Ecstasy is a superior and safer party drug than Alcohol!

[Space_Ed]

This is something I wrote about a year ago for a project of mine:

Thoughts on the legality of Ecstasy…

In the UK Ecstasy is a class-A drug and in the US it is a Schedule 1 drug. This means that it is totally illegal to manufacture, sell or take Ecstasy in either country. Although this is the case, many police and scientists are, “very alarmed by the numbers," said Redman of the Club Drug Task Force, "The kids that are taking it are unaware of the dangers."

What are the dangers of the drug known as Ecstasy? Many of today's youth are unaware of any. With this lack of knowledge, numerous young people find themselves enveloped in frequent Ecstasy use before they know it. Side effects of the drug Ecstasy vary greatly. Muscle cramping, teeth clenching, stomach discomfort, chills and sweating are the most commonly reported short-term effects. The long-term dangers of Ecstasy that have been reported are anxiety, paranoia and depression according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Although this is true, these long-term negative effects only appear in very heavy users of MDMA (Ecstasy).

Most deaths from Ecstasy use have been caused by dehydration. Ecstasy affects body temperature and when combined with dancing for long periods in a hot place there is a risk of dangerous over-heating. However, the medical profession is still unclear as to the exact danger that the drug poses to health. Part of the problem is that many tablets sold as Ecstasy are not what purchasers think they are. The amount of Ecstasy in a tablet can vary greatly. Tablets have been analysed and some contained no Ecstasy but other drugs such as other types of Amphetamine or Ketamine. Others have been found to contain some Ecstasy but mixed with other drugs or a range of adulterants. Some tablets have even been found to be fish tank cleaners or dog worming tablets. An autopsy of a 26-year-old long-term heavy user of Ecstasy revealed that he had up to 80% less serotonin in his brain than normal. A recent study has suggests that only "0.0002% of Ecstasy users die from taking the drug per year," which incidentally is far less than for users of Alcohol and Tobacco.

If these youngsters who have died from misuse of Ecstasy, had known about the dangers and understood the likely consequences of taking the drug I think that many of them would still be alive today. The basic facts state that making a drug illegal does not deter a person who wants to experiment with it. If Ecstasy were bought over the counter at a pharmacy or another type of regulated drugs store then the purity of the drug would be guaranteed, also there would be government health warnings all over the box that they come in educating the buyer on the safest methods of use. I strongly believe that there would be fewer Ecstasy related deaths if Ecstasy were made legal. Very few Ecstasy users develop serious permanent brain damage because all sensible clubbers know that, "When the come-down outweighs the good times you know the party is over, man."- Human Traffic.

Before MDMA and its other variants such as MDA which is a more hallucinogenic form of the drug and MDE which is more 'chilled out', were made illegal in the late 1980's psychiatrists and therapists of various tyes used to give MDMA to their patients as it has been said that, "one hit of 'X'," under the right conditions, "can be equivalent to months of treatment." Research is under way in Spain for use of MDMA for treatment of people with post-traumatic stress syndrome and the results are extremely positive. MDMA had enabled rape victims to come to terms with their ordeal and put them in a much better position, "than before MDMA." Monks of various religions take MDMA in low doses as it is known to greatly aid meditation as it is the worlds most powerful 'empathogen' and the worlds best known 'entactogen'. However, modern drugs law prohibits MDMA for these genuinely beneficial uses.



- I am so interested in the drugs topic I have dedicated my career to it. I am about to start my second year of my Pharmaceutical Chemistry course. To demonstrate my level of expertise I have taken:

Alcohol
Weed
Ecstasy
Speed
LSD
Magic Mushrooms
Mescaline
Cocaine
Crack
Heroin
Laughing Gas
Poppers
Tobacco

From my own personal experience of drunken bafoonery and the complete opposite effects that MDMA has on people and the many physiological and psychological effects and problems that each drug represents; I believe adamantly that for one to be legal and advertised and the other totally prohibited and taking it, making it and selling it to result in criminal prosecution is absolute hypocrisy of the worst kind. I believe that if ecstasy was societies drug of choice and alcohol was demonised we'd be living in a much safer world when we go out on fridays and saturdays. Ive been in quite a lot of fights and been in police cells and been arrested because drunken morons have started fights. If ecstasy were legal I am sure that my nights out in England would be much safer, far more beautiful, far more beneficial and far less socially damaging. I wanted to share this with you guys. Comment as you see fit.

[Space_Ed]

[QUOTE=Space_Ed;2994347]I strongly believe that there would be fewer Ecstasy related deaths if Ecstasy were made legal. QUOTE]

I now dont think this is the case but I am sure that once society adjusted to it there would be far fewer night-out deaths i.e. deaths from fighting, falling infront of a car, falling downstairs, drinking too much and overdosing on alcohol.

There is the problem of rare allergies to MDMA but aslong as first timers are cautious there should be no deaths from this.

[sesshin]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

[Space_Ed]

Out of that list I believe Magic Mushrooms, Ecstasy and Weed should be legalised if Alcohol and Tobacco aren't going to be banned. They pose less of a physiological threat and negligible social damage compared to Alcohol. The only wild card is Shrooms. They are legal in Amsterdam and tourists have killed themselves when on them. I see this as analogous to giving Alcohol to someone who has never heard of it or its effects and telling them to drink lots then cross lots of busy roads it a major foreign metropolis. It's a recipe for disaster and it is ignorance of the drug that kills in Amsterdam.

[kevsta]

This is something I wrote about a year ago for a project of mine:

Thoughts on the legality of Ecstasy…

In the UK Ecstasy is a class-A drug and in the US it is a Schedule 1 drug. This means that it is totally illegal to manufacture, sell or take Ecstasy in either country. Although this is the case, many police and scientists are, “very alarmed by the numbers," said Redman of the Club Drug Task Force, "The kids that are taking it are unaware of the dangers."

What are the dangers of the drug known as Ecstasy? Many of today's youth are unaware of any. With this lack of knowledge, numerous young people find themselves enveloped in frequent Ecstasy use before they know it. Side effects of the drug Ecstasy vary greatly. Muscle cramping, teeth clenching, stomach discomfort, chills and sweating are the most commonly reported short-term effects. The long-term dangers of Ecstasy that have been reported are anxiety, paranoia and depression according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Although this is true, these long-term negative effects only appear in very heavy users of MDMA (Ecstasy).

Most deaths from Ecstasy use have been caused by dehydration. Ecstasy affects body temperature and when combined with dancing for long periods in a hot place there is a risk of dangerous over-heating. However, the medical profession is still unclear as to the exact danger that the drug poses to health. Part of the problem is that many tablets sold as Ecstasy are not what purchasers think they are. The amount of Ecstasy in a tablet can vary greatly. Tablets have been analysed and some contained no Ecstasy but other drugs such as other types of Amphetamine or Ketamine. Others have been found to contain some Ecstasy but mixed with other drugs or a range of adulterants. Some tablets have even been found to be fish tank cleaners or dog worming tablets. An autopsy of a 26-year-old long-term heavy user of Ecstasy revealed that he had up to 80% less serotonin in his brain than normal. A recent study has suggests that only "0.0002% of Ecstasy users die from taking the drug per year," which incidentally is far less than for users of Alcohol and Tobacco.

If these youngsters who have died from misuse of Ecstasy, had known about the dangers and understood the likely consequences of taking the drug I think that many of them would still be alive today. The basic facts state that making a drug illegal does not deter a person who wants to experiment with it. If Ecstasy were bought over the counter at a pharmacy or another type of regulated drugs store then the purity of the drug would be guaranteed, also there would be government health warnings all over the box that they come in educating the buyer on the safest methods of use. I strongly believe that there would be fewer Ecstasy related deaths if Ecstasy were made legal. Very few Ecstasy users develop serious permanent brain damage because all sensible clubbers know that, "When the come-down outweighs the good times you know the party is over, man."- Human Traffic.

Before MDMA and its other variants such as MDA which is a more hallucinogenic form of the drug and MDE which is more 'chilled out', were made illegal in the late 1980's psychiatrists and therapists of various tyes used to give MDMA to their patients as it has been said that, "one hit of 'X'," under the right conditions, "can be equivalent to months of treatment." Research is under way in Spain for use of MDMA for treatment of people with post-traumatic stress syndrome and the results are extremely positive. MDMA had enabled rape victims to come to terms with their ordeal and put them in a much better position, "than before MDMA." Monks of various religions take MDMA in low doses as it is known to greatly aid meditation as it is the worlds most powerful 'empathogen' and the worlds best known 'entactogen'. However, modern drugs law prohibits MDMA for these genuinely beneficial uses.



- I am so interested in the drugs topic I have dedicated my career to it. I am about to start my second year of my Pharmaceutical Chemistry course. To demonstrate my level of expertise I have taken:

Alcohol
Weed
Ecstasy
Speed
LSD
Magic Mushrooms
Mescaline
Cocaine
Crack
Heroin
Laughing Gas
Poppers
Tobacco

From my own personal experience of drunken bafoonery and the complete opposite effects that MDMA has on people and the many physiological and psychological effects and problems that each drug represents; I believe adamantly that for one to be legal and advertised and the other totally prohibited and taking it, making it and selling it to result in criminal prosecution is absolute hypocrisy of the worst kind. I believe that if ecstasy was societies drug of choice and alcohol was demonised we'd be living in a much safer world when we go out on fridays and saturdays. Ive been in quite a lot of fights and been in police cells and been arrested because drunken morons have started fights. If ecstasy were legal I am sure that my nights out in England would be much safer, far more beautiful, far more beneficial and far less socially damaging. I wanted to share this with you guys. Comment as you see fit.

I couldnt agree more. I too have good (and long term) experience in this matter.

[Space_Ed]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

If that was an investigation by the US government don't trust it. Ecstasy is like anything if you over do it and are stupid and don't respect it you are going go get what is coming to you. Just like with Acohol. If the brain scan is not misleading do you think that she would have done that to herself if she had been educated properly instead of hearing "Never ever ever take Ecstasy!" but she took it anyway and found that nothing bad happened to her and so in her ignorance didnt take the governments message as truth (which it isnt) and found out the real dangers the hard way?

[kevsta]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

I am not sure I believe this to be honest. Do you know the condition? or could you show me other cases of the same thing?

[Space_Ed]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

Yeah I don't believe 'huge holes' for a second. Massive serotonin depletion is more like it.

By the way you can get serotonin in health food shops in the form of 5-htp. I use it to bring my serotonin levels back up. Its really only needed after taking it several weekends in a row.

[TragicMonkey]

Everyone I know who does Ecstasy is a boring idiot with no decent conversation. Is this the result of Ecstasy use, or the cause of it?

[sesshin]

I am not sure I believe this to be honest. Do you know the condition? or could you show me other cases of the same thing?

It was on a tv special about ecstasy a few years back that was profiling different ecstasy users and the effects it had on them. I'll see if I can find a clip of it on youtube.

[pipelineaudio]

Hillarious

imagine if you will that pot was legal and tobacco and alcohol were not

I bet 17 ruby nuggets the current 420 crowd would be demonizing pot and speaking of the magical healing nature of tobacco

[Miss Anthrope]

Hillarious

imagine if you will that pot was legal and tobacco and alcohol were not

I bet 17 ruby nuggets the current 420 crowd would be demonizing pot and speaking of the magical healing nature of tobacco

Actually I doubt that.

[JoeEllison]

Damned hippies.

[skeptifem]

the brain holes thing was from mtvs 'real life: im on extacy'

[Axiom_Blade]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

Here's another side of that:
MDMA Brain Scans Showing Neurotoxicity Invalid (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity3.shtml)

Under the cover story "E is for Evidence", the British science-oriented magazine "New Scientist" published a set of articles and editorials related to this topic in April 2002, denouncing the use of the questionable scientific data in the war on ecstasy consumption. There are several articles in the New Scientist, but most of them can be found following the links below.

The New Scientist article is a well-balanced, but critical, look at the issue of overstating the certainty of findings of brain damage in ecstasy users. "We are not saying that ecstasy is harmless to brain cells. It might not be. But the jury is still out. Which means scientists must resist the temptation to turn their always complex--and sometimes flawed--findings into simple scare stories in pursuit of grants and headlines."

[kevsta]

All those that know the truth behind this particular topic would agree, as it would appear do the experts advising government on the facts.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.html)

what spin our glorious leaders then decide to put on it for political reasons will no doubt be once more wholly different from the reality.

The government is to be urged to consider a controversial plan to reclassify drugs according to the harm they do. The new ranking system would see alcohol placed high on the scale because of its links to violence and car accidents. Tobacco, estimated to cause 40 per cent of all hospital illnesses, would also come before the class-A drug ecstasy.

The Drugs league table - Drugs assessed in order of danger

1 Heroin

2 Cocaine

3 Barbiturates

4 Street methadone

5 Alcohol

6 Ketamine

7 Benzodiazepine

8 Amphetamines

9 Tobacco

10 Buprenorphine

11 Cannabis

12 Solvents

13 4-MTA

14 LSD

15 Methylphenidate

16 Anabolic steroids

17 GHB

18 Ecstasy

19 Alkyl nitrates

20 Khat

[SomeGuy]

Out of that list I believe Magic Mushrooms, Ecstasy and Weed should be legalised if Alcohol and Tobacco aren't going to be banned. They pose less of a physiological threat and negligible social damage compared to Alcohol. The only wild card is Shrooms. They are legal in Amsterdam and tourists have killed themselves when on them. I see this as analogous to giving Alcohol to someone who has never heard of it or its effects and telling them to drink lots then cross lots of busy roads it a major foreign metropolis. It's a recipe for disaster and it is ignorance of the drug that kills in Amsterdam.

As far as I can tell the major problem with tourists in Amsterdam is that they are ussually there for a short time and want to experience as much as possible.

This often result in dangerous drug cocktails of alcohol, weed and mushrooms. Sometimes they take a drug while coming down from another etc etc etc.. all pretty big no-no's

New legislations proposed in Amsterdam now require you to report to the smartshop, get an information leaflet, and then only being able to acquire mushrooms after a 3-day cooldown period.

Sounds like a easy to work around solution if you ask me... but they try...

[Wildy]

Has anyone else noticed that there always seems to be a little problem with drugs like these? They are made illegal even though they really have no harm to them.

Then we have alcohol and tobacco which are legal but can do far more damage then cannabis could.

For those of you in Australia or have seen them, do you remember the Government's ads? Where they have the doctor talking about people on Crystam Meth. They were talking about people becoming violent suddenly or digging at their skin to try and get things that the seemed to feel crawling under their skin.

However taking a look at some of the side affects I can see why Methamphetamines can be dangerous especially in this climate of various dangerous sexually transmitted diseases.

MDMA though looks as if some of the affects lead to these deaths. Because I seem to have lost my hard copy of the specific lecture notes and trying to get the online version seems to freeze firefox I will have to resort to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body).

If I remember a story from the UK correctly one of the supposed deaths due to MDMA was actually due to water intoxication because she didn't want to die from dehydration.

Perhaps there should also be a stress on what you should do if you take those drugs on the off chance you will remember when you take them?

Clearly I need to do some more research but I wanted to say that.

PS. This is my 50th post.

[Mycroft]

Yeah I don't believe 'huge holes' for a second. Massive serotonin depletion is more like it.

By the way you can get serotonin in health food shops in the form of 5-htp. I use it to bring my serotonin levels back up. Its really only needed after taking it several weekends in a row.

This may be what he was talking about. This segment from "Oprah" makes it appear as though using ecstasy kills parts of the brain.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_past_20010928_e.jhtml

I make no claim either way. I just took a sec with google to find it.

[Space_Ed]

Everyone I know who does Ecstasy is a boring idiot with no decent conversation. Is this the result of Ecstasy use, or the cause of it?


Errr I dont know them so I couldnt say but if they take it a lot (just like anything) it will affect the way they behave. I think its probably more likely the cause because ive never met anyone change dramatically after taking it. If they take it a lot they could be on a permanent comedown and need to stay off it for a bit. I reckon they are probably just boring idiots anyway. I know a few idiots that have taken it but i know really interesting people who have taken it too. It is perhaps bad luck and these people feel like they need it to make their life interesting.

[JoeEllison]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction. Now, addicts with Internet access can spread misinformation, so that they can encourage more people to share their addictions. Pathetic.

