly in the corner.

Cecil

12th May 2006, 10:58 AM

Heroin is not legal because it is far more dangerous than alcohol. Want to take a drink? You can function well under most circumstances.

Want to shoot up? I wouldn't trust you to sit quietly in the corner.

Wow. You are under some serious delusions about what heroin is actually like. For someone who is on heroin, the most pleasurable activity possible is sitting quietly in the corner staring at the wall. Preferably in a comfy chair.

And asking for evidence that heroin use builds tolerance or that it impairs judgement less than alcohol? These are basic facts about heroin that anyone who is even marginally educated about it knows. If you're seriously interested in learning, you can find information at Erowid (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/heroin.shtml). Hopefully someone finds that link helpful.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 11:01 AM

Wow. You are under some serious delusions about what heroin is actually like. For someone who is on heroin, the most pleasurable activity possible is sitting quietly in the corner staring at the wall. Preferably in a comfy chair.

I know. I wouldn't trust you even then.

And asking for evidence that heroin use builds tolerance or that it impairs judgement less than alcohol? These are basic facts about heroin that anyone who is even marginally educated about it knows. If you're seriously interested in learning, you can find information at Erowid (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/heroin.shtml). Hopefully someone finds that link helpful.

Please provide the evidence. A link to a site is not evidence.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 11:02 AM

I don't really feel like playing along with your games, Claus. If you have a point, make it.

To answer your question, no, I can't name 5 occupations where the person should be allowed to come to work high, mainly because I think being sober is more conducive to getting work done. It will always be in the employer's best interests to prohibit being high at work.
Your argument is invalid, then.

drkitten

12th May 2006, 11:24 AM

Y
Heroin is not legal because it is far more dangerous than alcohol.

To quote your favorite phrase : "evidence"?

Want to shoot up? I wouldn't trust you to sit quietly in the corner.

Goodness, you aren't very familiar with the effects of heroin, are you?

What kind of dangers do you expect from a heroin junkie on a high?

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 11:34 AM

To quote your favorite phrase : "evidence"?

Certainly:

Heroin is an addictive drug
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/heroin.html)

You want to argue that alcohol is as addictive - perhaps even more addictive than alcohol? Go ahead.

Goodness, you aren't very familiar with the effects of heroin, are you?

What kind of dangers do you expect from a heroin junkie on a high?

It's not so much what he does while he is high, but what he will do to get the next one.

Now, are you going to provide evidence that heroin typically affects judgement and behavior less than alcohol?

And that heroin users typically build up a greater tolerance over time than alcohol users?

Cecil

12th May 2006, 11:36 AM

Your argument is invalid, then. I'm sorry Claus, you fail Reasoning 101. The fact that heroin use is impairing does not invalidate the fact that heroin use is less imparing than alcohol use.

You're clearly not interested in engaging in honest debate; you are constantly antagonistic and you derail threads by pursuing irrelevant tangents. Your incoherent arguments come in pieces so as to distract your opponent from their inanity. The only reason I've kept you off ignore this long is that I haven't had an exchange with you and I'd hoped that somehow I could get through to you. How naive of me.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 11:46 AM

I'm sorry Claus, you fail Reasoning 101. The fact that heroin use is impairing does not invalidate the fact that heroin use is less imparing than alcohol use.

You're clearly not interested in engaging in honest debate; you are constantly antagonistic and you derail threads by pursuing irrelevant tangents. Your incoherent arguments come in pieces so as to distract your opponent from their inanity. The only reason I've kept you off ignore this long is that I haven't had an exchange with you and I'd hoped that somehow I could get through to you. How naive of me.

.....did you really expect me not to ask evidence of your claims?

drkitten

12th May 2006, 01:38 PM

You want to argue that alcohol is as addictive - perhaps even more addictive than alcohol? Go ahead.

And that heroin users typically build up a greater tolerance over time than alcohol users?

Certainly. Here's one study (www.dcp2.org/file/47/wp33.pdf) that mentions some comparative results between alcohol and heroin.

In particular, they found that alcohol is the most addictive substances of the six measured on the factor of "severity of withdrawal," which tends to be the most clinically significant factor in whether someone actually becomes addicted.

They also found, by the way, that heroin does produce the most "tolerance" of the substances studied, significantly more than alcohol.

Similarly, a study by In Health magazine (cited here (http://www.pdxnorml.org/060696.html)) identified alcohol as more addictive than heroin or cocaine, although the methodology isn't as clear.

A Royal College of Physicians white paper (http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/nicotine/4-addiction.htm) on comparative addictions, focusing on nicotine, identified eleven axes of comparison in terms of "addiction factors of concern"; restricting our attention to the biological (instead of social) aspects of addition listed, heroin scored worse than alcohol on two factors; alcohol scored worse than heroin on four.

Finally, that same white paper specifically discusses (briefly) the difference between how heroin affects judgement/behavior vs. alcohol under the category "Intoxication." Perhaps needless to say, alcohol has the greatest effect of any substance mentioned, substantialy greater than heroin.

So, yes, I stand by my statements.

Alcohol is a more addictive drug than heroin.
Heroin produces a greater tolerance than alcohol.
Alcohol produces a greater influence on jugement/behavior than heroin.

ZirconBlue

12th May 2006, 02:04 PM

If you tax them heavily then they will still sell them illegally and you accomplish nothing.

Alcohol and tobacco are both highly taxed (in the US). Would you say that more people in the US buy them legally or illegally?

Legalising heroin would obviously lead to more people becoming addicts.

"Obviously"? Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

epepke

12th May 2006, 02:06 PM

Hello,

My question for the board is this: Supposing (1) heroin is legalised, and (2) I calculate that I have enough savings to keep myself supplied until my natural death, is there then any good reason not to become a heroin addict? Does it make you smell, or something?

Cpl Ferro

It makes your weenie limp, and it's associated with heart disease. If you don't care about those things, go for it.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 02:10 PM

Certainly. Here's one study (www.dcp2.org/file/47/wp33.pdf) that mentions some comparative results between alcohol and heroin.

In particular, they found that alcohol is the most addictive substances of the six measured on the factor of "severity of withdrawal," which tends to be the most clinically significant factor in whether someone actually becomes addicted.

They also found, by the way, that heroin does produce the most "tolerance" of the substances studied, significantly more than alcohol.

How many people were included in the test?

Similarly, a study by In Health magazine (cited here (http://www.pdxnorml.org/060696.html)) identified alcohol as more addictive than heroin or cocaine, although the methodology isn't as clear.

So why are you bringing it up? Why should we even begin to consider a study if we don't know what methodology they used? Because a celebrity plants hemp?

Gee, by that standard, we have to accept the validity of Scientology, because Tom Cruise is a big movie star...

A Royal College of Physicians white paper (http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/nicotine/4-addiction.htm) on comparative addictions, focusing on nicotine, identified eleven axes of comparison in terms of "addiction factors of concern"; restricting our attention to the biological (instead of social) aspects of addition listed, heroin scored worse than alcohol on two factors; alcohol scored worse than heroin on four.

According to that study:

Dependence among users: Heroin ranked higher than alcohol. Since we are talking about dependence, you lose from the get-go.

One of the factors is "Societal impact". Since alcohol is legal, and heroin is not, we should expect alcohol to have a greater impact on society than heroin. Yet, you see this as evidence that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin.

Similarly, one of the factors is "Deaths". Since nicotine is legal, and heroin is not (making nicotine far more available), we should expect nicotine to have a greater number of deaths. Ergo, that is not an argument that heroin should be legalized.

What is interesting is "Animal self-administration": Here, heroin scores higher than alcohol. Since we can't expect societal pressure among animals (like we can with humans), this presents a more real picture. Heroin is more dangerous than alcohol.

Another factor is "Liking by non-drug abusers": Since alcohol is considered more socially acceptable than heroin, it is hardly a surprise that alcohol is liked more by non-drug abusers.

I could go on, but it is clear that this study does not support your contention.

Finally, that same white paper specifically discusses (briefly) the difference between how heroin affects judgement/behavior vs. alcohol under the category "Intoxication." Perhaps needless to say, alcohol has the greatest effect of any substance mentioned, substantialy greater than heroin.

How do you reach that conclusion??

So, yes, I stand by my statements.

Alcohol is a more addictive drug than heroin.
Heroin produces a greater tolerance than alcohol.
Alcohol produces a greater influence on jugement/behavior than heroin.

So, in your opinion, heroin should be a commodity, to be bought with the same restrictions as alcohol? Possibly less, even?

Cecil

12th May 2006, 02:18 PM

It makes your weenie limp, and it's associated with heart disease. If you don't care about those things, go for it. Not only does it cause impotency, it actually kills your libido entirely. Still, that effect is only temporary and tends to dissipate once one stops using.

I've never heard of a link between heroin and heart disease, and a cursory google turns up little. Do you have a reference? My suspicion is that heart disease, if correlated with heroin use, is probably due to the route of administration. Injection is probably more taxing than smoking or insufflation.

CFLarsen

12th May 2006, 02:27 PM

Not only does it cause impotency, it actually kills your libido entirely. Still, that effect is only temporary and tends to dissipate once one stops using.

Prove it.

Gee, I hope you don't mind me asking for evidence, since you have just asked epepke of evidence of his claims.

Let's see if you are a skeptic or a hypocrite.

The Painter

12th May 2006, 05:49 PM

Prove it.

Gee, I hope you don't mind me asking for evidence, since you have just asked epepke of evidence of his claims.

Let's see if you are a skeptic or a hypocrite.

You disprove it. You don't debate or argue cogently. You’re just a contrarian.

athon

12th May 2006, 07:15 PM

Gauging which is more dangerous, alcohol or heroin, is far from a simple measure-for-measure comparison. Firstly, qualify 'dangerous'.

Are we talking social impact? Personal health? Long term damage? Possibility of death? Possibility of ill-health directly from the drug? Possibility of ill-health as an indirect consequence of taking the drug?

All of these questions are relevant when deciding the impact of legalising a drug. There are a hell of a lot of myths out there concerning the image of heroin abuse, most of them focussing on the junkie on a dirty mattress. The truth is hard to ascertain; most drug deaths according to Australia's NDARC found heroin was taken in combination with alcohol (40%) or tranquilizers (30%). http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html . Death from heroin overdose on its own is relatively rare, with a great deal of trauma being caused by the additives rather than the drug itself http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html .

Social impact also must be considered. The diseases associated with heroin administration cannot be dismissed http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/heroin.html , however it can be argued that this is a consequence of injection and not the drug itself. By the same token, social impact of alcohol abuse is a massive problem in many different societies.

If we want to discuss which is 'worse', somebody will have to define what negative effects we are comparing here. Until that is done, discussion is futile.

BTW, a good online read for the issue can be found at http://www.csdp.org/addict/. From what I've read of it, it is an accurate portrayal of the issue.

Athon

luchog

14th May 2006, 01:48 PM

Can you list five occupations where the person should be allowed to be high on heroin?
Writers
Jazz and Rock musicians
Artists
Polititians
Clergy

Jim Lennox

14th May 2006, 09:36 PM

"Gee, by that standard, we have to accept the validity of Scientology, because Tom Cruise is a big movie star..."

You can do better than this Claus. If Tom Cruise said heroin was bad would you believe him or not?

"Heroin is not legal because it is far more dangerous than alcohol."

Any evidence? Of course the studies you cite should be at least as rigourous as the ones DrKitten provided.

The fact is that ALL of the problems associated with heroin arise from it's illegality, including the lack of effective studies on it.

rjh01

14th May 2006, 10:41 PM

Governments cannot make heroin legal. It would make so many people unemployed.
1. Drug dealers
2. Police
3. Lawyers
4. Prison guards
5. Insurance people
The last four all from reduced crime.

CFLarsen

14th May 2006, 10:42 PM

Writers
Jazz and Rock musicians
Artists
Polititians
Clergy

Why is a doped politician good for society?

"Gee, by that standard, we have to accept the validity of Scientology, because Tom Cruise is a big movie star..."

You can do better than this Claus. If Tom Cruise said heroin was bad would you believe him or not?

Of course not. That's my point.

"Heroin is not legal because it is far more dangerous than alcohol."

Any evidence? Of course the studies you cite should be at least as rigourous as the ones DrKitten provided.

Oh, we can stick with drkitten's for now. Heroin has a higher dependency than alcohol. Animals - without societal pressure - choose heroin over alcohol. That's a very good reason not to legalize heroin, because you lose your free will. It is not a recreational drug you can use whenever you feel like it, but a drug that increasingly makes you crave it, in greater and greater quantities.

The fact is that ALL of the problems associated with heroin arise from it's illegality, including the lack of effective studies on it.

Again, history will tell us a lot of things. Take the China's Opium War(s). It turned Chinese people into drooling drones, to a degree where the Emperor had to step in and ban the use, despite knowing that this would bring on a war with the technologically far superior British.

And we are talking opium here. Not the far stronger heroin.

What kind of study are you missing?

Jim Lennox

14th May 2006, 10:48 PM

"Of course not." So you would disbelieve him and think it's good because you disagree with his faith?

"a drug that increasingly makes you crave it, in greater and greater quantities."

Evidence?

"Animals - without societal pressure - choose heroin over alcohol." Maybe heroin is just a nicer buzz?

"Not the far stronger heroin." Is heroin far stronger? Do you have evidence?

The studies I'm interested in seeing are the ones that support your position.

CFLarsen

14th May 2006, 11:36 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

14th May 2006, 11:40 PM

I think someone also posted this in another thread...But how could someone so gullible to believe GOVT reports on drugs are unbias write something called the "Skeptic report"?

CFLarsen

14th May 2006, 11:43 PM

I think someone also posted this in another thread...But how could someone so gullible to believe GOVT reports on drugs are unbias write something called the "Skeptic report"?
You think everything that comes from the "GOVT" should be summarily dismissed?

athon

15th May 2006, 01:29 AM

Dependence among users: Heroin ranked higher than alcohol. Since we are talking about dependence, you lose from the get-go.

Who determined that dependence was the central criterium for the negative impact a drug has on society?

One of the factors is "Societal impact". Since alcohol is legal, and heroin is not, we should expect alcohol to have a greater impact on society than heroin.

On what grounds do you make this statement?

Similarly, one of the factors is "Deaths". Since nicotine is legal, and heroin is not (making nicotine far more available), we should expect nicotine to have a greater number of deaths. Ergo, that is not an argument that heroin should be legalized.

Again, on what grounds? I assume you're meaning that because it is legal, more people take it. I can counter that by saying that as it is legal, it is more regulated, therefore I would expect there to be less of an impact.

Like you, I would be making this statement as an assumption. You need to support your reasoning.

What is interesting is "Animal self-administration": Here, heroin scores higher than alcohol. Since we can't expect societal pressure among animals (like we can with humans), this presents a more real picture. Heroin is more dangerous than alcohol.

Again, give criteria for 'dangerous'. It's far too vague a term considering the argument; if it is purely due to its addictive quality, I would argue that is not enough grounds for something to be considered dangerous. A chemical that does not impinge on your ability to function normally and yet is highly addictive I would argue is not dangerous at all.

Oh, we can stick with drkitten's for now. Heroin has a higher dependency than alcohol. Animals - without societal pressure - choose heroin over alcohol. That's a very good reason not to legalize heroin, because you lose your free will.

That's not a strong argument. Alcohol and nicotine fall into that category, by your logic, therefore should be illegal as well. Saying heroin does it more is suggesting there is a line on the spectrum where dependence becomes unacceptable. Where is the acceptable line of dependence, then? And on what grounds do you determine it to lie there?

It is not a recreational drug you can use whenever you feel like it, but a drug that increasingly makes you crave it, in greater and greater quantities.

Where is your evidence to support this? I cannot find it anywhere in Dr.Kitten's sources. In my experience, heroin does not make you crave greater quantities; seeking the high does. There is a slightly subtle difference. By your implication, to satisfy craving greater quantities are needed with time. That is not the case.

Athon

CFLarsen

15th May 2006, 03:26 AM

Who determined that dependence was the central criterium for the negative impact a drug has on society?

I said "a" good reason not to legalize it.

On what grounds do you make this statement?

It's easier to get. Gasoline is easier to get for your SUV than uranium for your NukeCar.