[Space_Ed]

Hillarious

imagine if you will that pot was legal and tobacco and alcohol were not

I bet 17 ruby nuggets the current 420 crowd would be demonizing pot and speaking of the magical healing nature of tobacco

THC (the chemical in weed) is massively helpful with lots of illnesses such as multiple sclerosis. Noone ever made a serious claim that tobacco was beneficial for something but weed has been used since prehistory in African tribes to help with various problems. Usually used in cooking- when the only significant danger, smoking it, is negated.

[Space_Ed]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction. Now, addicts with Internet access can spread misinformation, so that they can encourage more people to share their addictions. Pathetic.

I have never been addicted to anything in my life. I am not spreading misleading information. I wouldnt be surprised if I was the most educated person here on these matters. I have thought it all through a lot and this is my reasonable conclusion. If i was trying to spread misleading information I would be saying sniff cocaine and jack up scag. And for your information Ecstasy is not physically or psychologically addictive.

[Space_Ed]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction.

I never said anywhere here that Ecstasy is benign. I never said anywhere here that there are no dangers. I think that the problems with alcohol are equal or worse (I believe worse) and so for Ecstasy to be illegal but alcohol to be legal is hypocrisy, wrong and a shame.

[bjb]

I agree it is hypocritical to have alcohol legal while other, less destructive drugs are illegal, but we really need don't need another potentially dangerous drug for young people to abuse. Even though there are dangers associated with Ecstacy, young people are going to go right ahead and ignore them, just like they ignore every other danger in their lives. I'd rather live with some hypocrisy than more messed-up kids.

I was in college when MDMA was getting popular and it was still legal. My friends gave it a try but didn't like the way they felt for the next few days. Not wanting to mess around with the structure of my brain, I stayed away from that stuff, and nothing I've learned since then has caused me to regret my decision. For many people, taking whatever drugs they can is their idea of fun, but I'm not one of them.

[JoeEllison]

I never said anywhere here that Ecstasy is benign. I never said anywhere here that there are no dangers. I think that the problems with alcohol are equal or worse (I believe worse) and so for Ecstasy to be illegal but alcohol to be legal is hypocrisy, wrong and a shame.

So what? That's an argument to make alcohol illegal, not to legalize your poison of choice.

[jimlintott]

I agree it is hypocritical to have alcohol legal while other, less destructive drugs are illegal, but we really need don't need another potentially dangerous drug for young people to abuse. Even though there are dangers associated with Ecstacy, young people are going to go right ahead and ignore them, just like they ignore every other danger in their lives. I'd rather live with some hypocrisy than more messed-up kids.


I quite agree. Young people and drugs don't mix. The problem is that for most young people illegal drugs are far more easily obtained than legal drugs. The people selling illegal drugs don't ask for ID.

I've never been a fan of pills and innocuous white powdery substances. Do you really know what you are getting? Pot is as easy to identify as lettuce. If you pop the top off a bottle of alcohol you know what's inside. Although this is actually another good reason for legalizing.

[Checkmite]

If your parties are so boring that you have to take a mind-altering substance to extract any kind of good time from them, perhaps you should try going to different parties.

[Gurdur]

... Noone ever made a serious claim that tobacco was beneficial for something ....

Smokers are apparently at less risk from Alzheimers than non-smokers.

[Gurdur]

If your parties are so boring that you have to take a mind-altering substance to extract any kind of good time from them, perhaps you should try going to different parties.

Mormon parties are not so much fun.

[Checkmite]

Masonic parties rock.

[Gurdur]

Masonic parties rock.

Only if you like fancy-dress, all males, and silly rites.

Point is, humans use a LOT of mind-altering substances, and always have. Parties are very often where they are consumed, for many different reasons. Caffeine and nicotine are mind-altering, if not by much; so is good fellowship and banter. Alcohol is often used socially as a relaxant and as a mild excitant. Shy people will often use such substances to help them in party situations. Point being, you seem to look down on all that. But it's what humans do and always have done, and doesn't seem wrong to me.

[Checkmite]

I look down on a lot of things some people do. I likely do many things that others look down on as well.

[skeptifem]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction. Now, addicts with Internet access can spread misinformation, so that they can encourage more people to share their addictions. Pathetic.

wtf there are plenty of people who arent addicts/have never done drugs and believe drugs should be legal.

[kevsta]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction. Now, addicts with Internet access can spread misinformation, so that they can encourage more people to share their addictions. Pathetic.

this is an extremely uninformed post. ecstacy is not addictive, not even to the extent that alcohol is, and nowhere near as bad as cigarettes.

...now there's a conspiracy from "the man"

by labelling recreational drug users, of which there are millions worldwide as "drug addicts" shows the same lame approach most of our govenments have been taking for the past 50 years and have lost their self declared "war on drugs" by using these tactics.

it isnt the truth and no-one believes them about this any more. spreading lies and misinformation in one area doesnt help their credibility much with this demographic in other areas.

[Space_Ed]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.html#article_continue

Thanks for that link. Looks like Britains experts (of which one day I will be one) agree with me.

So up yours you fascist ignorant bastards.

[madurobob]

If these youngsters who have died from misuse of Ecstasy, had known about the dangers and understood the likely consequences of taking the drug I think that many of them would still be alive today. The basic facts state that making a drug illegal does not deter a person who wants to experiment with it. If Ecstasy were bought over the counter at a pharmacy or another type of regulated drugs store then the purity of the drug would be guaranteed, also there would be government health warnings all over the box that they come in educating the buyer on the safest methods of use. I strongly believe that there would be fewer Ecstasy related deaths if Ecstasy were made legal.
<sigh> Clearly one could substitute any banned controlled substance into that paragraph. Do you believe all of them should be legalized? Say, all the ones listed in the "Drugs League table" in the linked The Guardian article?

And for your information Ecstasy is not physically or psychologically addictive
Really? Not psychologically addictive? How has this been tested and proven?

So, you are the expert here, just what are the known dangers of Ex and how have these been confirmed. Secondly, what are the benefits?

[madurobob]

For the record, I'm OK with legalizing them all, providing:

Everyone who uses them has to have health insurance that specifically covers any and all health issues related to drug use.
Anyone caught with the drugs or under the influence of them while not having the proper insurance, goes to jail for 5 years.
Anyone knowingly providing the drugs to an uninsured person goes to jail for 5 years
Anyone providing the drugs to a minor goes to jail for life.
For any crime committed while under the influence, the penalty for the crime automatically triples and you lose you insurance forever.


Let the free market decide just what the "cost" is of doing various drugs.

I also feel the same way about motorcycle helmets, but thats a different thread...

[kevsta]

For the record, I'm OK with legalizing them all, providing:

Everyone who uses them has to have health insurance that specifically covers any and all health issues related to drug use.
Anyone caught with the drugs or under the influence of them while not having the proper insurance, goes to jail for 5 years.
Anyone knowingly providing the drugs to an uninsured person goes to jail for 5 years
Anyone providing the drugs to a minor goes to jail for life.
For any crime committed while under the influence, the penalty for the crime automatically triples and you lose you insurance forever.


Let the free market decide just what the "cost" is of doing various drugs.

I also feel the same way about motorcycle helmets, but thats a different thread...

lol. I would happily vote for this as policy as long as it includes the two biggest killers on the list, alcohol and tobacco. it seems a very fair plan.

and I'd also go along with the motorbike helmet one too and hardly ever wear mine again.

[madurobob]

lol. I would happily vote for this as policy as long as it includes the two biggest killers on the list, alcohol and tobacco. it seems a very fair plan.

and I'd also go along with the motorbike helmet one too and hardly ever wear mine again.
:) I do get asked every year when I re-up my health and life insurance if I smoke and if I drink alcohol and how much. So, its a safe bet the policies already take into account the cost of smoking and drinking to some degree. Actually, I know for a fact that its more expensive if you smoke.

I ride too fast - its way to uncomfortable and noisy without a helmet. But as long as I don't have to pay for your brain surgery I'm fine with you not wearing yours.

[Undesired Walrus]

Unfortunatly however, using ecstasy often leads to Heroin addiction, as many ex-addicts can tell you.

So think of that the next time you and your hippy mates high five each other for finding a new feeling in your girlfriends hair!

[cyborg]

So what? That's an argument to make alcohol illegal, not to legalize your poison of choice.

The argument cuts both ways actually.

It all rather depends on whether or not we deem that people in a society should be allowed to assess the risk/reward ratio of any activity they engage in or not.

[JoeEllison]

The argument cuts both ways actually.

It all rather depends on whether or not we deem that people in a society should be allowed to assess the risk/reward ratio of any activity they engage in or not.

Shouldn't that start with an honest evaluation of the risks?

[cyborg]

Shouldn't that start with an honest evaluation of the risks?

I believe that is very much the point of this thread.

It should be clear to all involved that drug laws for most countries sure as hell are not based on an honest evaluation of the risks rather than an ad hoc system that has built up over many years - just like all other laws.

Expecting consistency here would be breaking the mould of Law in general.

[madurobob]

It should be clear to all involved that drug laws for most countries sure as hell are not based on an honest evaluation of the risks rather than an ad hoc system that has built up over many years - just like all other laws.

Expecting consistency here would be breaking the mould of Law in general.
Bingo. Space-Ed's complaint of hypocrisy carries no weight. Still, I think my suggestion, even though a bit tongue-in-cheek, does force an honest evaluation of the risks. Even better, it leaves it up to the insurance actuaries. I trust them more than I trust most legislatures.

[JoeEllison]

Does anyone here believe any of the medical research pointing to the serious negative effects of drugs?

[cyborg]

Does anyone here believe any of the medical research pointing to the serious negative effects of drugs?

Yes.

Do you think this is relevant to the argument?

[Space_Ed]

For the record, I'm OK with legalizing them all, providing:

Everyone who uses them has to have health insurance that specifically covers any and all health issues related to drug use.
Anyone caught with the drugs or under the influence of them while not having the proper insurance, goes to jail for 5 years.
Anyone knowingly providing the drugs to an uninsured person goes to jail for 5 years
Anyone providing the drugs to a minor goes to jail for life.
For any crime committed while under the influence, the penalty for the crime automatically triples and you lose you insurance forever.


Let the free market decide just what the "cost" is of doing various drugs.

I also feel the same way about motorcycle helmets, but thats a different thread...

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Space_Ed]

<sigh> Clearly one could substitute any banned controlled substance into that paragraph. Do you believe all of them should be legalized? Say, all the ones listed in the "Drugs League table" in the linked The Guardian article?


Really? Not psychologically addictive? How has this been tested and proven?

So, you are the expert here, just what are the known dangers of Ex and how have these been confirmed. Secondly, what are the benefits?

I dont think that the article implies that substances like cocaine and heroin should be legalised. I don't think they should be either. It would be better for everyone's health if all of those chemicals wern't in existence. The fact is that they do exist and we have to act accordingly. Some of those drugs I have never even heard of. I never said that I AM an expert. Some of them I really couldnt say because I don't know enough about them. Out of the ones that I feel I know enough about to comment fairly on...

Heroin- Too addictive to control properly for society as a whole. Places where Opiates have been legal such as China, Afghanistan and Britain do not have a good history. It seems to be a downward spiral for society legalising it.

Cocaine- Again too addictive to control properly for society as a whole. I personally hate cocaine and the way it makes people behave. Long term use results in severe addiction, paranoia, heart problems and more I'd imagine. It is the addictiveness alone that makes me think it should never be legalised. I don't know enough about it really but I know that a lot of farmers in Latin America would be out of jobs if somehow the flow of it was stopped. I don't know how anyone could ever get rid of it... but I think it is very bad for society.

Cannabis- Can cause cancer when smoked and increases the chances of developing schizophrenia. Serious issues, but the frequency of these when compared to the problems of the legal drugs is minimal (no statistics sorry) also cannabis (apart from the very rare psychotic episode) is entirely benign socially. No fighting or vandalism on weed unless the person would be inclined to do that anyway. Legalisation would, in my view, help reduce amount of alcohol drank and reduce street violence. So yeah I'm all for it. Oh and prosecuting ill people for growing a plant which can improve their quality of life is just plain immoral. It's a goddamn plant. Overdose impossible.

Poppers (Alkyl Nitrates)- No problem. Not addictive. Can cause headaches. About it from what I know.

Ecstasy- The problems and benefits I have already written about in my opening page. Briefly down sides are that allergic people can die after taking one (very rare, same applies to peanuts and bee stings hence a test is required); overdose can be fatal (just like alcohol so the story is don't be a muppet); depletes serotonin which can lead to depression and detachment from reality (as I said before this only happens with foolish very heavy users and serotonin capsules can be bought in health food shops no problem), dehydration is extremely rare and apparently more people choke to death eating cabbage so drink water; brain saturation is when people are scared they are going to die and drink too much water and swell up their brain cells and die. I could probably think of a few more. All of these issues are proportionally very rare and with proper eductation these simple mistakes can be avoided. Benefits: useful for people who suffer from depression and post-traumatic stress (read article in first post). I read about not being psychologically addictive along time ago and can't back it up just now but I have never met a serious addict like you find with tobacco and alcohol. Some people like them a lot but they all go through phases of stopping and starting. They all eventually grow out of it. Unlike alcohol and tobacco users.

LSD- I wouldn't legalise but it is physically benign. I would legalise mushrooms. Hospitalisation is due to panic attacks and being allergic. Overdose is almost impossible on shrooms. Long-term heavy use of LSD can lead to hospitalisation and total loss of the grasp on 'consensus reality', meaning that it will be permanently impossible for the patient to live in the same commonly perceived view of reality as the rest of the human species. They feel totally alien and unable to function socially. This is why I would not legalise LSD. I think it is psychologically addictive. Mushrooms have very similar narcotic effects but are neither physically or psychologically addictive. I have never come across reports of permanent hospitalisation from mushroom use. About mushrooms:

"This drug is not associated with physical or psychological dependency, acute toxicity is largely limited to possible panic and anxiety attacks and, in terms of chronic toxicity, the worst that can happen are flashbacks. Consequently, the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms does not, on balance, present any risk to the health of the individual" - Risk Assessment by CAM (Coordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of New Drugs), 2000.

The others I don't know enough about to comment fairly. I don't think you should make something illegal if people can be allergic to it. Otherwise we should ban pollen and house dust. Caution is required.

[Space_Ed]

Bingo. Space-Ed's complaint of hypocrisy carries no weight. Still, I think my suggestion, even though a bit tongue-in-cheek, does force an honest evaluation of the risks. Even better, it leaves it up to the insurance actuaries. I trust them more than I trust most legislatures.


I can't think of a law that is more hypocritical than the drugs laws. I am happy for you to show me one. Even if laws generally are unfair (are they?) this doesn't make hypocrisy OK.

[Space_Ed]

Does anyone here believe any of the medical research pointing to the serious negative effects of drugs?

If you read my new post on the dangers of drugs and the benefits you will see how right you are in thinking I don't think there are any serious negative effects of drugs. Well done.

[Space_Ed]

Unfortunatly however, using ecstasy often leads to Heroin addiction, as many ex-addicts can tell you.

So think of that the next time you and your hippy mates high five each other for finding a new feeling in your girlfriends hair!

I have never heard of a direct link between ecstasy use and heroin use. I know people can move on to harder things. I myself have done heroin once (and never ever again). I have never heard of or seen anyone go directly from the one drug to the other and I am sure that the millions of aging ravers from the early 90s onward would find what you just said hilarious.

And to all the people calling me a hippy...

http://forums.randi.org/z/user/3/7/4/9/1/main.1189852204.jpg

Do I look like a hippy to you?

[Space_Ed]

If your parties are so boring that you have to take a mind-altering substance to extract any kind of good time from them, perhaps you should try going to different parties.

I find this post offensive and drenched in ignorance. You have no idea of the reasons why I have chosen to take drugs and what I or other people gain from them personally. Drugs can be used to expand the mind aswell as have a good time. Some people use them because they improve their personal quality of life. You have no idea what the parties I go to are like but ill bet a million dollars that they are one hell of a lot better than the ones you have been to. Don't assume either that they are all rampant drug fests either you know-nothing-know-it-all.

Don't you have to believe in a supreme being to be a mason? If you do then may God have mercy on your soul you gullible fool.

(If you don't believe in a God then I retract the gullible fool statement you cant)

[Space_Ed]

I saw a brain scan of a girl who had done massive amounts of ecstasy for extended periods of time and she literally had huge holes eaten away in her brain. That pretty much turned me off to the drug forever.