Again, on what grounds? I assume you're meaning that because it is legal, more people take it. I can counter that by saying that as it is legal, it is more regulated, therefore I would expect there to be less of an impact.

Like you, I would be making this statement as an assumption. You need to support your reasoning.

Your counter argument is flawed, given the nature of how people use nicotine vs. heroin. People simply don't use them the same way.

Again, give criteria for 'dangerous'. It's far too vague a term considering the argument; if it is purely due to its addictive quality, I would argue that is not enough grounds for something to be considered dangerous. A chemical that does not impinge on your ability to function normally and yet is highly addictive I would argue is not dangerous at all.

But heroin highly impinges on your ability to function normally. While the high is relatively short, you are not exactly in a position to, say, drive a car safely for quite a while after.

That's not a strong argument. Alcohol and nicotine fall into that category, by your logic, therefore should be illegal as well. Saying heroin does it more is suggesting there is a line on the spectrum where dependence becomes unacceptable. Where is the acceptable line of dependence, then? And on what grounds do you determine it to lie there?

Since when is alcohol addictive?

I determine it based on the use of heroin, compared to the use of alcohol. You can drink recreationally without drinking yourself into a stupor every time. Heroin users want - need - the kick every time. It isn't a question of taking just a wee bit heroin. They shoot up/snort to get stoned out of their skulls.

Nicotine is definitely addictive too. But while a smoker can get irritated if he can't smoke, it is nowhere near the reaction you get from a heroin addict. For a heroin addict, there is only heroin. Nothing else.

I am fairly certain that, if tobacco was discovered today and we knew what we know today about the dangers of smoking, it would be banned.

Where is your evidence to support this? I cannot find it anywhere in Dr.Kitten's sources. In my experience, heroin does not make you crave greater quantities; seeking the high does. There is a slightly subtle difference. By your implication, to satisfy craving greater quantities are needed with time. That is not the case.

Of course it is: You will need stronger and stronger heroin over time, because your body adapts to the drug. After a while, you can't get the same high as when you start out.

That's why people die from overdoses: Your body craves more and more, and your ability to determine how much deteriorates.

athon

15th May 2006, 04:32 AM

I said "a" good reason not to legalize it.

The argument is that some chemicals are legal in spite of being addictive. Therefore addiction in itself is not a valid reason to make something illegal.

Your counter argument is flawed, given the nature of how people use nicotine vs. heroin. People simply don't use them the same way.

I agree it is flawed. It was not made with the intention of being a direct counter argument, but rather to highlight that assumptions are baseless. How is its method of administration an argument against the chemical itself? Indeed, the manner of administering nicotine is arguably more dangerous than the chemical itself when taking into account additional carcinogens and abrasive qualities.

But heroin highly impinges on your ability to function normally. While the high is relatively short, you are not exactly in a position to, say, drive a car safely for quite a while after.

Indeed, it does. However again it does not add weight to the argument that it is necessarily dangerous. There is no evidence that I am aware of where people under the influence of heroin partake in such activities such as operating heavy machinery or being in positions where their behaviour endangers the health of others (unless you can produce some for me). The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Since when is alcohol addictive?

Is that a serious question? Ask an alcoholic that question.

I determine it based on the use of heroin, compared to the use of alcohol. You can drink recreationally without drinking yourself into a stupor every time. Heroin users want - need - the kick every time. It isn't a question of taking just a wee bit heroin. They shoot up/snort to get stoned out of their skulls.

Evidence for this?

I don't dismiss the fact that heroin produces stronger cravings than alcohol. I'm questioning how that can be directly called dangerous. I've read enough toxicology to know the mechanisms behind both, and worked in an industry where I regularly came into contact with regular users of both, and understand the inherent physiological effects of both. Heroin has less adverse health effects; mind you, by no means am I implying that this means heroin poses no social threat. Your impression of the common junkie is, however, a stereotype.

Nicotine is definitely addictive too. But while a smoker can get irritated if he can't smoke, it is nowhere near the reaction you get from a heroin addict. For a heroin addict, there is only heroin. Nothing else.

So far you're associating negative social effects solely because heroin is physiologically difficult to withdraw from. While again I don't dispute this, I don't see the social threat this poses. I assume you're going to imply this directly leads to increased crime to pay for the habit. This is certainly a problem with the current situation, yet is it a reflection of an unregulated black market industry. While I do not advocate it (for entirely different reasons), imagine a society where heroin was freely available. The danger is no longer present, while the drug is.

[quoe]I am fairly certain that, if tobacco was discovered today and we knew what we know today about the dangers of smoking, it would be banned.[/quote]

Perhaps. Like you, I could only speculate, especially as I don't know the full range of historical influences.

Of course it is: You will need stronger and stronger heroin over time, because your body adapts to the drug. After a while, you can't get the same high as when you start out.

That's why people die from overdoses: Your body craves more and more, and your ability to determine how much deteriorates.

No. People die of overdoses primarily because of variations in heroin purity. You have not been reading the links privided; (http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html). Rather than researching the actual situation, Claus, you seem to be arguing from emotional grounds.

Athon

CFLarsen

15th May 2006, 05:12 AM

The argument is that some chemicals are legal in spite of being addictive. Therefore addiction in itself is not a valid reason to make something illegal.

What "chemicals", that are so addictive that they make you crave it the same way heroin does, are also legal?

I agree it is flawed. It was not made with the intention of being a direct counter argument, but rather to highlight that assumptions are baseless. How is its method of administration an argument against the chemical itself? Indeed, the manner of administering nicotine is arguably more dangerous than the chemical itself when taking into account additional carcinogens and abrasive qualities.

Naturally. But we also see damage from heroin use as well.

Health Hazards

Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and, particularly in users who inject the drug, infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours. After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria ("rush") accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes "on the nod," an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system. Long-term effects of heroin appear after repeated use for some period of time. Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of the abuser, as well as from heroin’s depressing effects on respiration.

Heroin abuse during pregnancy and its many associated environmental factors (e.g., lack of prenatal care) have been associated with adverse consequences including low birth weight, an important risk factor for later developmental delay.
Source: National Institute of Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html)

Indeed, it does. However again it does not add weight to the argument that it is necessarily dangerous. There is no evidence that I am aware of where people under the influence of heroin partake in such activities such as operating heavy machinery or being in positions where their behaviour endangers the health of others (unless you can produce some for me). The same cannot be said for alcohol.

Read the quote above.

Is that a serious question? Ask an alcoholic that question.

Yes, that is a serious question. I drink alcohol, but I am not addicted. Nor, I believe, are you, and I know you like to kick back a few (or, as they say downunder: "Blow the froth off a couple"). Although debated, it doesn't look as if it is alcohol itself that makes some people alcoholic. Most people can actually drink alcohol, also in smaller quantities, without becoming addicts.

Heroin, OTOH, is highly addictive.

Do you have any evidence that alcohol is addictive?

Evidence for this?

I don't dismiss the fact that heroin produces stronger cravings than alcohol. I'm questioning how that can be directly called dangerous. I've read enough toxicology to know the mechanisms behind both, and worked in an industry where I regularly came into contact with regular users of both, and understand the inherent physiological effects of both. Heroin has less adverse health effects; mind you, by no means am I implying that this means heroin poses no social threat. Your impression of the common junkie is, however, a stereotype.

The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours. After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria ("rush") accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes "on the nod," an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system.
Source: National Institute of Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html)

You want someone like that behind the wheel?

So far you're associating negative social effects solely because heroin is physiologically difficult to withdraw from.

I don't think we can find any form of "drug", be it tobacco, alcohol or drugs, that aren't also psychologically difficult to withdraw from. (Ab)Users have their "drug" in common.

While again I don't dispute this, I don't see the social threat this poses. I assume you're going to imply this directly leads to increased crime to pay for the habit. This is certainly a problem with the current situation, yet is it a reflection of an unregulated black market industry. While I do not advocate it (for entirely different reasons), imagine a society where heroin was freely available. The danger is no longer present, while the drug is.

There is absolutely a danger in using heroin: It will lead to serious physiological damage over time.

Why don't you advocate it?

No. People die of overdoses primarily because of variations in heroin purity. You have not been reading the links privided; (http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html). Rather than researching the actual situation, Claus, you seem to be arguing from emotional grounds.