"Two years ago, then NIDA director Alan Leshner launched an anti-ecstasy campaign based on images from flawed PET-scan research conducted at Johns Hopkins. The campaign's trademark was a stylized image of two brain halves, side by side, with the darkened hemisphere marked "brain after ecstasy". Unfortunately for the public, NIDA has once again allowed politics and morality to trump their science. The US has spent millions of dollars pressing its "brain after ecstasy" images in widely-distributed postcards and online. Even months after NIDA learned of the data problems, and weeks after the Ricaurte and McCann PET scan studies were publicly discredited, NIDA is still pushing them as unadulterated 'fact' on their web sites (nida.nih.gov and clubdrugs.org)."- Erowid

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/images/archive/mdma_nida_brainscans1.gif

...and what did I say about trusting the US government?

[Space_Ed]

When drug addicts see evidence that their addiction is bad for them, they claim that it is some evil conspiracy from The Man, to keep them from feeding their addiction. Now, addicts with Internet access can spread misinformation, so that they can encourage more people to share their addictions. Pathetic.

Oi.[Edited] whose opinion I will never take seriously again who has done nothing but prove how much of a misinformed [edited] muppet he is....

see above

Civility, folks. Name calling does nothing to further the argument.

[Space_Ed]

Expecting consistency here would be breaking the mould of Law in general.

Once upon a time it was the law to burn heretics at the stake. Which idiot changed that law?

I wish for most of the people who go on this site that he had not changed it. We could have all been burned alive! How thoughtless of him....

[technoextreme]

Yeah I don't believe 'huge holes' for a second. Massive serotonin depletion is more like it.

By the way you can get serotonin in health food shops in the form of 5-htp. I use it to bring my serotonin levels back up. Its really only needed after taking it several weekends in a row.
Thank you for providing the perfect exaple of why escastcy needs to be regulated. After reading this a second time it scares me even more that you think it's safe. I oringally thought sever days in a row but weekends? That makes beer and smoking look tame.

[bigred]

I agree it is hypocritical to have alcohol legal while other, less destructive drugs are illegal, but we really need don't need another potentially dangerous drug for young people to abuse. Even though there are dangers associated with Ecstacy, young people are going to go right ahead and ignore them, just like they ignore every other danger in their lives. I'd rather live with some hypocrisy than more messed-up kids.
Bingo. Pushing for banning or further restricting alcohol/whatever makes a ton more sense than suggesting legalization of more needless mind-altering substances.


Does anyone here believe any of the medical research pointing to the serious negative effects of drugs?:confused: I'd say it depends on the specifics of the given research, but the idea of disbelieving ALL such research sounds extremely naive and absurd. Do you only believe in medical research done which supports your opinions?


Frankly a lot of this reminds me of similar discussions I had with friends of mine at a much younger age, trying to justify/provide validity to use of illegal drugs - which we did because we wished they were legal, and that simply because we liked them, not because they were "safer." Now I look back at that "reasoning" and kinda go :rolleyes: lol @ that list too btw. LSD and Meth "less harmful" than pot or alcohol? Run that by me again?

Further, I think there are a LOT of oversimplifications going on here. eg how are we defining "harm," "danger," how the given substance is typically used etc etc etc.

eg: alcohol itself isn't so "dangerous." In fact (again extreme usage notwithstanding) it's physically/psychologically one of the safest. It's the drinking and driving thing that really makes it bad. But I'm kinda betting people stoked up on most of those substances (except tobacco) wouldn't exactly be safe on the roads either, ie:

"Look out for that truck!!"
"uhhh.............what.......?"
*SMACK*

[madurobob]

Sounds reasonable to me.
Excellent!

So, under the new madurobob legislation, it wouldn't bother you that you would not be able to buy Ex insurance for, oh I dunno, $4K/year? Would you sign up, or stay sober?

When you complain to the insurance company they'll tell you they are simply covering their risk in insuring Ex use. You would of course protest. How would you convince them they were wrong? What well reasoned, documented and peer reviewed study would you refer them to that would convince them their risk assessment was wrong?

[Mycroft]

Excellent!

So, under the new madurobob legislation, it wouldn't bother you that you would not be able to buy Ex insurance for, oh I dunno, $4K/year? Would you sign up, or stay sober?

When you complain to the insurance company they'll tell you they are simply covering their risk in insuring Ex use. You would of course protest. How would you convince them they were wrong? What well reasoned, documented and peer reviewed study would you refer them to that would convince them their risk assessment was wrong?

What makes you believe insurance companies would charge that much?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Bingo. Pushing for banning or further restricting alcohol/whatever makes a ton more sense than suggesting legalization of more needless mind-altering substances.

It would do, if drug criminalisation was itself free and harmless.

It is not.

Therefore any decision about criminalisation has to weigh up the harm done by legal drug use against the harm done by criminalisation and the cost of enforcing it.


:confused: I'd say it depends on the specifics of the given research, but the idea of disbelieving ALL such research sounds extremely naive and absurd. Do you only believe in medical research done which supports your opinions?

Frankly a lot of this reminds me of similar discussions I had with friends of mine at a much younger age, trying to justify/provide validity to use of illegal drugs - which we did because we wished they were legal, and that simply because we liked them, not because they were "safer." Now I look back at that "reasoning" and kinda go :rolleyes: lol @ that list too btw. LSD and Meth "less harmful" than pot or alcohol? Run that by me again?


LSD is certainly safer than alcohol. Stret meth is fairly nasty on a per-user basis but on a socety-wide basis it would have to kill a staggering number of people and ruin a staggering number of lives to begin to compete with alcohol.


Further, I think there are a LOT of oversimplifications going on here. eg how are we defining "harm," "danger," how the given substance is typically used etc etc etc.

eg: alcohol itself isn't so "dangerous." In fact (again extreme usage notwithstanding) it's physically/psychologically one of the safest. It's the drinking and driving thing that really makes it bad. But I'm kinda betting people stoked up on most of those substances (except tobacco) wouldn't exactly be safe on the roads either, ie:

"Look out for that truck!!"
"uhhh.............what.......?"
*SMACK*

Physically and psychologically alcohol is very dangerous, far more so than pot, LSD or ecstasy. It is addictive, it causes organ damage and an overdose can kill you. If drug laws were even remotely consistent it would be as illegal as hell.

[Gurdur]

Stret meth is fairly nasty on a per-user basis but on a socety-wide basis it would have to kill a staggering number of people and ruin a staggering number of lives to begin to compete with alcohol.
Street methamphetamines is actually far more dangerous than alcohol, since not only is it FAR quicker to do real damage to users, but it is also addictive for a very large proportion of those who try it, unlike alcohol. See below.
Physically and psychologically alcohol is very dangerous, far more so than pot, LSD or ecstasy.
Not really. Alcohol will only really cause real psychosis in very longterm abuse (while LSD can do quite interesting things on a one-off big overdose). It may kill you on overdosing. but so will LSD.

BTW, while marijuana is largely harmless, use by young people, especially young women, does show an increased risk of schizophrenia and/or depression. Smoking it is also very rough indeed on the lungs.
It is addictive, it causes organ damage and an overdose can kill you. If drug laws were even remotely consistent it would be as illegal as hell.
Alcohol is only really addictive (potentially or realized) in around 10% of any adult population of any society not in great stress. Under normal conditions it is simply not really addictive at all for the other round 90%.

BTW, humans have always used mind-altering substances. It's something humans do and seem to often need.

Cheers, I'll go off to the pub soon for a beer.

[3point14]

Good thread.

For the record, I have taken a fair few of the substances on the list, I still have a job, a life, friends, family, my freedom and my mind. Why should I be unable to have a good time because some people react badly to the substances I enjoy? (Perhaps we should ban peanuts and motor cars). And, no, Mister Korosi, I'm not going to be changing the type of parties I go to, there's too much fun to be had. (You have alcohol at your parties?)

I think a quote from Mr. Hicks is long overdue. This one calls to me.

My final point about alchohol, about drugs, about Pornography...What business is it of your's what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemna on how to answer this, I'll answer for you. NONE OF YOUR <Edited out> BUSINESS Take that to the bank, cash it and take it on a vacation outta my *********** life. And stop bringing shotguns to UFO sightings, they might be here to pick me up and take me with 'em.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Street methamphetamines is actually far more dangerous than alcohol, since not only is it FAR quicker to do real damage to users, but it is also addictive for a very large proportion of those who try it, unlike alcohol. See below.

Agreed, that's why I said that on a per-user basis it was nasty.


Not really. Alcohol will only really cause real psychosis in very longterm abuse (while LSD can do quite interesting things on a one-off big overdose). It may kill you on overdosing. but so will LSD.

I didn't think it was practically possible to take a toxic level of LSD, and myths about people hallucinating permanently are indeed just myths as far as I have been able to tell. People occasionally do dumb things while on LSD, but that's not quite the same thing.


BTW, while marijuana is largely harmless, use by young people, especially young women, does show an increased risk of schizophrenia and/or depression. Smoking it is also very rough indeed on the lungs.

Sure, but compared to any other popular recreational drug the risks are trivial. It's very hard or impossible to make a sane case for criminalisation based on the known risks.


Alcohol is only really addictive (potentially or realized) in around 10% of any adult population of any society not in great stress. Under normal conditions it is simply not really addictive at all for the other round 90%.

As I said before, on a per-user basis alcohol is not too bad. On a society-wide level it's atrocious.

[Gurdur]

I didn't think it was practically possible to take a toxic level of LSD,
"Estimates for the lethal dosage (LD50) of LSD range from 200 µg/kg to more than 1 mg/kg of human body mass,"

which at the upper end of the scale would mean say around 90 mg or a mite more for one individual? Not so difficult to do at all. More lethal than saffron, and there is at least one saffron death on record.

"....though most sources report that there are no known human cases of such an overdose. Other sources note one report of a suspected fatal overdose of LSD occurring in 1974 in Kentucky..."

Don't forget other problems such as uterine effects. After all, the stuff does share some problems with its distant mother ergot.

Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD)

and myths about people hallucinating permanently are indeed just myths as far as I have been able to tell.

"However, psychiatry recognizes a disorder in which LSD-like effects are persistent and cause clinically significant impairment or distress. This syndrome is called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (HPPD), a DSM-IV diagnosis. Several scientific journal articles have described the disorder.[37]"

Same source.

"There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy prior to taking LSD. This issue was reviewed extensively in a 1984 publication by Rick Strassman.[42] .......... Several studies have tried to estimate the prevalence of LSD-induced prolonged psychosis arriving at numbers of around 4 in 1,000 individuals (0.8 in 1,000 volunteers and 1.8 in 1,000 psychotherapy patients in Cohen 1960;[43] 9 per 1,000 psychotherapy patients in Melleson 1971[44])."

So not quite the myth you think it is.
Sure, but compared to any other popular recreational drug the risks are trivial. It's very hard or impossible to make a sane case for criminalisation based on the known risks.
*shrug*
Calling one's opponents on a particular debate insane doesn't advance things much.

Personally, I am for decriminalization of marijuana, but there are indeed risks with marijuana that should not be evaded. I am totally against decriminalization of crystal meth.

As I said before, on a per-user basis alcohol is not too bad. On a society-wide level it's atrocious.
To a degree. But IMvHO, khat is worse for that. In Somalia it's dangerous in the late afternoon, when all the khat users start twitching.

BTW, which society? In some societes, petrol (gasoline) or glue is a bit more of a problem than alcohol, socially speaking.

And leastaways people don't (most usually) shoot up with alcohol, thus meaning less HIV transmission risks.

[technoextreme]

I didn't think it was practically possible to take a toxic level of LSD, and myths about people hallucinating permanently are indeed just myths as far as I have been able to tell. People occasionally do dumb things while on LSD, but that's not quite the same thing.

Dumb things? My mother knew people who jumped out of windows.

[madurobob]

What makes you believe insurance companies would charge that much?
Pure SWAG. First of all, they like making money. Secondly, their investors would be hesitant to underwrite a new and unknown risk and thirdly they would not wish to appear to be encouraging drug use by offering a cheap policy.

But thats entirely beside the point. The real question is where are the well reasoned, documented and peer reviewed studies to support a lower insurance price? Where are the studies that prove Ex is relatively benign to individual health and to society in general?

Anyone?

[JoeEllison]

Where are the studies that prove Ex is relatively benign to individual health and to society in general?

"Dude, like, we totally took some X, and it was totally random! And then Scoobs got some more, so we were rolling the whole weekend, and nothing bad happened to us!"

That counts as evidence, right?

[madurobob]

"Dude, like, we totally took some X, and it was totally random! And then Scoobs got some more, so we were rolling the whole weekend, and nothing bad happened to us!"

That counts as evidence, right?
Well, I think we need four more similar stories in order for the anecdotes to magically transform into "data" :)

[madurobob]

All those that know the truth behind this particular topic would agree, as it would appear do the experts advising government on the facts.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2026205,00.html)

what spin our glorious leaders then decide to put on it for political reasons will no doubt be once more wholly different from the reality.
Kevsta, you are wrong to infer that this is an ordered list of drugs adverse health effects on the individual. Pay close attention to this statement from the article (emphasis mine):
The study of 20 drugs - both legal and illegal - weighed up their physical harm, their relative addictiveness and the impact they have on wider society, to produce a new 'rational' league table.

Clearly the massive distribution and use of certain drugs rockets them to the top of the list. Alcohol and tobacco are so deeply ingrained in society, and so well studied, that the known health effects on society as a whole are quite large. This by no way means that in a given individual the health risk of alcohol is greater than that of a similar regular use of one of the drugs lower on the list. I read in the posts to this thread that Ex is obviously less dangerous than alcohol. Will someone please show me a comparative study?

[JoeEllison]

Well, I think we need four more similar stories in order for the anecdotes to magically transform into "data" :)

"dude, there were like six of us, seven if you count Maggie May, but she doesn't count because she only smokes weed."

Is it data now?

[bjb]

I didn't think it was practically possible to take a toxic level of LSD, and myths about people hallucinating permanently are indeed just myths as far as I have been able to tell. People occasionally do dumb things while on LSD, but that's not quite the same thing.

I've had two former LSD users tell me the same thing about their experiences. At first, they thought it was the best drug ever and told everyone they knew about it. But then they had a bad trip and they went around telling everyone they knew it was the worst drug ever!

Also, there are those stories about the LSD tests performed by the CIA. It is hard to find reliable information on the web, but it really did happen and people died as a result. Like any other drug, there are people who seem to avoid the problems associated with LSD but please, don't make the mistake of believing LSD is a harmless drug.

[Space_Ed]

"dude, there were like six of us, seven if you count Maggie May, but she doesn't count because she only smokes weed."

Is it data now?

I really don't like you at all. Please stop talking unless you are going to try to be reasonable and put forward your argument rationally with explanation. Me and I think the guy from Ibiza are English and don't say 'dude', 'maggie may' or 'rolling' (not in that way anyway). Try and wise up and stop being so ignorant. You don't deserve the right to chat in this thread.

[technoextreme]

I really don't like you at all. please stop talking unless you are going to try to be reasonable and put forward your argument rationally with explanation. Me and I think the guy from Ibiza are English and don't say 'dude', 'maggie may' or 'rolling' (not in that way anyway. Try and wise up and stop being so ignorant. You don't deserve the right to chat in this thread.
Says the guy who managed to undermine his own argument without realizing it.

[JoeEllison]

I really don't like you at all. please stop talking unless you are going to try to be reasonable and put forward your argument rationally with explanation. Me and I think the guy from Ibiza are English and don't say 'dude', 'maggie may' or 'rolling' (not in that way anyway. Try and wise up and stop being so ignorant. You don't deserve the right to chat in this thread.

You don't have people named Maggie in Ibiza? Weird...

What's 'reasonable" about pretending that drug use is safe and/or somehow a good idea? I mean, by all means, knock yourself out, but don't try to rationalize it. You like getting high, and you don't care very much if it hurts you or not.

And, really... do you think doctors are just lying about the negative effects of drugs, as part of some conspiracy by The Man to keep you from getting that much-needed high? Really?

[Space_Ed]

You don't have people named Maggie in Ibiza? Weird...

What's 'reasonable" about pretending that drug use is safe and/or somehow a good idea? I mean, by all means, knock yourself out, but don't try to rationalize it. You like getting high, and you don't care very much if it hurts you or not.

And, really... do you think doctors are just lying about the negative effects of drugs, as part of some conspiracy by The Man to keep you from getting that much-needed high? Really?

Not Maggie May thats very American. Do you know Ibiza is a Spanish island? As for the rest of what you said I am not dignifying it with a response.

[Space_Ed]

Says the guy who managed to undermine his own argument without realizing it.


How did I do that?

[Space_Ed]

I have implied before it is best for everyones health that all drugs were banned. The fact is that they won't be. So, through thinking about it a lot, I came to the conclusion that legalising other certain substances would balance out the negative effects of just alcohol and tobacco being legal. Like in the Bill Hicks quote, shouldnt people be allowed to live their lives how they want to aslong as they dont harm anyone else or cost them any money?

[JoeEllison]

Not Maggie May thats very American.No, actually, it isn't. It is a Rod Stewart song. Rod Stewart is Scottish, grew up in England. Do you know Ibiza is a Spanish island?Yes. And? "Magdalena Mayo"?As for the rest of what you said I am not dignifying it with a response.Hey, it is your thread, you can participate in the discussion or not... seems like you'd want to. *shrugs*

[Space_Ed]

[QUOTE=madurobob;3002580]So, under the new madurobob legislation, it wouldn't bother you that you would not be able to buy Ex insurance for, oh I dunno, $4K/year? Would you sign up, or stay sober?QUOTE]

I was going to say yes I'd pay that much but then after the other guys comment I asked my mum how much rock climbing insurance is. It's a few hundred so I think thats how much you'd pay. Insurance is a competative market and I am sure that the companies would compete with each other and the price would reduce itself to a reasonable amount which is representative of the risk.

[Space_Ed]

No, actually, it isn't. It is a Rod Stewart song. Rod Stewart is Scottish, grew up in England.Yes. And? "Magdalena Mayo"?Hey, it is your thread, you can participate in the discussion or not... seems like you'd want to. *shrugs*

Hahaha very good. Best thing uve said here :)

Yeah just please be reasonable and not so dismissive of other peoples ideas. You seem to think only idiots take drugs. I assure you that is not the case.

[Space_Ed]

Thank you for providing the perfect exaple of why escastcy needs to be regulated. After reading this a second time it scares me even more that you think it's safe. I oringally thought sever days in a row but weekends? That makes beer and smoking look tame.

The massive serotonin depletion is similar to liver damage with alcohol. You have to just as irresponsible for both to happen. In my opinion. However, you would have to take less ecstasy than the amount of alcohol you'd have to drink to cause brain damage which is equal to the severity of liver damage, I think. Alcohol also attacks the human brain. I wouldn't be surprised if ecstasy infact does cause some form of brain damage although the results are inconclusive at the moment. I understand what you are saying and agree to a large extent. I agree entirely with 'regulated' but this does not in my view mean that it should be illegal. After several weekends e.g. 2 months use every weekend people can start to feel a bit down. Taking serotonin capsules gets rid of this feeling. Actual brain damage and severe serotonin depletion is seen in very heavy users i.e. people who take it twice a week for years. From what I have read these people are very rare (and genrally very foolish from what I have gathered) and also totally uneducated about it. Current education methods often don't explain these real dangers and this type of problem can be avoided with proper education rather than the "Don't Do Drugs" approach which as everyone will agree on this: Doesn't work.

Ill look at it the other way. If we keep it illegal then there will still be millions (and rising) of users getting dodgy pills with god only knows what in it who are uneducated about the risks and not trusting the governemnts message. No money being made on tax which could go into the health system.

If legal there would be more users (ofcourse how many is a BIG unknown) I don't think myself that there would be a dramatic increase in users. There would be a fall in violent crime and sexual assault (through alcohol). Billions of dollars will be made. People will know what they are getting. Like I said before there would be tax on them and this tax could go towards the health system.

Again it is better for everyones health that all drugs are banned. They won't be. I think legalisation of ecstasy would not have a significant detrimental effect on public health and I foresee a reduction in alcohol related crime.

[technoextreme]

The massive serotonin depletion is similar to liver damage with alcohol. You have to just as irresponsible for both to happen. In my opinion. However, you would have to take less ecstasy than the amount of alcohol you'd have to drink to cause brain damage which is equal to the severity of liver damage, I think. Alcohol also attacks the human brain. I wouldn't be surprised if ecstasy infact does cause some form of brain damage although the results are inconclusive at the moment. I understand what you are saying and agree to a large extent. I agree entirely with 'regulated' but this does not in my view mean that it should be illegal. After several weekends e.g. 2 months use every weekend people can start to feel a bit down. Taking serotonin capsules gets rid of this feeling. Actual brain damage and severe serotonin depletion is seen in very heavy users i.e. people who take it twice a week for years. From what I have read these people are very rare (and genrally very foolish from what I have gathered) and also totally uneducated about it. Current education methods often don't explain these real dangers and this type of problem can be avoided with proper education rather than the "Don't Do Drugs" approach which as everyone will agree on this: Doesn't work.

Ill look at it the other way. If we keep it illegal then there will still be millions (and rising) of users getting dodgy pills with god only knows what in it who are uneducated about the risks and not trusting the governemnts message. No money being made on tax which could go into the health system.

If legal there would be more users (ofcourse how many is a BIG unknown) I don't think myself that there would be a dramatic increase in users. There would be a fall in violent crime and sexual assault (through alcohol). Billions of dollars will be made. People will know what they are getting. Like I said before there would be tax on them and this tax could go towards the health system.

Again it is better for everyones health that all drugs are banned. They won't be. I think legalisation of ecstasy would not have a significant detrimental effect on public health and I foresee a reduction in alcohol related crime.Except you yourself admitted that it happens if you take it five weekends straight. The effects are nil to slightly damaging with alcohol at that rate. Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.

[Space_Ed]

Except you yourself admitted that it happens if you take it five weekends straight. The effects are nil to slightly damaging with alcohol at that rate. Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.

That is true. And so it is important to realise that with MDMA you are dealing with an entirely different kettle of fish if you see what I mean. The risks of the one are very different to the other. I dont think that that particular risk is any worse than many of alcohols specific risks such as violence and drinking so much you die- as is also possible with MDMA.

I have got the feeling that none of what I just said will make you consider changing your mind. It looks like we might have to agree to disagree. I believe that a positive social system surrounding MDMA which is informative, legal and not persecutive is better than a sytem which is based on lies, prejudice and results in further infringement of personal human rights (i.e. imprisonment). As the negative effects of the two substances are about equal* I dont see why all the negative social problems that arrise with it being illegal are worth it when they are just as bad as each other.

Here is a demonstration of some of the costs to society in maintaining its illegal status:

http://www.filecabi.net/video/ravewithpopo.html

Can't help whats around it lol. This was a legally organised rave. They had permission to play there. A girl getting kicked in the chest by four men was one of the many attrocities witnessed. Does what they are doing look so wrong to you? Fair play it isn't to everyones taste but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Also lots of people here wern't taking drugs and they got beaten up anyway.


*I think alcohol is worse but that might be due to my personal experience of the two substances working in society and is perhaps not representative of the world as a whole (but I think it probably is)

[Space_Ed]

Not to mention the idiocy playing ping pong with what amounts to over the counter antidepressants and escasty.

I don't understand this. It can be used to help depression when used once in a good setting with a professional psychiatrist who knows what they are doing. It is DEFINATELY not to be used like antidepressants are used!

[JoeEllison]

Hahaha very good. Best thing uve said here :)

Yeah just please be reasonable and not so dismissive of other peoples ideas. You seem to think only idiots take drugs. I assure you that is not the case.

Idiots spread misinformation about drugs to justify or rationalize their use. And, for some reason, those idiots think that the fact that some of the anti-drug rhetoric is dishonest means that it is acceptable to counter it with dishonest rhetoric of their own. And, then, because people feel that they have been lied to, they accept the lies that go in the other direction.

[Space_Ed]

I swear I am trying to be as reasonable as possible. My uncle is a London based highcourt judge and he thinks it should be legal and he has never taken it, hes about 50 years old. Lots of non-users and users agree with that it should be legal. I am trying to be honest I would consider myself a very honest person.

[madurobob]

I was going to say yes I'd pay that much but then after the other guys comment I asked my mum how much rock climbing insurance is. It's a few hundred so I think thats how much you'd pay. Insurance is a competative market and I am sure that the companies would compete with each other and the price would reduce itself to a reasonable amount which is representative of the risk.
Not much of a head for business, eh?

Here is just an example of why the price would be high: Because no-one has been able to produce any reliable evidence that Ex use has very little health risk, no existing health insurance company is going to offer Ex insurance. So, specialized companies will arise that offer nothing but drugs insurance. They too will not be able to convince their investors that this is a safe bet unless they charge a lot for the policy and screen applicants very well. They will also know that as soon as you are admitted to hospital for any ailment that your standard health insurance company, the big one with the stable of lawyers, will deny your claim and insist that whatever you are in for is Ex related and must be paid by your Ex insurance rider (for instance - you dall and break your arm). Ultimately this becomes a legal battle between your two insurance carriers. You Ex insurance company will have to factor all this expected legal cost into your premium. I assure you, it will be quite high.

And this doesn't even begin to cover liability insurance the Ex insurance company would have to cover for any dumb things you do while high (fall and break someone else's arm).

I mean, srsly, you cannot even provide convincing evidence to people on this forum that Ex is safer than alcohol, and you think you can persuade insurance companies to cover that risk for a couple hundred bucks a year?

Not gonna happen. I think you're gonna have to stay sober under the Madurobob legislation.

[Space_Ed]

Not much of a head for business, eh?

Here is just an example of why the price would be high: Because no-one has been able to produce any reliable evidence that Ex use has very little health risk, no existing health insurance company is going to offer Ex insurance. So, specialized companies will arise that offer nothing but drugs insurance. They too will not be able to convince their investors that this is a safe bet unless they charge a lot for the policy and screen applicants very well. They will also know that as soon as you are admitted to hospital for any ailment that your standard health insurance company, the big one with the stable of lawyers, will deny your claim and insist that whatever you are in for is Ex related and must be paid by your Ex insurance rider (for instance - you dall and break your arm). Ultimately this becomes a legal battle between your two insurance carriers. You Ex insurance company will have to factor all this expected legal cost into your premium. I assure you, it will be quite high.

And this doesn't even begin to cover liability insurance the Ex insurance company would have to cover for any dumb things you do while high (fall and break someone else's arm).

I mean, srsly, you cannot even provide convincing evidence to people on this forum that Ex is safer than alcohol, and you think you can persuade insurance companies to cover that risk for a couple hundred bucks a year?

Not gonna happen. I think you're gonna have to stay sober under the Madurobob legislation.

LOL no I dont have a head for business or know much at all about insurance. I am in no position to argue so ill have to take your word for it. I havn't looked to investigations that specifically try to weigh the pros and cons of MDMA vs Alcohol. Ill have a look. Im doubtful that such an investigation will exist as I am wondering who would fund such research. The government funded research is often biased as has been demonstrated. Ill have a look but I am not optimistic. If I find something which appears to be well conducted and infact does demonstrate that MDMA is far worse physically and socially than alcohol I will bow my head and admit I am mistaken. Non of you have shown me anything to show that this is the case though either.

[madurobob]

The government funded research is often biased as has been demonstrated. Ill have a look but I am not optimistic. If I find something which appears to be well conducted and infact does demonstrate that MDMA is far worse physically and socially than alcohol I will bow my head and admit I am mistaken.
Your fist sentence above appears to contradict the third. Sounds like you simply would claim it was biased.

[madurobob]

The problem here, Space_Ed, is that you've come here to tell us that "Ecstacy is a superior and safer party drug than alcohol" but you've offered nothing in the way of quality evidence to support this assertion. I'm relatively new here, but my experience has been that the folks on this forum expect you to be able to back up your claims with evidence. Otherwise there is not much to discuss - its just opinion.

[JoeEllison]

I swear I am trying to be as reasonable as possible. My uncle is a London based highcourt judge and he thinks it should be legal and he has never taken it, hes about 50 years old. Lots of non-users and users agree with that it should be legal. I am trying to be honest I would consider myself a very honest person.

Why don't you drop the legalization aspect, and go back to your claim that Ecstacy is safer and superior to alcohol? Those are two separate issue, but it seems like you are hopping from one to the other as though they are interchangeable, along with your claim about the evil anti-drug conspiracy.

Go back to the beginning, and support your original claim.

[Space_Ed]

OK I have found an article which quotes involved members of the ecstasy/alcohol issue:

http://www.obsolete.com/ecstasy/jim.html

Here are a few relevant quotes. (I think theyll get removed so read the article) The article agrees with what I have been saying.

Recreational Drug Wars: Alcohol Versus Ecstasy

The Portman Group's publicly stated aim is "to promote sensible drinking" However, according to Professor Nick Heather, Director of the Newcastle Centre for Alcohol and Drug Studies, the Group's real agenda is rather different: "The attempt to distance alcohol as a drug from other kinds of drug and to give it a good face is the main activity of groups like the Portman Group."

Professor Edwards also reports being offered a charitable donation from the Portman Group pending his agreement not to use the phrase "alcohol and other drugs" in future reports.

Perhaps more damning, given the current sociopolitical preoccupation with law and order, is the British Medical Association's (BMA) report on alcohol and crime published once again in the late eighties. This report highlighted alcohol's association with 60-70 per cent of homicides, 75 per cent of stabbings and 50 per cent of domestic assaults.

According to an ex-rave music plugger at Virgin records: "There are so many stories about ecstasy that lie below the surface. Big rave events that I was involved with in the past had a very low police presence compared to the big rock festivals I've been involved with where there's alcohol. They knew people were going to be loved up and not violent."

The deluge of anti-ecstasy commentary following Leah's death in 1995 pumped wild and alarming conclusions into the public's perception of E. In fact it was Leah's fourth ecstasy tablet, not her first, and on the night of her death she had also been drinking alcohol.16 As the nearest person the UK has to an expert on ecstasy, Dr. John Henry, scientific advisor to the National Poisons Unit, was interviewed by just about every national newspaper. His quotes were used as 'authoritative scientific' back up for emphatic media tirades against ecstasy. However, according to Dr. Henry: "There was an over reaction to her death. An awful lot was made of it that I don't think was very scientific at all because the press were jumping on every word. I had things served up to me by journalists. It makes serious discussion very difficult."17

When the inquest into Leah's death confirmed she had died from drinking too much water, journalists took less notice. Asked what Leah's death teaches us scientifically, Dr. Henry is less dismissive of the truth: "It teaches us that if you take a lot of fluid suddenly when you've got no reason to do so, it's dangerous." As the vast majority of ecstasy related deaths have thus far been associated with dehydration, a common myth had circulated that water was an antidote to the chemical effects of ecstasy.

Drug education experts argue that Leah's death was likely to have resulted from misinformation and that misinformation is the greatest danger.

[JoeEllison]

You might want to snip some of that...

And, really, it is a decade old and doesn't do what you want it to do.

[Space_Ed]

Thankyou for talking to me with civility

[Space_Ed]

No I don't want to snip the stuff that seems to counter my opinion. I am trying to be as fair as possible.

[JoeEllison]

No I don't want to snip the stuff that seems to counter my opinion. I am trying to be as fair as possible.

I meant as far as copyright violation is concerned.

[Space_Ed]

I meant as far as copyright violation is concerned.

Oh lol ok im going to edit it and just leave in the link. Thankyou for talking to me like a human being.

[madurobob]

OK I have found an article which quotes involved members of the ecstasy/alcohol issue:

http://www.obsolete.com/ecstasy/jim.html

Interesting article. I think you are right that you copied too much and it may be modded - its a close call. But, the link is what matters.

Still, all it boils down to is:

The alcohol industry has a pretty powerful marketing arm
The media treats alcohol and Ex differently


Both are pretty obvious. Alcohol is big business and wherever there is a lot of money to be made expect competition to be fierce. Since alcohol is ancient and legal and Ex is new and illegal, it is expected that the media will treat them differently.

Nothing here serves as evidence supporting the title of this thread.

[Space_Ed]

Snipped it a bit.

[Space_Ed]

Nothing here serves as evidence supporting the title of this thread.

I agree with this.

I do think it helps solve some of the other issues surrounding this discussion such as that you cant trust antidrug propaganda and that alcohol does infact have severe antisocial affects: see the statistics on murder etc whereas ecstasy does not (see quote relating to police presence at raves and at rock festivals).

I am still looking for other papers.

[Space_Ed]

I also think it backs up my prediction that ecstasy legalisation would reduce violent crime as the article clearly demonstrates that ecstasy consumption reduces alcohol consumption and that alcohol comsumption is related to more than 50% of violent crime.