Considering that I have presented quite a lot of material, I would say that is not an accurate assessment.

Are you saying that there is no increased tolerance with heroin?

athon

15th May 2006, 06:18 AM

What "chemicals", that are so addictive that they make you crave it the same way heroin does, are also legal?

I ask again where the line is drawn for addiction. Heroin is indeed addictive and more so than most chemicals, with the exception of perhaps nicotine. However, addiction requires more than a general hit. http://www.drugscope.org.uk/DS%20Media%20Project/media_heroin.htm

Typically, addiction begins as a behavioural habit at first. Sustaining the body's opiate levels above its normal threshold for short periods does not automatically lead to addiction. However, the reasons many people begin to use initially causes increased behavioural addiction, which progressively alters the biochemistry enough to lead to sustained use.

I stress I'm not suggesting that heroin is not addictive. It is, and the ill effects felt by withdrawal are massively worse than those sustained by any other drug. However, this still does not equate to being dangerous. I for one would not want to feel those effects, however long term ill effects from heroin withdrawal cannot compare to long term ill effects of cigarette smoking and alcohol dependence.

Naturally. But we also see damage from heroin use as well.

If you separate out the ill effects resulting from secondary factors such as shared needle use, complications from other drugs, overdoses from high purity hits and adverse effects from cutting agents, the damage from heroin is remarkably low. That is the point of the opening post.

Yes, that is a serious question. I drink alcohol, but I am not addicted. Nor, I believe, are you, and I know you like to kick back a few (or, as they say downunder: "Blow the froth off a couple"). Although debated, it doesn't look as if it is alcohol itself that makes some people alcoholic. Most people can actually drink alcohol, also in smaller quantities, without becoming addicts.

Who told you we drink beer down under? I thought that was a national secret. You Danes have spies down here already?

True, addiction does not result from the occasional beer. However, it is an addictive substance. The threshold is much lower than that for heroin, admittedly, however the process follows the same path. Behavioural habit leading into chemical dependency as use becomes more frequent.

If you have a threshold where dependence becomes unacceptable, I'd again like to hear it. However, dependence alone still does not make for a dangerous substance.

Do you have any evidence that alcohol is addictive?

Google 'alcohol addiction'. There's plenty of info. Or do you want me to find an exact site for you?

You want someone like that behind the wheel?

That's a rather poor argument. Heroin use doesn't impair judgement like alcohol does; somebody on a high would be quite aware that they were in no state to drive. I'd be amazed if somebody on a heroin high could get behind the wheel. If they could manage it, it would be no different to a drunk driver (perhaps better, considering the effect alcohol has on confidence and judgement impairment).

Or, if you prefer, as bad as an overtired driver.

I don't think we can find any form of "drug", be it tobacco, alcohol or drugs, that aren't also psychologically difficult to withdraw from. (Ab)Users have their "drug" in common.

Agreed.

There is absolutely a danger in using heroin: It will lead to serious physiological damage over time.

For pure, properly administered heroin? Some evidence please.

Why don't you advocate it?

Heroin use is relatively safe when compared with other drugs if administered safely, responsibly and in a regulated manner. Three things I don't see as possible if it were legalised tomorrow. Making social changes to encourage that in today's world would not work for a number of reasons. Even if it became a regulated industry, it would be impossible to make a large impact o the black market without dropping the price incredibly (which I don't see any government doing). Education on needle use and improved exchange programs would have to be increased, which again I don't see occuring.

Another reason is the social climate facing heroin legalisation. In cultures where alcohol has been introduced relatively recently in history, massive social problems have occured. While this is due to a number of factors, heroin becoming freely available in a society unclimatized to its use would face similar issues.

A serious health concern is the relatively thin line between healthy dose and overdose for heroin. You can drink several beers after you are suitably drunk without needing hospitilisation. The same cannot be said for heroin, and while educated use would prevent this, it is optimistic to think this would be followed in all cases if legalised.

For these reasons, I oppose its legalisation.

Considering that I have presented quite a lot of material, I would say that is not an accurate assessment.

I count one source you have posted in this thread twice, as well as references to sources posted by Dr. Kitten. Your source mentions overdoses in the present climate as caused by illicit heroin. As I mentioned and sourced, overdoses in these situations are due primarily to factors other than the heroin itself, but rather cutting agents, the effects of other drugs and misjudging dosage on grounds of non-regulated purity.

Are you saying that there is no increased tolerance with heroin?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying increased tolerance does not directly lead to increased use. You can continue injecting the same dose to avoid withdrawal effects and not require an increase in dosage. The subsequential increases are in chasing the high. There is a difference.

Athon

drkitten

15th May 2006, 07:11 AM

How many people were included in the test?

I'm sorry -- I missed the part where you presented any comparative data at all to support the view that alcohol is less addictive than heroin. I'll be sure to compare your evidence when you have any.

But in quick response to your questions:

1) I'll be happy to do a comparison of the validity of your sources against mine when you have some. In the meantime, if you want to do the background reading to answer your own questions about methodology and sample size, go ahead. This is an Internet forum, not a "journal of reference," and the rules of the forum specifically forbid me from copying large blocks of text from the original citation.

2) "Dependence" has a technical meaning that is different from "addiction." I'm sorry you were unaware of the terminology of the field. Especially since if you had read the article cited, you would know that, since they specifially presented dependence as a factor in addiction.

3) I'm aware that popularity is not a biochemical property, which is why I specifically restricted my attention " to the biological (instead of social) aspects of addition listed," as per my original article.

4) Finally the citation specifically discusses judgement/behavior impairment under the listed factor "Intoxication," and directly states that alcohol is more impairing than heroin. So in reponse to the question "Hod did I reach that conclusion [that alcohol causes greater 'intoxication'?", then answer is "I read it directly in the paper cited."

So, in your opinion, heroin should be a commodity, to be bought with the same restrictions as alcohol? Possibly less, even?

You have given me no evidence suggesting otherwise.

drkitten

15th May 2006, 07:16 AM

What "chemicals", that are so addictive that they make you crave it the same way heroin does, are also legal?

Nicotine.

Actually, that's not quite correct. Nicotine does not "make you crave it the same way heroin does," technically. Nicotine cravings are more severe. (See previous RCP paper, under "dependence among users.")

CFLarsen

15th May 2006, 07:51 AM

I ask again where the line is drawn for addiction. Heroin is indeed addictive and more so than most chemicals, with the exception of perhaps nicotine.

Perhaps. But we don't see the same desperate cravings for nicotine as we do for heroin.

However, addiction requires more than a general hit. http://www.drugscope.org.uk/DS%20Media%20Project/media_heroin.htm

Typically, addiction begins as a behavioural habit at first. Sustaining the body's opiate levels above its normal threshold for short periods does not automatically lead to addiction. However, the reasons many people begin to use initially causes increased behavioural addiction, which progressively alters the biochemistry enough to lead to sustained use.

What is the body's normal threshold for heroin?

I stress I'm not suggesting that heroin is not addictive. It is, and the ill effects felt by withdrawal are massively worse than those sustained by any other drug. However, this still does not equate to being dangerous. I for one would not want to feel those effects, however long term ill effects from heroin withdrawal cannot compare to long term ill effects of cigarette smoking and alcohol dependence.

Yes, it equates it to being dangerous. When you have people so desperate for a drug that they are willing to do anything to get it, you got a big problem on your hands.

If you separate out the ill effects resulting from secondary factors such as shared needle use, complications from other drugs, overdoses from high purity hits and adverse effects from cutting agents, the damage from heroin is remarkably low. That is the point of the opening post.

How do you know? What are you comparing with?

Who told you we drink beer down under? I thought that was a national secret. You Danes have spies down here already?

We own you Aussies, by way of royal marriage. Deal with it, you wombat molestor. :p

True, addiction does not result from the occasional beer. However, it is an addictive substance. The threshold is much lower than that for heroin, admittedly, however the process follows the same path. Behavioural habit leading into chemical dependency as use becomes more frequent.

It does? What do you base that on?

If you have a threshold where dependence becomes unacceptable, I'd again like to hear it.

It becomes unacceptable when abusers will do whatever it takes to get it. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, what matters is the level of dependency and what that will lead you.

However, dependence alone still does not make for a dangerous substance.

Why is dependency not dangerous?

Google 'alcohol addiction'. There's plenty of info. Or do you want me to find an exact site for you?

*PLING* A Google search is not evidence. No, I don't want an exact site. I want evidence that alcohol is addictive. In particular, why am I not an alcohol addict?

That's a rather poor argument. Heroin use doesn't impair judgement like alcohol does; somebody on a high would be quite aware that they were in no state to drive. I'd be amazed if somebody on a heroin high could get behind the wheel. If they could manage it, it would be no different to a drunk driver (perhaps better, considering the effect alcohol has on confidence and judgement impairment).

Or, if you prefer, as bad as an overtired driver.

Any mind altering substance will impair judgment. The moment you - either by choice or by addiction - take something that will reduce your ability to be rational, you are not rational anymore.

The reason why we have drunk drivers is because people feel they are still able to drive. Why on Earth would that be any different from heroin users?

For pure, properly administered heroin? Some evidence please.

Who is going to administer heroin "properly"?? Who has?

Heroin use is relatively safe when compared with other drugs if administered safely, responsibly and in a regulated manner.

Again, who will administer heroin "safely"?

Three things I don't see as possible if it were legalised tomorrow. Making social changes to encourage that in today's world would not work for a number of reasons. Even if it became a regulated industry, it would be impossible to make a large impact o the black market without dropping the price incredibly (which I don't see any government doing). Education on needle use and improved exchange programs would have to be increased, which again I don't see occuring.

Another reason is the social climate facing heroin legalisation. In cultures where alcohol has been introduced relatively recently in history, massive social problems have occured. While this is due to a number of factors, heroin becoming freely available in a society unclimatized to its use would face similar issues.

It's not just that. Do we want our fellow man to be completely knocked out of reality on a highly addictive substance?

A serious health concern is the relatively thin line between healthy dose and overdose for heroin. You can drink several beers after you are suitably drunk without needing hospitilisation. The same cannot be said for heroin, and while educated use would prevent this, it is optimistic to think this would be followed in all cases if legalised.

It is not just optimistic, it is insane.

I count one source you have posted in this thread twice, as well as references to sources posted by Dr. Kitten. Your source mentions overdoses in the present climate as caused by illicit heroin. As I mentioned and sourced, overdoses in these situations are due primarily to factors other than the heroin itself, but rather cutting agents, the effects of other drugs and misjudging dosage on grounds of non-regulated purity.

And, yet:

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying increased tolerance does not directly lead to increased use. You can continue injecting the same dose to avoid withdrawal effects and not require an increase in dosage. The subsequential increases are in chasing the high. There is a difference.

If you seek the same high, you will need increased dosage. There's no getting 'round this.

CFLarsen

15th May 2006, 07:54 AM

I'm sorry -- I missed the part where you presented any comparative data at all to support the view that alcohol is less addictive than heroin. I'll be sure to compare your evidence when you have any.

But in quick response to your questions:

1) I'll be happy to do a comparison of the validity of your sources against mine when you have some. In the meantime, if you want to do the background reading to answer your own questions about methodology and sample size, go ahead. This is an Internet forum, not a "journal of reference," and the rules of the forum specifically forbid me from copying large blocks of text from the original citation.

2) "Dependence" has a technical meaning that is different from "addiction." I'm sorry you were unaware of the terminology of the field. Especially since if you had read the article cited, you would know that, since they specifially presented dependence as a factor in addiction.

3) I'm aware that popularity is not a biochemical property, which is why I specifically restricted my attention " to the biological (instead of social) aspects of addition listed," as per my original article.

4) Finally the citation specifically discusses judgement/behavior impairment under the listed factor "Intoxication," and directly states that alcohol is more impairing than heroin. So in reponse to the question "Hod did I reach that conclusion [that alcohol causes greater 'intoxication'?", then answer is "I read it directly in the paper cited."

I asked you a question: How many people were included in the test?

You have given me no evidence suggesting otherwise.

Nicotine.

Actually, that's not quite correct. Nicotine does not "make you crave it the same way heroin does," technically. Nicotine cravings are more severe. (See previous RCP paper, under "dependence among users.")

So, you think heroin should be a commodity, to be bought with the same restrictions as alcohol. At least.

Could you explain how this should be done? Who should refine and sell heroin? The government? The free market?

luchog

15th May 2006, 03:49 PM

Why is a doped politician good for society?
They do less damage than the drunks and cokeheads currently in office.

You think everything that comes from the "GOVT" should be summarily dismissed?

Anything from the government should be viewed with more skepticism than studies from independent private agencies, particularly when those studies ostensibly support current or proposed polices; just like studies done by corporations should be viewed with more skepticism, particularly when the studies portray their own products and/or services in a favourable light. It's called "researcher bias"; and it's a common problem that is greatly exacerbated when large amounts of money and status are involved.

This is particularly true given the track record of the US government regarding accepting specious results from highly flawed studies as fact, while rejecting properly controlled studies which fail to support current government policy (to the point of actively repressing such studies) -- eg. Dr. Gabriel Nahas, Dr. Robert Heath at Tulane University, former Pres. Richard Nixon's blue ribbon panel led by former Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Marijuana A Signal of Misunderstanding, and so on.

The current government has given no indication that it is approaching the problem more objectively than previous administrations have.

luchog

15th May 2006, 04:01 PM

Could you explain how this should be done? Who should refine and sell heroin? The government? The free market?

Did you know that heroin is merely an analogue of morphine with a moderately higher solubility, and is metabolized back to morphine in the body? Morphine and related analogues, natural and synthetic, are currently legally available with a doctor's prescription, manufactured and sold by private corporations.

CFLarsen

15th May 2006, 10:49 PM

They do less damage than the drunks and cokeheads currently in office.

That's a political answer. I was hoping for a medical one.

Anything from the government should be viewed with more skepticism than studies from independent private agencies, particularly when those studies ostensibly support current or proposed polices; just like studies done by corporations should be viewed with more skepticism, particularly when the studies portray their own products and/or services in a favourable light. It's called "researcher bias"; and it's a common problem that is greatly exacerbated when large amounts of money and status are involved.

This is particularly true given the track record of the US government regarding accepting specious results from highly flawed studies as fact, while rejecting properly controlled studies which fail to support current government policy (to the point of actively repressing such studies) -- eg. Dr. Gabriel Nahas, Dr. Robert Heath at Tulane University, former Pres. Richard Nixon's blue ribbon panel led by former Pennsylvania Gov. Raymond Shafer National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Marijuana A Signal of Misunderstanding, and so on.

The current government has given no indication that it is approaching the problem more objectively than previous administrations have.

Another political answer. You don't like government, so you let that influence what evidence you want to consider.

Did you know that heroin is merely an analogue of morphine with a moderately higher solubility, and is metabolized back to morphine in the body? Morphine and related analogues, natural and synthetic, are currently legally available with a doctor's prescription, manufactured and sold by private corporations.

Do you have an answer to the question of who should refine and sell heroin? The government? The free market?

athon

16th May 2006, 02:22 AM

Perhaps. But we don't see the same desperate cravings for nicotine as we do for heroin.

Withdrawal is indeed painful. It means people are less likely to cease using the drug, which I agree is a problem. How is this dangerous? I'm asking you to spell it out clearly.

What is the body's normal threshold for heroin?

I'm not sure what it is exactly you're asking. The exact biochemistry is irrelevant and I don't see how knowing the exact blood concentrations and various threshold limits contribute to the discussion. I don't know them off by heart and would have to look them up.

A standard hit (contained in an average 'cap' of heroin) is about 10 milligrams. The amount required to kill a human is many times greater than this (although the precise amount depends on body mass, tolerance, health etc.), however due to numerous factors you don't know how many grams of street-bought drugs will provide the amount. For a non-addict it can be as little as 120 mg or as much as 350 mg, depending on who you ask.

There is no clear answer to 'how many hits can you take before you're addicted?' unfortunately. It's a myth to say you're addicted after the first hit. There are people who claim to have been habitual users and have gone cold turkey with minimal ill effects. The fact is that there is no clear evidence either way.

Yes, it equates it to being dangerous. When you have people so desperate for a drug that they are willing to do anything to get it, you got a big problem on your hands.