[madurobob]

I also think it backs up my prediction that ecstasy legalisation would reduce violent crime as the article clearly demonstrates that ecstasy consumption reduces alcohol consumption and that alcohol comsumption is related to more than 50% of violent crime.
Nope. Correlation <> causation.

ETA: I've been to many wine tasting events where there was LOTS of alcohol and no cops at all. Perhaps its not the alcohol at the rock concerts that is the cause of violence.

[Space_Ed]

In effect this is evidence that ecstasy is a 'safer' drug in at least this respect. There can be no evidence that ecstasy is a 'superior' party drug as this is just due to personal experience of its subjective effects.

[Space_Ed]

Nope. Correlation <> causation.

Im sorry I don't know what you mean.

[madurobob]

I'll bet a lot of those violent crimes had at least one smoker involved. Do you suspect cigarettes cause violent crime, too?

[Space_Ed]

Nope. Correlation <> causation.

ETA: I've been to many wine tasting events where there was LOTS of alcohol and no cops at all. Perhaps its not the alcohol at the rock concerts that is the cause of violence.

Erm dont you spit the wine out at wine tasting events? I dont need to spell out the differences in social settings and types of people that go to them. People dont go to wine tasting to get drunk do they? People do go out to clubs etc to get drunk.

[madurobob]

Im sorry I don't know what you mean.
I mean that saying alcohol was "related" and alcohol was the "cause" are two very different things. If I am in an accident in my car - I get rear-ended - if I have an open beer in the car this accident immediately becomes "alcohol related". Even though the beer in my car was not a cause

[madurobob]

People dont go to wine tasting to get drunk do they?
I must be doing it wrong ;)

[Space_Ed]

I'll bet a lot of those violent crimes had at least one smoker involved. Do you suspect cigarettes cause violent crime, too?


I think it meant they were actually drunk. Why did you ask that? You know I dont. I don't see how that helps things.

[Space_Ed]

I mean that saying alcohol was "related" and alcohol was the "cause" are two very different things. If I am in an accident in my car - I get rear-ended - if I have an open beer in the car this accident immediately becomes "alcohol related". Even though the beer in my car was not a cause

Okay but you are being picky you know what it means and the truth behind those statistics. Don't you?

[madurobob]

Okay but you are being picky you know what it means and the truth behind those statistics. Don't you?
No, not picky at all. Just because there is a high correlation between violent crimes and alcohol by no way means that alcohol was a factor in causing those crimes. We may both have a gut feeling that alcohol had something to do with at least some of them, but we don't know.

There is a high correlation between ecstasy and raves, but I don't think it would be correct to say ecstasy causes raves.

My point earlier about the widespread and long term use of alcohol is important to factor in here. If ecstasy were so widely used I am sure we would see a high correlation between it and violent crimes also. Not because it causes violent behavior, but because there is a lot of overlap between people who are prone to violence and people who are prone to use recreation drugs (including alcohol).

Now don't try to tell me that ecstasy makes everyone mellow and happy. I've been to many raves and I've seen many amped up kids and several fights. I doubt ecstasy did anything to cause the fights, but it sure didn't prevent them.

[Space_Ed]

Here is a good article:

http://psy.swansea.ac.uk/staff/parrott/Parrott2007alcoholecstasyJoP.pdf

I printed it off and read it. Read it yourself. I am going to go with the conclusions of this article, noting the references used. Case closed ;)

[Space_Ed]

The writer of the article is clearly much better versed in MDMA's effects than I am. It seems like it is just as bad as alcohol (except for violence issues with booze as post ecstasy violence is no where as bad) and not a good idea to legalise. So the question remains: what do you do?

[Space_Ed]

The current policy is still very damaging and expensive. I don't think the current system should stay as it is. So what should be done?

[patrick767]

Erm dont you spit the wine out at wine tasting events?

Wha-a-a? They're doing it wrong! :p There are probably a handful of hardcore tasters who do that sometimes as they're sampling a huge number of wines as part of their job. Most casual attenders of a wine tasting sure as hell aren't going to spit it out unless they really hate it. I do beer tastings myself and believe me, many of us are feeling pretty good after awhile. Tastings don't have problems with violence though. Violence depends on the type of event and the crowd that that attracts. Alcohol simply lowers inhibitions. So people with violent tendencies who might normally keep those tendencies under control are more likely to act on them.

Anyway... back to the topic... I haven't looked up research on E in a few years, but from what I remember the biggest problem is that there simply isn't enough research on it, especially in the US. Ecstasy is so tightly controlled that it's very hard to get for use in studies here.

The biggest concern of long term use is the effect on serotonin production and/or absorption. From what I remember reading the jury was still out on whether it could cause permanent changes to the brain chemistry. If that's the case, the heavy user who stops may never fully recover from the effects the drug had on his/her brain.

Sidenote: I looked up HTP-5 as a method of raising serotonin levels (and hence treating depression) and the evidence for it is generally positive according to one site I found, but disappointingly thin. The relevant drug trials were all very small with less than 100 participants each.

[Miss Anthrope]

*shakes head*

I am definitely for decrim. on many, but not all drugs. I just really don't see much in the thread that makes a convincing argument for it, which is unusual.

I've never done E in my life, and it's not just because you can't know, due to no regulation, what you're getting in that pill. It's also because of the conflicting medical information out there. It's just not worth it to me. I have safer ways of feeling that way.

I think an important issue is that of moderation. It's probable that very infrequent, moderated use is benign. But, with this drug, I don't see a lot of moderation. The only moderate users I know are well over 40 and try it maybe once every three years. Other than that, I see use every single weekend. It's anecdotal, but it troubles me. The people who are doing coke so they can go to work the next day...........sheesh. People in their 20's taking some serious heart and brain risks--and they are definitely getting dumber.

[Space_Ed]

"I am going to go with the conclusions of this article, noting the references used. Case closed"

I said this because I couldn't be bothered with this thread any more. It's giving me a headache because I can't work it out :( I feel based on my reasoning that it might as well be legal and I don't think it is as bad as alcohol because of alcohol's social effects and its addictiveness. I am going to sit out for a bit and gather my thoughts. Everyone else keep chatting ill be watching. :)

[Space_Ed]

Also being insulted and bullied doesn't help

[Skepticybe]

A few comments.
First, I want to point out that most information used to scare people off of drugs goes through the same scientific rigors as dowsing or homeopathy. They (yes the mysterious "they") believe that drugs are immeasurably harmful so it is impossible to be misleading by exaggerating risks. A good example is when the head of the DEA took to the airwaves earlier this year on his "Pot 2.0" campaign, talking about how marijuana is so much more addictive and dangerous now. This is an outright lie; there is no real scientific disagreement that pot is not addictive and the greatest risk comes from smoking -- more potent pot means less smoke for the same dose, fewer health risks.

I'm furious about this because I have two teenage boys, and these kinds of statements from a government official put my children at risk. Now I have to explain to them that yes the government lies about marijuana, but you should still take the warnings about ______ seriously. Any of you who were once teenagers will know that a teenager doesn't need much to rationalize why it's not such a bad thing just to try ______, especially once you know they lied about marijuana. And believe me, they already know.

-----

Most people don't appreciate the role drugs play in our life. Most of our existence is spent seeking the effects of various drugs. It's amusing and sad to read through the list of controlled substances and see how many of these are produced naturally in our bodies. Yet they are illegal to manufacture or possess.

Sex, exercise, eating a dozen donuts, reading a book to a child, all are drug-seeking activities. And some of them, for some people, are more harmful than direct consumption of various drugs. Sugar is the #1 drug of choice in America, and probably the most damaging too.

I'll even go out on a limb to accuse Joe Ellison of chronic drug abuse, as evidenced by his choice to picture drug manufacturing equipment as his avatar. While a motorcycle does have a legitimate transportational use, more often than not it is used to deliver a dose of adrenaline, endorphins, and other drugs to the abuser, who eventually becomes so addicted that they will even risk life and limb to get it.

Ban motorcycles! And donuts! And testosterone and estrogen! I better stop there before I get Ralph Nader too excited.

-----

I like the effort to treat drugs based on the risks and costs to the individual and society. More dangerous drugs should be dealt with more harshly, while more benign drugs should be the easiest to get and use. Even though the lists seem to get things very wrong, it's a great step in the right direction to use science and objective standards to evaluate each substance.

-----

Finally I want to point out that part of what makes us human is our unwillingness to accept our limitations, and our propensity to surpass those limitations. But for some reason, society has instilled a superstition that it should automatically be considered "wrong" to use chemicals to increase the amount of pleasure we get from life, or to temporarily view the world from a different perspective.

Some drugs have costs and risks, some have benefits. Most have some of both. Why should humans be automatically denied the potential benefits just because a chemical can change (temporarily) the way one's brain operates?

Think about it. The desired effects of any given illegal drug would be praised and admired if acheived through any other means (such as meditation or exercise), yet somehow the same result is morally wrong because it was achieved chemically? Guess what... ALL OF THEM ARE ACHIEVED CHEMICALLY!

The anti-drug movement is nothing more than a simple extension of society's residual puritanical beliefs that what makes you feel good must be really bad, and it's society's job to prevent people from getting too much unsanctioned enjoyment from life.

[Space_Ed]

I think the above comment is brilliant and I couldn't have argued it better myself. Skepticybe is completely right about all pleasure being derived from chemicals. When you have sex dopamine is released, what else releases this? Cocaine, ecstasy and many other drugs. When you're in love the emotionally related neurotransmitter serotonin is being stimulated, what releases is this in vast and wonderful quantities? Ecstasy.

I have been asked to get further and stronger proof of why I believe that 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine is a safer and superior recreational narcotic than ethanol. Here you go:

Bio of David Nutt psychopharmacologist of Bristol University- http://www.bris.ac.uk/neuroscience/the_node/research/groups/pidetails/80

Article called A Tale Of Two Es by David Nutt-
http://www.sharemation.com/Rubin/E/Tale-of-two-Es.html

Pay attention to the table at the bottom.

Here is an article countering this report by his collegue A. C. Parrott (also featured above). This article casts shadow on some of the specifics but does not undermine the overall truth of the original article-
http://psy.swansea.ac.uk/staff/parro...ecstasyJoP.pdf

Specifically the shadows cast are that:
- By day 4 after taking MDMA the user is more likely to behave violently. But as this is not reported commonly and if you look at the way they conducted this investigation you see that this is only a slight tendancy towards irritability rather than a serious likelyhood of assault.
- MDMA does have detrimental effects on ones ability to drive a car. Does that surprise anyone?
- MDMA could induce serious liver and heart problems e.g. valvular heart disease as is noted in cocaine users. However if you look at the method and rate of ecstasy consumption when compared to alcohol and cocaine users it is extremely unlikely that serious long term health problems will develop. I am sure that it is a bad idea for anyone with a heart condition to take ecstasy.
- Depression caused by serotonin depletion and serotenergic neurotoxicity is implied in animals but not in humans. However, I still feel that these are problems that arise in humans but as stated before I and many other MDMA users get around this problem by taking 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) capsules which can be bought at any half-way decent health food shop.

[Space_Ed]

According to A. C. Parrott's article 3-4% of all the UKs population have taken MDMA. So if you go on the assumptions that if MDMA was legalised everyone would take it and that all the UKs population drink alcohol then the following calculation will be biased towards a higher proportion of deaths by MDMA compared to ethanol.

According to D Nutt's article 22,000 people die prematurely per year in the UK because of the negative effects of alcohol. According to the same article 10 people die per year prematurely because of the effects of ecstasy. Now going on those assumptions which will lead to bias towards a higher proportion of ecstasy users dying, I set to work out how many people would die per year if ecstasy was legalised.

10 = 3.5%

So how many times does 3.5 go into 100?

100/3.5 = 28.5714

So, to turn 10 which is 3.5% into 100%.....

10 x 28.5714 = 285.7 deaths per year from ecstasy

Compared to 22,000 by alcohol, "from heart, liver and cancer deaths plus accidents and suicide, but a sizeable number - of the order of one a day - die from being poisoned by excessive intake."

As we have seen, ecstasy is not physically or psychologically addictive to all intents and purposes and so many of the long term effects which are featured in A. C. Parrott's article would never arise unlike the equivalent problems which occur for the 10% of ethanol drinkers who are addicted to it.

I am not sure if this calculation can be considered proof that MDMA is safer than alcohol but at the least it is a strong implication.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Idiots spread misinformation about drugs to justify or rationalize their use. And, for some reason, those idiots think that the fact that some of the anti-drug rhetoric is dishonest means that it is acceptable to counter it with dishonest rhetoric of their own. And, then, because people feel that they have been lied to, they accept the lies that go in the other direction.

Yes, there are mendacious idiots on both sides of the debate.

That means pro-legalisation people can't just dismiss all studies as biased, but it also means that anti-legalisation people can't just dismiss all dissenting opinions as self-justifying noises made by idiot druggies. Nor can they present popular sentiments or government policies as the default truth and demand that everybody else shoulder the burden of proof.

[Space_Ed]

Who is up for throwing these bunnies in jail? :idea:

<------------

[madurobob]

Who is up for throwing these bunnies in jail? :idea:

<------------
If by "jail" you mean a large steaming pot with broth, root vegetables and spices... I'm all for it!

[madurobob]

I like the effort to treat drugs based on the risks and costs to the individual and society. More dangerous drugs should be dealt with more harshly, while more benign drugs should be the easiest to get and use. Even though the lists seem to get things very wrong, it's a great step in the right direction to use science and objective standards to evaluate each substance.
Exactly what I suggested. Make all currently illicit drugs legal, but make all users have insurance to cover health risks to themselves and liability to others. Just like we do with driving a car. The insurance actuaries, and natural market competition, will quickly sort out the comparative risks taking into account addictive and "gateway drug" characteristics as well as direct health effects.

[Space_Ed]

Is that sufficient evidence for you then?

[madurobob]

According to D Nutt's article 22,000 people die prematurely per year in the UK because of the negative effects of alcohol. According to the same article 10 people die per year prematurely because of the effects of ecstasy. Now going on those assumptions which will lead to bias towards a higher proportion of ecstasy users dying, I set to work out how many people would die per year if ecstasy was legalised.

I'm not sure your math work out since its probably not fair to assume Ex would become as widespread as alcohol very quickly - if ever.

But, one piece of the equation you've left out of your posts so far is the evidence for beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption.

A general overview (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol.html)

While the beneficial effects of alcohol are debatable, I've not been able to find any study showing beneficial effects of ecstasy. We may be able to chalk this up in part to the paucity of overall ecstasy research compared to alcohol research. But... maybe not.

There is quite a bit of negative data on Ecstasy. Here is just a sample:


MDMA Neurotoxicuty (abstracts of several studies) (http://www.neurotransmitter.net/mdmatoxicity.html)

MDMA may be deadly when combined with anti-retrovirals (AIDS medicines) (http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/46/1/79)
Ecstasy and long term cognitive impairment and seizure susceptibility (http://www.behaviouralpharm.com/pt/re/bpharm/abstract.00008877-200709000-00014.htm;jsessionid=G9GZ2M0Sb2ZN67YJRRzRGFr4QdgGc sfYNNPgGNrCc5yqq9XgHnGc!1094600911!181195628!8091!-1)

[Miss Anthrope]

Yes, there are mendacious idiots on both sides of the debate.

That means pro-legalisation people can't just dismiss all studies as biased, but it also means that anti-legalisation people can't just dismiss all dissenting opinions as self-justifying noises made by idiot druggies. Nor can they present popular sentiments or government policies as the default truth and demand that everybody else shoulder the burden of proof.

RAMEN!

[Space_Ed]

I'm not sure your math work out since its probably not fair to assume Ex would become as widespread as alcohol very quickly - if ever.

:mad:

I specifically demonstrated this in the introduction to the equation! I have also already said a few times I dont think legalisation would make that many new users. The equation is over simplified in a way that encourages an over estimation of the likely deaths by ecstasy and it is still SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the current statistics for deaths from alcohol. How was this not clear?

[Space_Ed]

"So if you go on the assumptions that if MDMA was legalised everyone would take it and that all the UKs population drink alcohol then the following calculation will be biased towards a higher proportion of deaths by MDMA compared to ethanol."

How is this not exactly what you just said?

[Space_Ed]

Yeah I know the math doesnt work out! A more fair estimation would be an even lower amount of ecstasy related deaths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Space_Ed]

I allowed the bias as it makes much less room for underestimation and yet the amount of calculated deaths is still extremely minimal compared to alcohol.

[Space_Ed]

I am not here to talk about the benefits of alcohol consumption.