Great. I don't doubt that crime exists that is due to drug addiction, however is this a reflection of heroin's danger or its socio-political environment. If free heroin was given out, would this remain a problem?

(again, I'm not advocating this, and see it as a large problem. However, it still does not make heroin dangerous, just not socially fit)

How do you know? What are you comparing with?

Go back and read my sources please.

We own you Aussies, by way of royal marriage. Deal with it, you wombat molestor. :p

The wombat asked for it. Well, it would have if it could talk.

It does? What do you base that on?

Shall I send you my test books and uni notes? How about we start with good old wiki and go from there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

It becomes unacceptable when abusers will do whatever it takes to get it. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, what matters is the level of dependency and what that will lead you.

Still no sign of that thing you love, Claus. Clue; starts with e...rhymes with providence.

Why is dependency not dangerous?

You're the one claiming it is. Give me the reason why it is physically dangerous. Craving and encitement to attain another hit is a social problem, not a medical one. I agree it is still a problem, however that is not your argument.

*PLING* A Google search is not evidence. No, I don't want an exact site. I want evidence that alcohol is addictive. In particular, why am I not an alcohol addict?

Fine. Start with wiki and we'll go from there.

Any mind altering substance will impair judgment. The moment you - either by choice or by addiction - take something that will reduce your ability to be rational, you are not rational anymore.

Claus, you've demanded a hell of a lot of evidence - which I have provided (albeit you've not read). How about a little from your end now. How does heroin impede rationality? It does influence behaviour, I agree, however in a rather predictable fashion. Nicotine and alcohol both influence behaviour, yet you can't say having a cigarette gives the same inflated sense of confidence that alcohol does.

Taking heroin and driving is a concern for its doping effects; no different to driver fatigue.

The reason why we have drunk drivers is because people feel they are still able to drive. Why on Earth would that be any different from heroin users?

You're speaking from ignorance, Claus. Alcohol impedes judgement ( http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/A-Ap/Alcohol-and-Health.html ); heroin does not.

If you can find evidence that it does, please post it.

Who is going to administer heroin "properly"?? Who has?

Agreed. Which is why it is part of my reasoning against heroin legalisation.

It's not just that. Do we want our fellow man to be completely knocked out of reality on a highly addictive substance?

It's always sad having individuals who'd rather experience life that way. That doesn't make it dangerous; just unproductive and rather pitiful.

If you seek the same high, you will need increased dosage. There's no getting 'round this.

Chasing the high, sure, which is a behavioural addiction more than chemical. It does not imply that increased dosages are required to keep the cravings at bay. That part is chemical.

Athon

CFLarsen

16th May 2006, 04:11 AM

Withdrawal is indeed painful. It means people are less likely to cease using the drug, which I agree is a problem. How is this dangerous? I'm asking you to spell it out clearly.

You don't see dependency as dangerous. I do. I think that losing your free will is one of the worst things that can happen to you.

I'm not sure what it is exactly you're asking. The exact biochemistry is irrelevant and I don't see how knowing the exact blood concentrations and various threshold limits contribute to the discussion. I don't know them off by heart and would have to look them up.

You said:

Sustaining the body's opiate levels above its normal threshold for short periods does not automatically lead to addiction.

You need to know what the threshold is before you know if it leads to addiction.

A standard hit (contained in an average 'cap' of heroin) is about 10 milligrams. The amount required to kill a human is many times greater than this (although the precise amount depends on body mass, tolerance, health etc.), however due to numerous factors you don't know how many grams of street-bought drugs will provide the amount. For a non-addict it can be as little as 120 mg or as much as 350 mg, depending on who you ask.

You only need about 30-35 milligram heroin to kill a person. (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/shipman/s/124/124078_shipman_had_enough_drugs_to_kill_720.html?)

There is no clear answer to 'how many hits can you take before you're addicted?' unfortunately. It's a myth to say you're addicted after the first hit. There are people who claim to have been habitual users and have gone cold turkey with minimal ill effects. The fact is that there is no clear evidence either way.

We can always find people who are on either far end of the Bell curve. But that doesn't change the fact that heroin is highly addictive.

Great. I don't doubt that crime exists that is due to drug addiction, however is this a reflection of heroin's danger or its socio-political environment. If free heroin was given out, would this remain a problem?

(again, I'm not advocating this, and see it as a large problem. However, it still does not make heroin dangerous, just not socially fit)

I don't think any society would want such a drug freely available.

Go back and read my sources please.

I'm sorry, but I can't find anywhere that alcohol is addictive.

The wombat asked for it. Well, it would have if it could talk.

Don't forget to duct tape it.

Shall I send you my test books and uni notes? How about we start with good old wiki and go from there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

From Wiki:
"Alcoholism is a primary chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, mostly denial. Each of these symptoms may be continuous or periodic."
Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, 1992

The DSM IV diagnosis of alcohol dependence represents another approach to the definition of alcoholism, one more closely based on specifics than the 1992 JAMA article. In part this is to assist in the development of research protocols in which findings can be compared with one another, but the DSM definition is the one in general use from a diagnostic standpoint. That definition is: maladaptive alcohol use with clinically significant impairment as manifested by at least three of the following within any one-year period: tolerance; withdrawal; taken in greater amounts or over longer time course than intended; desire or unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control use; great deal of time spent obtaining, using, or recovering from use; social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced; continued use despite knowledge of physical or psychological sequelae.

I don't read anywhere that I will become addicted to alcohol from drinking wine occasionally.

Still no sign of that thing you love, Claus. Clue; starts with e...rhymes with providence.

I did provide effervescence: See post #33.

You're the one claiming it is. Give me the reason why it is physically dangerous. Craving and encitement to attain another hit is a social problem, not a medical one. I agree it is still a problem, however that is not your argument.

It is most definitely a medical problem.

Fine. Start with wiki and we'll go from there.

I did. We didn't get far with that.

Claus, you've demanded a hell of a lot of evidence - which I have provided (albeit you've not read).

Yes, I've read it.

How about a little from your end now. How does heroin impede rationality? It does influence behaviour, I agree, however in a rather predictable fashion. Nicotine and alcohol both influence behaviour, yet you can't say having a cigarette gives the same inflated sense of confidence that alcohol does.

Taking heroin and driving is a concern for its doping effects; no different to driver fatigue.

How does heroin impede rationality? Here's what happens:

The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours. After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria ("rush") accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes "on the nod," an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system.
Source (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/heroin.html)

"Mental functioning becomes clouded".

You're speaking from ignorance, Claus. Alcohol impedes judgement ( http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/A-Ap/Alcohol-and-Health.html ); heroin does not.

If you can find evidence that it does, please post it.

I already have, in post#33. But I can post it again, if you like:

The short-term effects of heroin abuse appear soon after a single dose and disappear in a few hours. After an injection of heroin, the user reports feeling a surge of euphoria ("rush") accompanied by a warm flushing of the skin, a dry mouth, and heavy extremities. Following this initial euphoria, the user goes "on the nod," an alternately wakeful and drowsy state. Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the central nervous system. Long-term effects of heroin appear after repeated use for some period of time. Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulitis, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of the abuser, as well as from heroin’s depressing effects on respiration.
Source (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/heroin.html)

Agreed. Which is why it is part of my reasoning against heroin legalisation.

Then how do you know that heroin use is relatively safe when compared with other drugs?

It's always sad having individuals who'd rather experience life that way. That doesn't make it dangerous; just unproductive and rather pitiful.

And that's dangerous. If a society stops caring about its citizens, why have a society at all?

Chasing the high, sure, which is a behavioural addiction more than chemical. It does not imply that increased dosages are required to keep the cravings at bay. That part is chemical.

What difference does it make? The result is the same.

luchog

17th May 2006, 03:19 PM

That's a political answer. I was hoping for a medical one.

The answer has been provided, your refusal to acknowledge it is not my problem.

Another political answer. You don't like government, so you let that influence what evidence you want to consider.

Did you actually read my post? Because this certainly doesn't sound like it. You need to either 1) read the post, 2) stop deliberately distorting and inventing and respond to what I wrote with some semblance of intellectual honesty, or 3) take some remedial English courses so you actually understand what I wrote; depending on which of the three of these is the reason you appear to have entirely missed what I actually wrote.