[Space_Ed]

Why are you the one showing me the negative data about ecstasy when Ive been looking at it for years and been trail arsing around the web trying to find more information specifically for you already?

I think ive read two of those articles before.... but ill have a look at the anti-retrovirals one.

[Space_Ed]

I will look for a good article on empathy treatment with MDMA but I came here originally to post my views on the hyposcrisy of the alcohol/ecstasy problem. I feel I have proved my point well enough for anyone who reads it to be able to trust it's conclusions. Now I really dont have much else to say and can't be bothered to be picked at by you and that Joe ***** any more.

[Miss Anthrope]

Space Ed, please use the quote button for clarity. It would be helpful to everyone if we knew who and what you were responding to.

[Skepticybe]

Exactly what I suggested. Make all currently illicit drugs legal, but make all users have insurance to cover health risks to themselves and liability to others. Just like we do with driving a car. The insurance actuaries, and natural market competition, will quickly sort out the comparative risks taking into account addictive and "gateway drug" characteristics as well as direct health effects.
The problem I see there is that I don't like the idea of government having that level of involvement in my life, requiring insurance for every possible activity that could be dangerous in some way. And threatening severe draconian penalties if you're found out of compliance.

Hell, it's not much of a stretch at all to extend this insurance requirement to EVERYTHING. No watching TV without "couch potato" insurance. No Krispy Kremes for you unless you have a $25,000 SR-22 lardass policy. And no milk products if that policy doesn't include a "lactose tolerance" clause. Talk about the ultimate nanny state!

-----

Regarding the original question (MDMA vs Alcohol), I've never tried MDMA, but I have to agree with Space-Ed's assertion. Alcohol and tobacco are the most widely used drugs, and the risks of these drugs are well-known and documented. As a society, we have set the standard that the health and addiction and safety risks posed by alcohol warrant the current restrictions/regulations, and these standards should be the framework for how other drugs should be evaluated.

Yet here we have MDMA, which when measured vs. alcohol, is safer by leaps and bounds. In fact, I'm not aware of any objective measurement where any aspect of MDMA even approaches the destructive capacity of alcohol. Unless MDMA can be objectively shown to be more dangerous than alcohol, and that the net harm to society is reduced through enforcement of the MDMA ban, we are harmed by laws that make MDMA less legal than alcohol.

Given that MDMA prohibition eliminates (legally speaking) a safer alternative to alcohol, what is the result of said prohibition?
- Loss of individual liberty
- Potential loss of benefits/enjoyment of MDMA
- Prohibition is very, very costly
- Prohibition funnels large amounts of money to very bad people
- Increasing use of a more dangerous substance (alcohol)
- By illegitimizing MDMA, the government loses its ability to regulate how it is used
- By illegitimizing MDMA, the government loses its ability to encourage more responsible behavior by users of the drug
- By illegitimizing MDMA, the government loses its ability to control the quality of the product, exposing users to a greatly increased risk of tainted or incorrectly dosed drugs
- Prohibition turns otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, sometimes destroying lives, and fostering disrespect for laws and law enforcement officers
- Prohibition provides bureaucrats with lots and lots of make-work, which is the real reason it survives. Many people's jobs depend on prohibition; their job survival depends on their ability to give all drug-related data an anti-drug spin.

It's important to point out that after all these years, prohibition still hasn't even dented the supply or demand. Pot is easier to find than coffee in my son's high school. And this is in a very quiet, sheltered town.

In the end, the biggest issue isn't whether the drugs "aren't that bad" (even though that's been the focus of most of the discussion here), it's that society is harmed more by the government's enforcement of prohibition. When it comes to drugs, the cure has been demonstrably much worse than the disease.

[madurobob]

I am not here to talk about the benefits of alcohol consumption.
Actually, you are. This is implied by the name of this thread.

As to my statement on the calculation - I am agreeing with you. The calculation errs on the side of significantly overstating deaths from ecstasy based on our mutual assumption that ecstasy will never reach the level of use of alcohol.

[Q-Source]

Society is so blind to so many over-the counter drugs. Consumption of E is nothing compared to drug abuse of Robitussin, phenadrine (antihistamine), Dextrometamorphane, Aid sleep tablets, etc. which you can buy in any major supermarket. That world was alien to me until I found a website where teenagers and adults share experiences about how to abuse those drugs.
E is so overrated as a dangerous drug. In no way, it is so massively sold as the real dangerous drugs such as the ones I listed, alcohol and cigarrettes.

[madurobob]

Hell, it's not much of a stretch at all to extend this insurance requirement to EVERYTHING. No watching TV without "couch potato" insurance. No Krispy Kremes for you unless you have a $25,000 SR-22 lardass policy. And no milk products if that policy doesn't include a "lactose tolerance" clause. Talk about the ultimate nanny state!
Gee, you could make the same argument about car insurance. Whats wrong with attempting to protect society from the foolish behavior of recreational drug users? There is nothing "nanny state" about that. "Nanny state" suggests the government overzealously trying to protect you from harming yourself. I say you should be allowed you do do whatever harm to yourself you wish, but society should be protected from harm in the process. Do you disagree? Do you think society should have to foot the bill? why?

My suggestion was more of a vehicle to focus discussion on what the real impact to society is and how to mitigate that impact, but in retrospect it made some sense. I submit that you'll never get any of these drugs legalized without something similar because none of these will ever have the broad popular appeal of alcohol. And face it, broad popular appeal is the only reason alcohol prohibition was lifted in the US. My insurance scenario was extreme and the same thing could be accomplished through a prescription scenario. But you better believe access would be more restricted than today because of the potential for lawsuits against any doctor prescribing and any pharmacist dispensing them.

Regarding the original question (MDMA vs Alcohol), I've never tried MDMA, but I have to agree with Space-Ed's assertion. Alcohol and tobacco are the most widely used drugs, and the risks of these drugs are well-known and documented. As a society, we have set the standard that the health and addiction and safety risks posed by alcohol warrant the current restrictions/regulations, and these standards should be the framework for how other drugs should be evaluated.[/?QUOTE]
Since alcohol and tobacco have been in use for such a long time we have a very clear idea of the effects. Our health systems are prepared to deal with the problems and our insurance system takes into account the toll of the use of these (as I said, I have to identify my smoking and drinking habits on both my life and health insurance forms). You cannot make a similar argument for ecstasy and any negative health effects of ecstasy are a net incremental impact on the health system in general. Who would you have pay for that impact?

[QUOTE]Yet here we have MDMA, which when measured vs. alcohol, is safer by leaps and bounds.
Um, thats what we're discussing and I don't think its been established. You may be right, but the problem is there is simply very little data on ecstasy and reams and reams of data on alcohol since it has been around and tested for so long. Some data on alcohol actually suggest positive benefits; I've seen nothing about positive benefits of ecstasy (tho, obviously, see above sentence). So, at what point do you think its OK to simply allow unfettered sales of a drug? What research should be done before allowing ecstasy to be sold? None?

I'll bet you, like most on this forum, get upset at the availability of homeopathic "drugs" because of the harm they can do by diverting people from real medicines that will cure their ailments. How do you compare this harm to the real and known harm that ecstasy does (see some of the studies linked in this thread)? Is homeopathy more dangerous or less? How would you have us legalize ecstasy?

[Skepticybe]

Gee, you could make the same argument about car insurance. Whats wrong with attempting to protect society from the foolish behavior of recreational drug users? There is nothing "nanny state" about that. "Nanny state" suggests the government overzealously trying to protect you from harming yourself. I say you should be allowed you do do whatever harm to yourself you wish, but society should be protected from harm in the process. Do you disagree? Do you think society should have to foot the bill? why?
I think the car insurance provides a good template. Car insurance is required only for vehicles that use the public roads, and it is only required to cover the damage you might do to others, not the damage you'll do to yourself. (This has changed somewhat in recent years with no-fault medical, and IMO, this has hurt us all.) Also, car insurance is only required to cover typical damage, not all conceivable damage. Such a policy on MDMA might be on the order of adding a $0.25 insurance surcharge per pill, which I don't think anyone would complain about paying.

I submit that you'll never get any of these drugs legalized without something similar because none of these will ever have the broad popular appeal of alcohol.
I disagree; pot is arguably there already in some communities, and society as a whole is moving toward regarding pot in the same light as (or more favorably than) alcohol. Alcohol and tobacco are among the most dangerous and harmful of drugs, we're just entering the first generation that is able to understand and recognize this (thank you Internet!) and I think we're going to see things change rather quickly.

Since alcohol and tobacco have been in use for such a long time we have a very clear idea of the effects. Our health systems are prepared to deal with the problems and our insurance system takes into account the toll of the use of these (as I said, I have to identify my smoking and drinking habits on both my life and health insurance forms). You cannot make a similar argument for ecstasy and any negative health effects of ecstasy are a net incremental impact on the health system in general. Who would you have pay for that impact?
This is really an argument for an objective approach, rather than today's emotion and superstition based approach. We know enough about many drugs, such as pot, MDMA, mushrooms, LSD, and others, to be able to deal with them rationally. If I have to disclose my use on insurance forms, fine, as long as it isn't used as an excuse to fleece the policy-holder (rates should be based on actual expected risk, not superstition).

I would consider the health impacts of MDMA to be the responsibility of the user, however I think an equally good solution is to use some of the savings that would come from ending prohibition to help deal with any detrimental effects. I would also be open to a tax, so long as the proceeds are devoted to dealing with negative effects.

Many of the hypothetical costs of MDMA related to health care are because of our current non-paying consumer model (it's not even insurance!), but that's way OT.

Um, thats what we're discussing and I don't think its been established. You may be right, but the problem is there is simply very little data on ecstasy and reams and reams of data on alcohol since it has been around and tested for so long. Some data on alcohol actually suggest positive benefits; I've seen nothing about positive benefits of ecstasy (tho, obviously, see above sentence). So, at what point do you think its OK to simply allow unfettered sales of a drug? What research should be done before allowing ecstasy to be sold? None?
Again, what's important is the process used to determine how a drug should be controlled and treated. It should be based on our current state of knowledge and new important information about a drug should lead to re-evaluating how it is treated. This virtually never happens today. If a drug has no known medical use, it is schedule 1, regardless of its risk. If it has some known medical use, a slightly more objective criteria is loosely applied to determine which schedule it should be placed in. It is never considered acceptable for any drug to be used because one merely desires its effects. In other words, MDMA is illegal because officials are afraid people will enjoy it. WTF?

Drugs move from schedule 1 when extensive research clearly demonstrates a legitimate medical use. This happens when a drug company decides it can make money from it (because they invented it and hold the patent) or someone else foots the bill with no expectation of profit (comparatively rare). Even then, the DEA has the option of disregarding the research, as it does with cannabis.

Alcohol and tobacco should be treated exactly the same as all other drugs. If it is an unacceptable risk for someone to use a substance merely because they desire its effects, those same rules should apply equally to alcohol and tobacco.
I'll bet you, like most on this forum, get upset at the availability of homeopathic "drugs" because of the harm they can do by diverting people from real medicines that will cure their ailments. Is homeopathy more dangerous or less? How would you have us legalize ecstasy?
You bet wrong -- I don't want the government making any of my decisions for me. But I do want the government to step in and ensure that the makers and peddlers are not misleading in any way. Homeopathics should be subject to the same rules as other medicine and treatments. If someone wants to take something that doesn't work, everybody has the right to make wrong choices, but they should be informed that it doesn't work or is not known to work. Let them make the wrong choice fully informed, not because they've been deceived.

IMO Homeopathy is more harmful to society than unrestricted MDMA would be. However, a government ban on homeopathics would be just as harmful to society as the current ban on MDMA.

In the case of MDMA, I would start with alcohol as a model. Youthful use should still be prohibited and strongly enforced. We should set dosage and packaging requirements, so that all MDMA is of known strength and purity, and MDMA always comes with a drug information pamphlet that helps people understand and mitigate the risks. Based on the current scientific understanding of MDMA and its effects and risks, establish boundaries of what is permitted. This is how you address issues of public intoxication and DWI, etc. If necessary, add a MDMA tax (or insurance surcharge if you prefer) to deal with any problems caused by use of the drug.

Since your question lets me decide how it's done (King me!:)), I would also add a requirement that anyone desiring to use MDMA, marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, tobacco, etc. must first take a drug education class. The class would, in detail, cover the risks and effects of the drug, and the best practices to encourage responsible use. Nobody may purchase, use, or possess the drug unless they have passed the course for that drug.

[Gurdur]

Bluntly, it is ridiculous to accuse all those who advocate criminalization of certain drugs as killjoys. It is also ridiculous and narcisstic to pretend that all the problems of illegal drugs could somehow be magically erased by decriminalization, and by trying to shove all responsibility onto insurance companies.

We do not live in a world run on the wishes of a barely post-pubescent boy. Reality demands we judge each drug on its own merits.

Back in the 1880's in Britain you could easily get arsenic (addictive) and strychnine over the counter; you could also get opium easily, and various others. Society was not helped much at all by that.
_______

Having said that, I do miss the good old days.

[Gnu Ordure]

The (UK Goverment) Drugs league table - Drugs assessed in order of danger

1 Heroin
2 Cocaine
3 Barbiturates
4 Street methadone
5 Alcohol
6 Ketamine
7 Benzodiazepine
8 Amphetamines
9 Tobacco
10 Buprenorphine



This is tantamount to propaganda.

Heroin shouldn't be number one.

Heroin is by no means dangerous.

No, really, it isn't.

You mustn't take too much of course - just like water. Or paracetomol. Or Big Macs.

But heroin is an almost entirely benign drug, when administered correctly. The most common side-effects are nausea and constipation, which can be treated.

Doctors legitimately administer heroin for pain-relief to children, adults, and the aged, sometimes for years. It doesn't harm the body. Side-effects are addressed as they arise.

It's benign.

And if the time comes, this becomes obvious. A certain proportion of us die in pain. If we're lucky, there may be someone there to offer us heroin. Most of you would take the drug, right ? And you wouldn't care if you were breaking the law either.

Heroin has eased pain for thousands of years.




Obviously it's addictive. That needs to be addressed. (And it may create social problems). But it's not a health issue. A heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy.



And that list is ridiculous anyway, for including 'Street Methadone' as a category. That's not a drug. It's methadone mixed with other unspecified drugs. And if they're going to have a 'street' category for methadone, they should make a similar distinction for some of the others as well.

Proper gander.



Gnu.

[Gurdur]

This is tantamount to propaganda. .... Heroin is by no means dangerous. No, really, it isn't. You mustn't take too much of course - just like water. Or paracetomol. Or Big Macs.
It's definitely propaganda to try putting heroin on a par with water and Big Macs.
But heroin is an almost entirely benign drug, when administered correctly.
Which, of course, is not what happens with addicts. How surprising.

Obviously heroin is addictive. That needs to be addressed. (And it may create social problems). But it's not a health issue. A heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy.
You are contradicting yourself.

If you want to say make an argument for legalising heroin for addicts under tight controls and checking (such as a scheme the UK had up to the 1960's), fine, I can agree with that. But to pretend that it is not a health problem merely because it can be administered correctly is more than silly.

Alcohol can be administered correctly. It is also legal. Surprise, surprise, it is also often a health problem.


And that list is ridiculous anyway, for including 'Street Methadone' as a category. That's not a drug.
Bit of a meaningless quibble, that.

[Gnu Ordure]

Which, of course, is not what happens with addicts. How surprising.


What actually happens with addicts, Gurdur, has got nothing to do with the objective benignity/malignity of the substances involved, and everything to do with prevailing social attitudes.

Heroin is currently a dangerous drug only because addicts can't get a regular, accurate, safe fix. (The needles are dirty, the stuff is contaminated, and so on)

Because of the prevailing social attitudes (ie it's illegal).


... ... But to pretend that it is not a health problem merely because it can be administered correctly is more than silly.

I admit I'm silly sometimes.

Nevertheless, spell it out for me.

If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem ?

It may be a political problem, or an economic problem, of course...

... but how would it be a health problem ?

Either for the individual, or for society ?



Bit of a meaningless quibble, that.


Damn, you got me.

OK, I admit that sometimes, deep into the night, when there's no-one there, I have ... quibbled .... meaninglessly.

But hey, who hasn't ?

Are the mods going to do me for meaningless quibbling ?

Surely that would be quibbling ?

[Gurdur]

What actually happens with addicts, Gurdur, has got nothing to do with the objective benignity/malignity of the substances involved, and everything to do with prevailing social attitudes.
Rubbish. Any knowledge of cross-epochal, cross-cultural history of drug addiction would teach you that.
Heroin is currently a dangerous drug only because addicts can't get a regular, accurate, safe fix.
Again, rubbish. The experience on the methadone programs shows that again and again. Let me guess: you don't know much about this?
If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem ?
If my aunty had balls, she would be my uncle.

Which part of the alcohol abuse example did you fail to understand? Or why did you evade it?

Addicts will very often behave in self-destructive ways if at all possible. That is what is the main root of the problem.
... but how would it be a health problem ?
Either for the individual, or for society ?
Explain to us all why alcohol is so often a health problem despite your gleaming mottos here.

Are the mods going to do me for meaningless quibbling ?
I wouldn't know and I couldn't care. My only goal is to work out if you are at all being serious, or if you have anything worthwhile for me to hear. Your quibbles certainly don't seem to show that.

[madurobob]

Alcohol and tobacco are among the most dangerous and harmful of drugs, we're just entering the first generation that is able to understand and recognize this (thank you Internet!) and I think we're going to see things change rather quickly.
Wrong. Alcohol is dangerous when abused, but in small amounts it has been shown to be beneficial to cardiovascular function. Go up to Gnu's post about heroin and replace heroin with alcohol - same story. Ecstasy is dangerous when abused and there is significant concern that it is dangerous in even more casual use.

We know enough about many drugs, such as pot, MDMA, mushrooms, LSD, and others, to be able to deal with them rationally.
Really? Please explain what level of knowledge is "enough".

I would consider the health impacts of MDMA to be the responsibility of the user...
Me too. So when an ecstasy user overheats his brain at a rave and gets taken by ambulance to the hospital then spends 3 days in ICU - all while having no medical insurance - society pays. I pay. My solution when you claim that ecstasy is safe with no proof to back it up is to insist that you insure yourself against the negative effects. That protects society from having to foot the bill.

Again, what's important is the process used to determine how a drug should be controlled and treated. It should be based on our current state of knowledge and new important information about a drug should lead to re-evaluating how it is treated.
Wrong. Once a drug is legal it is very difficult to re-criminalize. So, it makes sense to err on the side of caution. We should have strict rules to prove a drugs safety before it is ever legalized.

In other words, MDMA is illegal because officials are afraid people will enjoy it. WTF?
Or maybe they are concerned about the overall impact on society and don't have any evidence it is benign while they do have growing evidence that it is dangerous.

Homeopathics should be subject to the same rules as other medicine and treatments.
Amen, brother. Medicine has to be approved by the FDA and tested for safety and effectiveness. Got that - it has to be proven safe. Homeopathic preparations are exempt from this reg. I will be happy to support decriminalizing ecstasy once it can be proven safe.

If someone wants to take something that doesn't work, everybody has the right to make wrong choices, but they should be informed that it doesn't work or is not known to work. Let them make the wrong choice fully informed, not because they've been deceived.
Exactly. And I think you deceive folks by claiming ecstasy is not dangerous and I have a problem with that. I want proof that it is safe, not opinion, not hearsay.

IMO Homeopathy is more harmful to society than unrestricted MDMA would be.
I don't know why I asked this question since its quite difficult to compare the dangers and it is ultimately subjective. Still, yikes.

Since your question lets me decide how it's done (King me!:)), I would also add a requirement that anyone desiring to use MDMA, marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, tobacco, etc. must first take a drug education class. The class would, in detail, cover the risks and effects of the drug, and the best practices to encourage responsible use. Nobody may purchase, use, or possess the drug unless they have passed the course for that drug.
:) Its good to be the king! Education is always a good idea.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's very silly to assume that alcohol will be used safely and sensibly whereas illegal drugs will be used irresponsibly.

The only sensible comparison is between the net harm caused by legalisation and education society-wide on one hand, and the net harm caused by criminalisation on the other hand. You have to take into account both the idiots and the sensible people, because both kinds of people will be ab/using whatever drugs exist, legal or otherwise.

[Wheezebucket]

E isn't my drug of choice, but it's nice on occasion. Same with LSD (and other psychedelics - more often than not it's shrooms or salvia). I drink now and then, mostly at shows/parties (same with coke and/or pills), and I do smoke weed and cigars regularly.

Don't worry so much about breaking the law, just don't be *too* stupid and try to break as few at once as possible. Be aware of the risks, know your dealer(s), and enjoy.

[Space_Ed]

Nobody may purchase, use, or possess the drug unless they have passed the course for that drug.

Another brilliant idea from skepticybe.

[Space_Ed]

We do not live in a world run on the wishes of a barely post-pubescent boy.

- Hahahaha that is hilarious!

[Space_Ed]

Heroin is by no means dangerous.

No really it is. I am not sure how you can say this when it flies in the face of all common sense.

[Space_Ed]

A certain proportion of us die in pain. If we're lucky, there may be someone there to offer us heroin. Most of you would take the drug, right ? And you wouldn't care if you were breaking the law either.

Or if we are like everyone else in the western world we are offered morphine which is a safer and more effective pain reliever than heroin. Morphine and heroin are both analogues of the same chemical derived from a chemical found in opium poppies. Heroin is devastatingly addictive. Some people say less so than tobacco (this could be more likely social impacts rather than effects on the body inducing physical dependancy). There are arguments for legalisation and for continuing its current ban. There are the idealistic arguments that it is an infringement on human rights getting rid of the choice of whether or not I should be allowed to harm my body etc. Histories message is a bad one. Perhaps better education (like skepticybe's idea) could get around this problem. Regardless demand would be low legal or not. Legalisation could divert millions of dollars away from the people of highly questionable ethics who reside in Afghanistan where much of the worlds heroin comes from.

"A heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy."- This again flies in the face of common sense. If you havn't already, watch Trainspotting. And if you have watched it how can you say that from watching that a heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy? From what I know of it and addicts I have talked to it has horrible side effects.

[Space_Ed]

And that list is ridiculous anyway, for including 'Street Methadone' as a category. That's not a drug.

I am sorry but this is totally factually incorrect.

[RandFan]

Yes, there are mendacious idiots on both sides of the debate.

That means pro-legalisation people can't just dismiss all studies as biased, but it also means that anti-legalisation people can't just dismiss all dissenting opinions as self-justifying noises made by idiot druggies. Nor can they present popular sentiments or government policies as the default truth and demand that everybody else shoulder the burden of proof.Good post.

[RandFan]

End the drug war.
Create a comprehensive and reasonable drug policy based on objective evidence that includes education and treatment.
Prohibitions of alcohol are not likely to work even if Ecstasy is a superior drug.My wish list.

[Lonewulf]

End the drug war.
Create a comprehensive and reasonable drug policy based on objective evidence that includes education and treatment.
Prohibitions of alcohol are not likely to work even if Ecstasy is a superior drug.My wish list.
^--- +1

[RandFan]

^--- +1 I'm assuming that's a good thing. :)

Please note the last point is not a wish. Just an opinion.

[Space_Ed]

What actually happens with addicts, Gurdur, has got nothing to do with the objective benignity/malignity of the substances involved, and everything to do with prevailing social attitudes.

Heroin is currently a dangerous drug only because addicts can't get a regular, accurate, safe fix. (The needles are dirty, the stuff is contaminated, and so on)

Because of the prevailing social attitudes (ie it's illegal).


If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem ?

It may be a political problem, or an economic problem, of course...

... but how would it be a health problem ?

Either for the individual, or for society ?

1- "The needles are dirty, the stuff is contaminated, and so on because of the prevailing social attitudes (ie it's illegal)." Do you know that in the UK pharmacys provide everything needed for a clean hit except the heroin itself? So this includes new needles etc.

2- "If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem?" Taking any drug, even a remedy, poses some form of health problem. Many of these problems are negligible but I certainly do not think that the health problems that arrise from taking heroin are negligible. I am not well versed in the specifics but depletion of body salts and malnutrtion resulting from loss of appetite are some examples.

3- "...but how would it be a health problem? Either for the individual, or for society?" Heroin use can often lead to death. This is a severe health problem. Overdose is easy. And as for society... many users do eventually lose their jobs and addicts are unable to contribute to society through work or helping social attitudes or safety. In through not working and being highly dependant on charity these people pose nothing but a risk to economic stability.

[Space_Ed]

What actually happens with addicts, Gurdur, has got nothing to do with the objective benignity/malignity of the substances involved, and everything to do with prevailing social attitudes.

Heroin is currently a dangerous drug only because addicts can't get a regular, accurate, safe fix. (The needles are dirty, the stuff is contaminated, and so on)

Because of the prevailing social attitudes (ie it's illegal).


If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem ?

It may be a political problem, or an economic problem, of course...

... but how would it be a health problem ?

Either for the individual, or for society ?

1- "Heroin is currently a dangerous drug only because addicts can't get a regular, accurate, safe fix. The needles are dirty, the stuff is contaminated, and so on because of the prevailing social attitudes (ie it's illegal)." Do you know that in the UK pharmacys provide everything needed for a clean hit except the heroin itself? So this includes new needles etc.

2- "If all the heroin addicts in the UK could simply be given their fix, accurately and safely, how would that be a health problem?" Taking any drug, even a remedy, poses some form of health problem. Many of these problems are negligible but I certainly do not think that the health problems that arrise from taking heroin are negligible. I am not well versed in the specifics but depletion of body salts and malnutrtion resulting from loss of appetite are some examples.

3- "...but how would it be a health problem? Either for the individual, or for society?" Heroin use can often lead to death. This is a severe health problem. Overdose is easy. And as for society... many users do eventually lose their jobs and addicts are unable to contribute to society through work or helping social attitudes or safety. In through not working and being highly dependant on charity these people pose nothing but a risk to economic stability.

[RandFan]

"It's like deja-vu, all over again". --Yogi Berra

#160 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3010523&postcount=160) #161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3010526&postcount=161)

[Space_Ed]

Rubbish. Any knowledge of cross-epochal, cross-cultural history of drug addiction would teach you that.

To me you seem like you are trying to supress his views by pulling intellectual rank on him by saying things like that. Why are people so rude to each other?

I can tell his heart is in the right place. He could be wrong but he isn't actively trying to harm anyone in his views.

[Space_Ed]

"It's like deja-vu, all over again". --Yogi Berra

#160 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3010523&postcount=160) #161 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3010526&postcount=161)

I somehow managed to repost an edit instead of posting it as an edit (see point 1).

[Space_Ed]

Addicts will very often behave in self-destructive ways if at all possible. That is what is the main root of the problem.

What the hell? There is strong evidence that liability to addiction is a genetic trait. If what you are saying is true then why don't cigarette addicts all cut their wrists too?

[RandFan]

I somehow managed to repost an edit instead of posting it as an edit (see point 1).:D Been there done that.

[Space_Ed]

I will be happy to support decriminalizing ecstasy once it can be proven safe. And I think you deceive folks by claiming ecstasy is not dangerous and I have a problem with that. I want proof that it is safe, not opinion, not hearsay.

We have seen it is a FACT that taking ecstasy ISN'T SAFE. The pros and cons of legalisation do not weigh solely on whether or not ecstasy can be proven safe. It will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be proven safe. Why? Because it isn't safe. I feel I have put foward strong evidence here that is its safER than alcohol and that legalisation would help decrease the problems surrounding the (arguably) more dangerous drug alcohol which also ISN'T SAFE but again it is NOT GOING TO BE CRIMINALISED based on whether or not alcohol can be proven safe because everyone here knows that alcohol is not 'safe' and that prohibition is also extremely harmful and costly.

[Space_Ed]

Definition of 'safe' for the above post:

An action is 'safe' if it poses no risk to personal health such as.... hmmm.... sleeping.

Cars pose a massive risk to health. As does rifle shooting, running, leaving the house, talking to someone, swimming......................... shall we ban these activities because they aren't completely safe?

[RandFan]

Definition of 'safe' for the above post:

An action is 'safe' if it poses no risk to personal health such as.... hmmm.... sleeping.

Cars pose a massive risk to health. As does rifle shooting, running, leaving the house, talking to someone, swimming......................... shall we ban these activities because they aren't completely safe? I absolutely agree with you. Let me take this opportunity to plug a great book.

The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid-Things/dp/0465014909).

Now for a completly useless stat that would at first glance seem to discredit the notion that sleeping is a safe action.

More people die in bed than anywhere else. It's true. Think about it. :)

[Space_Ed]

In the event of any further posts by skepticybe surrounding this issue you can assume that I will most likely give it the nod. I have not read one utterance of anything that I would consider stupidity, ignorance or lack of common sense in any of skepticybe's posts.

[Space_Ed]

Now for a completly useless stat that would at first glance seem to discredit the notion that sleeping is a safe action.

More people die in bed than anywhere else. It's true. Think about it. :)

I knew in writing that post that by my definition nothing available to human experience is safe but that was the best example of a 100% safe activity that I could come up with.

I like your list too btw I can't fault it.

[RandFan]

I knew in writing that post that by my definition nothing available to human experience is safe but that was the best example of a 100% safe activity that I could come up with. Yes, but to be intellectually honest it's not sleeping or the bed that kills most people who die in bed. Hospitals are filled with people in beds who die in them. Many if not most people who die of natural causes are in bed. However, people do die as a result of choosing to sleep. People are hit by lighting, meteors, run away cars and shot while sleeping in bed. In other-words, they would not have died had they chose to do something else.

It's a fun stat though. :)

I used to be for the current drug laws and the war on drugs. It's odd looking back on that time. My position was an emotional one. It just felt to me that things like drugs should be illegal. All of my arguments were really just post hoc reasoning. Attempting to justify my position after I had decided what my position was.

[Walrus32]

From the NEJM. Aug.9, 2001 article on leukoencepalopathy (emphasis added):

Several other illicit drugs have also been associated with leukoencephalopathy. In 1999, cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, or "ecstasy"), and heroin were used by an estimated 9.8 percent, 8.0 percent, and 2.0 percent, respectively, of high-school seniors in the United States. Asymptomatic cocaine-dependent subjects have significantly more white-matter lesions on MRI than control subjects, suggesting that those who abuse cocaine are at increased risk for vasospasm-induced ischemia and infarction of white matter. MDMA has been reported as a cause of toxic leukoencephalopathy, putatively related to serotonergic axonal injury and secondary myelin damage from oxidative stress. Intravenous heroin causes hypoxic–ischemic leukoencephalopathy, and the inhalation of "heroin" pyrolysate, which is generated by heating the drug on aluminum foil, produces evidence of toxic leukoencephalopathy on MRI that correlates with neuropathological evidence of spongiform changes in white matter and the degeneration of multivacuolar oligodendrocytes. The hallucinogen psilocybin has been tentatively linked with multifocal cerebral demyelination.

[karmicserenade]

I really would not say kudos to anyone pushing the usage of Ecstasy, it is a cocktail of sorts, and can harm you. I am not against pot per say, but anything that is full of random chemicals, well I would have to say ewwww. Number one, when you use ecstasy, you become kinda out of control, and promiscuous, which is not a good thing in this day and age, hello std's?? I just think it is wiser to err on the side of caution in this regard.

I personally would not want my daughters all hopped up on E...call me crazy.

[Walrus32]

You wouldn't want them to use cocaine during pregnancy, either. It's a known risk for placental abruption (premature seperation of the placenta). There are also reports of fetal strokes (cerebral infarcts) in mothers using cocaine.

[Matthew Best]

when you use ecstasy, you become kinda out of control, and promiscuous

Says who?

[Gurdur]

What the hell? There is strong evidence that liability to addiction is a genetic trait. If what you are saying is true then why don't cigarette addicts all cut their wrists too?
There is some evidence to show that certain addictions are genetically based, but so far nothing conclusive has been shown.

Nicotine addiction is a completely different category from opiates/alchohol addiction; the neurochemical pathways, effects and typical behaviour are completely different.

To me you seem like you are trying to supress his views by pulling intellectual rank on him by saying things like that.
No. Just pointing out the bias in his POV and the lack of necessary knowledge.

[Gurdur]

....More people die in bed than anywhere else.
Sheer laziness on their part, and they will be the first ones put up against the wall and shot when the Great Libertarian Revolution comes!

Unless of course they died in bed while .... *cough* *cough* dying with their boots on, dying in action so to speak. In which case kudos to them.

Although that death is far less common among males than you would think; most such cases actually die shortly after action, while sitting on the toilet afterwards.

Females only die in action when their partner does something stupid like blow air up them. It happens.