Do you have an answer to the question of who should refine and sell heroin? The government? The free market?
The answer has been provided, your refusal to acknowledge it is not my problem.

Oh, and just so you know, in the US prohibition is a political entity, not a medical one.

luchog

17th May 2006, 03:37 PM

You don't see dependency as dangerous. I do. I think that losing your free will is one of the worst things that can happen to you.

Provide evidence that heroin addiction eliminated free will. Provide evidence that this is different from alcohol or prescription narcotics.

You need to know what the threshold is before you know if it leads to addiction.

Nope, not really, you don't.

We can always find people who are on either far end of the Bell curve. But that doesn't change the fact that heroin is highly addictive.

So is alcohol and nicotine. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

I'm sorry, but I can't find anywhere that alcohol is addictive.

Then you are being deliberately blind and obtuse, because it's stated very clearly. I have several generations of alcoholics in my family, and in my partner's family, that provide a lot of very strong anecdotal evidence as well.

I also have junkies in my family, so I'm very familiar with the effects of heroin abuse. As well as abusers of other drugs.

I don't read anywhere that I will become addicted to alcohol from drinking wine occasionally.

You cannot become addicted to heroin from using it occasionally either. Given the frequency with which morphine is used in the medical industry, this should be fairly obvious.

I did provide effervescence: See post #33.

Not only does it not support most of your claims, it actually counters some. Most of the detrimental effects listed are the result of it's prohibited status, not a characteristic of the drug itself. If they were, morphine wouldn't be used so widely by the medical industry.

It is most definitely a medical problem.

Addiction is a medical problem. The problems you are arguing are predominantly socio-political.

I did. We didn't get far with that.

You don't get far if you refuse to acknowledge valid evidence simply because it doesn't support your assertions.

Yes, I've read it.

And ignored the bits that you found inconvenient.

How does heroin impede rationality? Here's what happens:

"Mental functioning becomes clouded".

How is this different from alcohol use, prescription drug use, or even garden-variety sleep-deprivation fatigue? Provide citations to support your claims.

Also, how does this eliminate free will?

Then how do you know that heroin use is relatively safe when compared with other drugs?

Medical studies, and the fact that the medical industry has been using morphine for well over a century with none of the problems you assert are inherent to heroin, which is merely an analogue of morphine.

athon

17th May 2006, 04:35 PM

Luchog, from what I gather (I might be wrong, but Claus' isn't arguing this very logically IMO) part of Claus' argument is that heroin's mix of rapid dependence and painful detoxification process contributes to an addict's difficulty in giving up. Hence it's a decrease in there free will. Without bantering over the defintions of free will, I'll concede that. Withdrawal from alcohol dependence is also painful (try watching your father go through alcohol detox - never again will you think alcohol cannot be chemically addictive). However not on the scale of heroin.

He is also implying that behavioural changes due to heroin's use has a negative social impact, be it driving a car or performance in one's job.

However, I feel he is indeed being deliberately obtuse and ignoring inconvenient information. For instance, Shipman used morphine to kill his patients, not heroin. There's two factors here; one is that street heroin is not pure, but is cut down dramatically. That's part of the inherent danger. Secondly, heroin is metabolised down into 6-monoacetylmorphine and morphine, with the former eventually metabolised into morphine as well, both processes taking place in the liver http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8930175&dopt=Abstract . It takes time to metabolise, therefore draws out the hit more than if it were pure morphine.

I find it difficult to imagine Claus made this error simply because he doesn't know that morphine and heroin are different, so I think he's being very selective in his evidence searching on this topic.

Athon

CFLarsen

17th May 2006, 11:59 PM

The answer has been provided, your refusal to acknowledge it is not my problem.

I acknowledged it. I was just hoping for a medical answer, not a political one.

Did you actually read my post? Because this certainly doesn't sound like it. You need to either 1) read the post, 2) stop deliberately distorting and inventing and respond to what I wrote with some semblance of intellectual honesty, or 3) take some remedial English courses so you actually understand what I wrote; depending on which of the three of these is the reason you appear to have entirely missed what I actually wrote.

I read it: You let your political biases determine what evidence you want to consider.

The answer has been provided, your refusal to acknowledge it is not my problem.

I was referring to a situation where heroin would be legal for all. In that case, who should refine and sell heroin?

Provide evidence that heroin addiction eliminated free will.

That's what addiction means: You can't just stop, even if you want to. It takes a lot more than that.

Provide evidence that this is different from alcohol or prescription narcotics.

Am I saying it is?

Nope, not really, you don't.

Sure, you do.

So is alcohol and nicotine. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

I keep hearing this, too. But I'm having a hard time tracking down some verifiable studies that support this. What I did find that the few - very few - references that actually mentioned a source point to the 1988 US Surgeon General's Report (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1988/index.htm).

On page 2, we find:

The report further concludes that the processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to other drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

On page 4, we find:

After carefully examining the available evidence, the Report concludes that:
...
The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

This is repeated throughout the report.

In other words: Nicotine is addictive in the same way heroin is.

But nowhere - and I repeat: nowhere - have I been able to find anything in that report that says that nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

Let's see your evidence that nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

Then you are being deliberately blind and obtuse, because it's stated very clearly. I have several generations of alcoholics in my family, and in my partner's family, that provide a lot of very strong anecdotal evidence as well.

I also have junkies in my family, so I'm very familiar with the effects of heroin abuse. As well as abusers of other drugs.

Sorry to hear about your family. That does, however, only support the theory that alcoholism is a genetic disease.

You cannot become addicted to heroin from using it occasionally either. Given the frequency with which morphine is used in the medical industry, this should be fairly obvious.

You didn't address my point. Can you find evidence that I will become addicted to alcohol from drinking wine occasionally?

Not only does it not support most of your claims, it actually counters some. Most of the detrimental effects listed are the result of it's prohibited status, not a characteristic of the drug itself. If they were, morphine wouldn't be used so widely by the medical industry.

Please be specific.

Addiction is a medical problem. The problems you are arguing are predominantly socio-political.

I sure don't see much evidence from you. Only Grand Proclamations.

You don't get far if you refuse to acknowledge valid evidence simply because it doesn't support your assertions.

Hey, show me where I am wrong, then. Don't just say that I am: Show me.

You know....like a skeptic would.

And ignored the bits that you found inconvenient.

What "bits" did I ignore? Be specific.

How is this different from alcohol use, prescription drug use, or even garden-variety sleep-deprivation fatigue? Provide citations to support your claims.

Look, you can't keep evading this, by referring to other forms of addiction. You need to address it. Yes, with specifics.

Also, how does this eliminate free will?

Already addressed above.

Medical studies

What medical studies? Please show me.

, and the fact that the medical industry has been using morphine for well over a century with none of the problems you assert are inherent to heroin, which is merely an analogue of morphine.

What?? Heroin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin) and morphine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine) are different drugs.

CFLarsen

18th May 2006, 12:01 AM

However, I feel he is indeed being deliberately obtuse and ignoring inconvenient information. For instance, Shipman used morphine to kill his patients, not heroin.

Wrong. He used diamorphine, which is the medical term for heroin.

I find it difficult to imagine Claus made this error simply because he doesn't know that morphine and heroin are different, so I think he's being very selective in his evidence searching on this topic.

Want to rephrase that one? ;)

athon

18th May 2006, 02:23 AM

Wrong. He used diamorphine, which is the medical term for heroin.

I stand corrected.

I question their source on that, in which case. Street heroin is still cut down rather dramatically, however 35mg of pure diamorphine to kill seems a little low. I'd need to look up my texts on it.

Athon

athon

18th May 2006, 02:32 AM

Ok, managed to find some notes (heh, how about that. After all these years...the crap I keep in my boxes).

From my toxicology subject;

The LD50 (50% of the lethal dosage) of diacetylmorphine is difficult to ascertain as it is prohibitively high. Pre-ethics experiments on addicts have recorded dosages as high as +1,800 mg in single sittings without adverse effects. Modern consensus places 350 mg as the limit for non-addicts.

Athon

CFLarsen

18th May 2006, 02:59 AM

Ok, managed to find some notes (heh, how about that. After all these years...the crap I keep in my boxes).

From my toxicology subject;

Athon

Do you have something other than what you wrote years ago? :)

athon

18th May 2006, 03:08 AM

These were board notes. I have text book ISBN's, but I don't seriously think you want them, and I don't carry the books themselves around with me. I also don't see you going out of your way to find books on the topic. And this was in that day before internet URL's accompanied all lecture notes, so I'd have to do a net search.

Besides, I seriously don't see it making a difference to your argument, Claus. You'd either simply disagree with it or ignore it. The fact it is actually quite difficult to die of a measured morphine dosage just is not something you're comfortable with.

Athon

CFLarsen

18th May 2006, 03:17 AM

athon

18th May 2006, 03:47 AM

Did you type that with a straight face? I wouldn't have been able to if I were you.

Ultimately it comes down to something I can't provide you, Claus, and that's my personal experience. I've treated users, had them as friends, and even had one of them die of an OD. I've read everything from government literature to Stanton Peele's studies on the topic, been angry about it for a time and then philosophical about it. Now I've lost the emotion and am simply pragmatic.

I can't convince you that your views are narrow and biased by stereotype and social myths. But hopefully some people who've followed my links and read my posts will see how complicated the issue really is.

Athon

CFLarsen

18th May 2006, 04:09 AM

drkitten

18th May 2006, 08:53 AM

Perhaps. But we don't see the same desperate cravings for nicotine as we do for heroin.

No. We see worse cravings for nicotine than we do for heroin. (Cf. citations above). You are absolutely contrary to fact in your statement, and I suspect you will be unable to find a single bit of written evidence in support of your position.

drkitten

18th May 2006, 08:59 AM

Do you have something other than what you wrote years ago? :)

Google it yourself. It's all over the Web:

Heroin overdoses are more rare than one might first expect. As noted above, an overdose is immediately reversible with an opioid antagonist injection. The overwhelmingly vast majority of reported heroin overdoses are actually adulterant poisonings or fatal interactions with alcohol or methadone. True overdoses are rare because the LD50 for a person already addicted is prohibitively high, to the point that there is no general medical concensus on where to place it. Several studies done in the 1920s gave addicts doses of 1600mg-1800mg of heroin in one sitting, and no adverse effects were reported. This is approximately 160-180 times a normal recreational dose. Even for a non-addict, the LD50 can be credibly placed above 350mg.

The amount of morphine or heroin required to kill a human being who is not addicted to opiates remains in doubt but it is certainly many times the usual dose (10 milligrams) contained in a New York City bag. "There is little accurate information," Drs. A. J. Reynolds and Lowell 0. Randall report in Morphine and Allied Drugs (1967). "The figures that have been reported show wide variation." 12 This ignorance no doubt stems from the rarity of morphine or heroin overdose deaths. The amounts of morphine or heroin needed to kill a nonaddict have been variously estimated at 120 milligrams (oral), 13 200 milligrams, 14 250 milligrams, 15 and 350 milligrams 16 --- though it has also been noted that nonaddicts have survived much larger doses. 17

luchog

18th May 2006, 01:15 PM

I acknowledged it. I was just hoping for a medical answer, not a political one.

Provided and ignored, your problem, not mine.

I read it: You let your political biases determine what evidence you want to consider.

Translation: it contradicts my worldview, so I will ignore and mispreresent the facts.

Little hint, basing reactions and credibility on demonstrated behaviour is not political, it is plain observation. The government has a poor history of accuracy on this issue, and has promulgated information based on studies which were later proven through peer review to have been either seriously flawed or intentionally mainpulated. So a skeptical viewpoint would be to take that history into account when viewing any new information from the same source, and require independent support and peer review before accepting it as entirely valid.

But like any good woo, you simply accept what they say uncritically, and without additional support, because it fits your preferred worldview.

I was referring to a situation where heroin would be legal for all. In that case, who should refine and sell heroin?

Answered. Your refusal to acknowledge the answer is not my problem.

That's what addiction means: You can't just stop, even if you want to. It takes a lot more than that.

No, that's not quite what addiction means, it is a gross oversimplification.

Am I saying it is?

Yes, you are, since you accept them as valid products, but deny the same status for heroin, which is no worse in effect. Unless you are arguing in favour of alcohol prohibition.

But nowhere - and I repeat: nowhere - have I been able to find anything in that report that says that nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

Let's see your evidence that nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

It was posted earlier in this thread. Your refusal to acknowledge it is your problem, not mine.

Sorry to hear about your family. That does, however, only support the theory that alcoholism is a genetic disease.

Why is that true for alcoholism and not any other class of drug? Why is that necessarily true, rather than the possibility of psychological conditioning?

You didn't address my point. Can you find evidence that I will become addicted to alcohol from drinking wine occasionally?

Evasion. Post evidence that I will become addicted to heroin from using it occasionally. You have not yet supported this claim.

I sure don't see much evidence from you. Only Grand Proclamations.

Evidence was supported, you ignored it. See previous comments about this tendency of yours.

Hey, show me where I am wrong, then. Don't just say that I am: Show me.

You know....like a skeptic would.

You were shown, you mispresented and ignored the evidence; like a woo would.

What "bits" did I ignore? Be specific.

Pointed out mulitple times; your refusal

Look, you can't keep evading this, by referring to other forms of addiction. You need to address it. Yes, with specifics.
[/quote
The onus is on you to support your assertions. You have refused consistently to do so, preferring instead pronouncements and browbeating. Support evidence which actually supports your claim.

Already addressed above.

Nope, the citation posted did not support your claim. Quite the opposite actually. And if addiction eliminated free will, then no one would ever be able to end an addiction. That is demonstrably untrue.

What?? Heroin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin) and morphine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphine) are different drugs.

Pick up a dictionary and learn the world "analogue". Pick up a description of opiate chemistry and learn how heroin is metabolized into morphine.

All heroin is, is an analogue of morphine that has a higher water-solubility. It is otherwise pharmacologically identical for all practical purposes. It has been used for hospice care in the UK for decades for just this reason -- it allows the exact same effects in a smaller dose.

CFLarsen

18th May 2006, 01:38 PM

No. We see worse cravings for nicotine than we do for heroin. (Cf. citations above). You are absolutely contrary to fact in your statement, and I suspect you will be unable to find a single bit of written evidence in support of your position.

Smokers have worse withdrawal symptoms than junkies? O.....K.

Google it yourself. It's all over the Web:

Care to provide links to scientific studies instead of Google searches?

But like any good woo, you simply accept what they say uncritically, and without additional support, because it fits your preferred worldview.

Are you saying that the 1988 US Surgeon General's Report is wrong?

Answered. Your refusal to acknowledge the answer is not my problem.

Sorry, you did not answer the question.

No, that's not quite what addiction means, it is a gross oversimplification.

You have a habit of saying "No, it isn't" and leave it at that. Educate us.

Yes, you are, since you accept them as valid products, but deny the same status for heroin, which is no worse in effect. Unless you are arguing in favour of alcohol prohibition.

But heroin is worse in effect.

It was posted earlier in this thread. Your refusal to acknowledge it is your problem, not mine.

Post number, please? All you need to do is post a number. Put me to shame.

Why is that true for alcoholism and not any other class of drug? Why is that necessarily true, rather than the possibility of psychological conditioning?

AFAIK, we haven't found evidence of heroin use being genetically based. Do you know of such evidence?

Evasion. Post evidence that I will become addicted to heroin from using it occasionally. You have not yet supported this claim.

It is not an evasion. I asked you a question: Can you find evidence that I will become addicted to alcohol from drinking wine occasionally?

Evidence was supported, you ignored it. See previous comments about this tendency of yours.

Again, I have to ask you to tell me the post number. Just the number.

You were shown, you mispresented and ignored the evidence; like a woo would.

Very well: You refuse to show evidence (again), insist that you have, but refuse to tell us where.

Pointed out mulitple times; your refusal

You can't be specific, then. Or, rather, you refuse.

Pick up a dictionary and learn the world "analogue". Pick up a description of opiate chemistry and learn how heroin is metabolized into morphine.

All heroin is, is an analogue of morphine that has a higher water-solubility. It is otherwise pharmacologically identical for all practical purposes. It has been used for hospice care in the UK for decades for just this reason -- it allows the exact same effects in a smaller dose.

Ah, yes. You just learned that from the links I provided.