.....I personally would not want my daughters all hopped up on E...call me crazy.
Having a house full of daughters would be bad enough; having all the Bright Young Things hopped up to the gills on ecstasy or speed would be terrible. Can you imagine them all yada-yada-yada-ing all at once, all the time?

Number one, when you use ecstasy, you become kinda out of control, and promiscuous, which is not a good thing in this day and age, hello std's?? Says who?


Ecstasy does not actually cause promiscuity. However, it can function as a kind of placebo for a person to willfully disinhibt themselves. Just like alcohol though not as bad in that regard.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Or if we are like everyone else in the western world we are offered morphine which is a safer and more effective pain reliever than heroin. Morphine and heroin are both analogues of the same chemical derived from a chemical found in opium poppies. Heroin is devastatingly addictive. Some people say less so than tobacco (this could be more likely social impacts rather than effects on the body inducing physical dependancy).


It depends what angle you look at it from.

In both cases you have to be a regular user for some time to get addicted - at least a month for heroin, I forget how long for tobacco. Occasional use is not addictive, as long as you keep it occasional.

The physical effects of heroin withdrawal are nastier than the physical effects of nicotine withdrawal, but the odds of successfully getting off and staying off either are low.

In terms of physical impact on the body, tobacco is more dangerous than pure heroin.

Street addicts are not getting pure heroin, though. Typically they are not only getting impure heroin but they are also taking every other damn drug they can lay their hands on, and not having enough money left over afterwards for food, medicine, shelter and so forth. That's why their life expectancy is so terribly short.


"A heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy."- This again flies in the face of common sense. If you havn't already, watch Trainspotting. And if you have watched it how can you say that from watching that a heroin addict can maintain on a regular, accurate supply indefinitely, while staying healthy? From what I know of it and addicts I have talked to it has horrible side effects.

I think you really ought to question the basis of your beliefs, if the evidence you are citing is a movie rather than a scientific study. I strongly suspect that Trainspotting has the same relationship to the life of real addicts as cop movies have to the lives of real cops.

In any case, Trainspotting is at best a reflection of the life of a heroin addict under heroin criminalisation.

[Gnu Ordure]

No really it is. I am not sure how you can say this when it flies in the face of all common sense.

Hi Ed,

The problem is that common-sense is influenced by images of irregulated heroin use, where there are problems with unknown additives, unknown purity and dirty shared equipment - as well as the effect of government misinformation campaigns, and dramatizations like Trainspotting.

As you say, Ed, pure heroin/diamorphine is prescribed in the UK to children, adults and the elderly. All prescription drugs are tested for safety.

Therefore, heroin has been tested and approved for controlled use.

It is safe, or as safe as any other medication your doctor prescribes to you, when used correctly.


I just had a look at the wiki article on heroin; under "Risks of Non-Medical Use", it lists :

For intravenous users of heroin (and any other substance), the use of non-sterile needles and syringes and other related equipment leads to the risk of contracting blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and hepatitis, as well as the risk of contracting bacterial or fungal endocarditis and possibly venous sclerosis.

Poisoning from contaminants added to "cut" or dilute heroin

Chronic constipation

Addiction and constantly growing tolerance. Like all opiates and opioids, long term use can lead to physical addiction.

Decreased kidney function. (although it is not currently known if this is due to adulterants used in the cut)[18]


The first two don't apply to safely administered pure heroin.

We knew about the constipation and the addictiveness.

So that's it, harm-wise.

Just as I'm saying.






I found this in the same article, Ed (my bolding) :

In 1994 Switzerland began a trial program featuring a heroin prescription for users not well suited for withdrawal programs—e.g. those that had failed multiple withdrawal programs. The aim is maintaining the health of the user in order to avoid medical problems stemming from low-quality street heroin.


Addicts can maintain health, given a regular, accurate, safe supply. (Though not all do, of course.)



Gnu.

[Gurdur]

....In both cases you have to be a regular user for some time to get addicted - at least a month for heroin, I forget how long for tobacco. Occasional use is not addictive, as long as you keep it occasional.
Right and wrong.
You are correct to point out that heroin usage is by itself not so terribly harmful immediately. A heroin addict who takes real care can live for decades and decades while fueling his/her addiction.

However, most addicts are very prone to all sorts of self-destructive behaviour, and most are not exactly careful at all.

Most people who try heroin will not get addicted. The rule-of-thumb figure is that roughly 10% only of a population are at risk from opiate addiction; most of those 10% usually will never actually try opiates.

Occasional use (define? how about binge behaviour?) can still be quite addictive for anyone in that roughly 10%, or a youth in a vastly stressed and fragmented society with large substance abuse levels and violence.

In any case, Trainspotting is at best a reflection of the life of a heroin addict under heroin criminalisation.
I personally would not have used Trainspotting as an example at all. But you will find much of the same self-destructive behaviour among addicts where no such criminalization is present too. Trying to pin blame upon criminalization itself for all ills is very misguided.

[Skepticybe]

Wrong. Alcohol is dangerous when abused, but in small amounts it has been shown to be beneficial to cardiovascular function. Go up to Gnu's post about heroin and replace heroin with alcohol - same story. Ecstasy is dangerous when abused and there is significant concern that it is dangerous in even more casual use.
...
Really? Please explain what level of knowledge is "enough".
I think you're responding to what you expected me to say, not what I actually said. Easy to do.

I wasn't making the claim that ecstacy is safe. I was making the claim that we know enough about it, and its risks, to form intelligent policies that benefit the public. The current policies harm our society by every way you could measure it.

Me too. So when an ecstasy user overheats his brain at a rave and gets taken by ambulance to the hospital then spends 3 days in ICU - all while having no medical insurance - society pays. I pay. My solution when you claim that ecstasy is safe with no proof to back it up is to insist that you insure yourself against the negative effects. That protects society from having to foot the bill.
You're using a valid example, but I think it's an extreme one and relatively rare. Again, I don't claim that X is safe (such a definitive claim would be incredibly hard to justify, IMO), I claim that we know enough that our public policy should reflect the science rather than emotion.

I'm not sure if you're proposing insurance as a real solution, or to make a point. As a real solution, I don't see how such a system could work in practice, so much bureaucratic oversight would be required that I think it would turn out (roughly) like prohibition. If you're just making the point that the negative effects need to be taken seriously and addressed, and as much as possible people should be responsible for their own actions, I agree.

Wrong. Once a drug is legal it is very difficult to re-criminalize. So, it makes sense to err on the side of caution. We should have strict rules to prove a drugs safety before it is ever legalized.
Quite the opposite. Use cannabis as the example. The medical benefits of cannabis are widely accepted and demonstrated by the scientific community, yet it remains illegal, even for somone who is dying. Our government (in the US) even goes so far as to try to prevent new legitimate research from even being conducted in the first place. All this in the face of an enormous effort to try to legalize its use under a doctor's care. Even when a majority of US voters favor cannabis being legalized when medically necessary.

I'm only aware of one example of a recreational drug being decriminalized: alcohol. And that was a herculean effort.

Once criminal, it has proven a (nearly) insurmountable hurdle to decriminalize it, regardless of its risks. In fact, the only factor that seems to matter is how popular it is. Pot will be legal sooner than you probably think, but that will be due to its popularity, not the science.

Amen, brother. Medicine has to be approved by the FDA and tested for safety and effectiveness. Got that - it has to be proven safe. Homeopathic preparations are exempt from this reg. I will be happy to support decriminalizing ecstasy once it can be proven safe.
I think you're taking too polarized a view of this. Of the things we use to improve our quality and quantity of life, very few would ever fall in the "proven safe" category. Most fall somewhere along the spectrum between safe and dangerous.

The key here is the word medicine. Anything marketed as a treatment for a medical condition must be tested to determine its safety and efficacy. It doesn't have to be "proven safe" -- the idea is to use objective science to evaluate the medicine and determine the appropriate controls to mitigate the risks. Many approved drugs are far from safe, but should still be used when the benfits outweigh the risks.

I'm all for disclosure of whether something is effective, and if there are known risks, but if we required everything to be proven safe, our grocery stores would be empty. Homeopathic and other natural remedies shouldn't be banned by a nanny government -- as I said before people must be free to make wrong choices. Where the government should step in is to enforce proper disclosure of efficacy and risk, to the extent efficacy and risk is known, and to ensure that deception is not used in the marketing of alternative medicine.

Simply banning alternative medicine would have much the same effect that drug prohibition has had. It would fuel a large black market and take the entire industry out of the few controls that exist today. Not to mention the conspiracy nuts who would have a field day with it.
And I think you deceive folks by claiming ecstasy is not dangerous and I have a problem with that. I want proof that it is safe, not opinion, not hearsay.
I don't make that claim, and I don't think Space_Ed has either. He's claimed that it is safer than alcohol, and provided some rather convincing (IMO) information to back up that claim.

I've never even tried X. I don't want proof that it's completely safe. What I want is consistency, and policy based on science rather than emotion.

IMO Homeopathy is more harmful to society than unrestricted MDMA would be. I don't know why I asked this question since its quite difficult to compare the dangers and it is ultimately subjective. Still, yikes.
Sure MDMA is illegal, but that also makes it essentially uncontrolled. The only real difference is availablity, and today anyone who wants can easily get as much as they want. Most users (IMO again) are ignorant of its risks or how to mitigate them. But I would venture a guess that MDMA users know that they are taking a risk.

On the other hand, homeopathy and other non-working alternative medicine gets an exemption from the normal oversight of substances sold to treat medical conditions. These alternative treatments are marketed in part by villifying and impugning real medicine, cheating people out of their money and their health.

You're right -- it's subjective. But I see the current policy toward alternative medicine as enabling fraud and preying on the most vulnerable. At best, the buyer of a homeopathic remedy got cheated out of their money. That makes homeopathy the greater evil in my book.

[Gurdur]

........ The medical benefits of cannabis are widely accepted and demonstrated by the scientific community, yet it remains illegal, even for somone who is dying.
.....
I'm only aware of one example of a recreational drug being decriminalized: alcohol. And that was a herculean effort.

You use only the USA as an example; many drugs have been decriminalized or partly so in the Netherlands, for example marijuana, fresh psycho mushrooms, etc.

[Skepticybe]

In the event of any further posts by skepticybe surrounding this issue you can assume that I will most likely give it the nod. I have not read one utterance of anything that I would consider stupidity, ignorance or lack of common sense in any of skepticybe's posts.
Wow, thank you for the kind words! :)

I have to say that I felt the same way about your initial post, which was why I decided to jump in. I was especially impressed that you've decided to build a career that helps insert science into an issue that is almost exclusively governed by emotion.

Before I started researching drugs a couple years ago, so that I could be prepared as a parent of teenagers, I was firmly in the anti-drug camp as well. Reading up on the science was what helped change my mind, after getting past the initial shock to my skeptic ego of having to admit I had based my views on pseudo-science and emotion for all these years. And ironically (or not!), it's that same science that I think is helping me keep my kids drug-free, especially when it comes to the more dangerous drugs.

[Gurdur]

.....it's that same science that I think is helping me keep my kids drug-free, .....


Grow your hair long, wear deadhead tiedye T-shirts and sarongs all the time, trip around the place all day huffing, speak only like, "Hey, dudes and duddesses, like what, huh, like?", and your children will probably grow up to be fanatically anti-drugs.

[Gnu Ordure]

Gurdur said I was talking
Rubbish. Any knowledge of cross-epochal, cross-cultural history of drug addiction would teach you that.
Ed defended me:
To me you seem like you are trying to supress his views by pulling intellectual rank on him by saying things like that. Why are you people so rude to each other?
Gurdur explained:
No. Just pointing out the bias in his POV and the lack of necessary knowledge.



Ed, you're new here, don't worry about it.

I know it seemed to your innocent eye that Gurdur was calling me an ignorant thicko with no knowledge of history or culture....

Not at all.

He was merely trying to help me by pointing out my subjective bias, for which I am most grateful.

Now that I understand that I am indeed an ignorant thicko, with no knowledge of history or culture, I can possibly do something about it.

This is an educational forum, after all.

[Gurdur]

....Now that I understand that I am indeed an ignorant thicko, with no knowledge of history or culture, I can possibly do something about it. ...

Life is just so tough.

Look, I didn't say you were thick at all, and I wouldn't. What I did say was to imply that IMvHO you are ignoring basic evidence in favour of a ideologically-based approach.

Cheers.

[Skepticybe]

You use only the USA as an example; many drugs have been decriminalized or partly so in the Netherlands, for example marijuana, fresh psycho mushrooms, etc.
Yes my political discussion will tend to be USA-centric -- that just happens to be where I live. But I do like what the Netherlands has done, and from what I've heard they've had good results.

They have had a few problems with people being irresponsible on mushrooms, and they plan to start distributing a pamphlet with the purchase and requiring a 3-day waiting period. I think they're using the right kind of thought processes to approach the issues and problems surrounding drugs.
Grow your hair long, wear deadhead tiedye T-shirts and sarongs all the time, trip around the place all day huffing, speak only like, "Hey, dudes and duddesses, like what, huh, like?", and your children will probably grow up to be fanatically anti-drugs.
Or how about some simple honesty? The big risk to kids is that they see anti-drug commercials on TV and get lots of scary information from school, but that information doesn't jive with what they see when other kids are high, what they find on the Internet, or what they experience if they get high themselves. To pull an example off the top of my head, remember this TV commercial with the deflated girl sitting on the couch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxjI8BhJDk

Pot is ubiquitous in my oldest son's school, which also happens to be the same school I attended. He has many friends that use it, and they are nothing like what's depicted in the commercial. If he starts looking up the government's talking points on marijuana, he doesn't have to look far to discredit almost everything they used to try to scare him and everyone else away from using it.

The anti-drug effort also tends to cast marijuana in the same light as prescription meds, cocaine, etc. This further undermines the stay-off-pot message, and unintentionally sends the message that these other drugs are just as safe as pot (from the perspective of someone who has learned that pot isn't so bad after all).

[Gurdur]

..... But I do like what the Netherlands has done, and from what I've heard they've had good results.
The results are actually somewhat mixed.

After headlong marijuana decriminalization and selling through the famous coffee-houses, the Dutch are actually reining it in a little owing to the subsequent social problems. There is actually a thread here on at the moment about an associated issue, the reining in of the redlight district in Amsterdam (after all, for many very different reasons, the drugs scene and the prostitution scene tend to have large overlaps), but unfortunately no-one seemed to want to really discuss the in's and out's, and the thread degenerated and petrified in a small flame-war instead.

The Dutch have actually re-criminalized to a small degree some drugs, and I think they're largely right to do so; but marijuana basically remains pretty legal. Fresh mushies are legal, but not dried ones, and so on.

[Gnu Ordure]

What I did say was to imply that IMvHO you are ignoring basic evidence in favour of a ideologically-based approach.

On the contrary, Gurdur.

The basic medical evidence is that diamorphine is benign.

The ideology/myth is that heroin is the most dangerous of all dangerous drugs.

As Skepticyde understands, we don't need myths, we need facts.

There is no medical research from any source which will support the contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users.

On the contrary, all of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all.

In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body."

Unfortunately, he was wrong; the myth is alive and well ...

Gnu.

[madurobob]

I'm not sure if you're proposing insurance as a real solution, or to make a point. As a real solution, I don't see how such a system could work in practice, so much bureaucratic oversight would be required that I think it would turn out (roughly) like prohibition. If you're just making the point that the negative effects need to be taken seriously and addressed, and as much as possible people should be responsible for their own actions, I agree.
Busted, I am.

No, the insurance scheme is just a thought exercise to force a view of the overall financial cost of recreational drug use (I'm a CPA, CMA, MBA... "when you have a hammer, all problem look like nails"). I readily admit that the "war on drugs" has been a complete waste of resources. Both in terms of tax money spent and in terms of otherwise productive members of society being imprisoned. But whenever anyone claims a recreational drug with no recognizable benefit other than recreation should be legalized I feel compelled to point out that there is a downside that must be addressed.

Ecstasy is very different than pot. Pot grows everywhere - its a weed. In NC three generations ago pot seeds were part of the mix in grass seed farmers bought to seed recently cleared pasture. The stuff was everywhere. Ecstasy must be created in a lab. Legalizing pot would almost be as simple as "its now OK to grow this plant". Legalizing ecstasy, though, would require a commercial lab run to government standards and producing a specific product with a specific potency. I don't think anyone wants to allow any kid with a jr science kit to make ecstasy in his basement and sell it.

Drug companies are increasingly at risk for selling medicines that have some unintended, dangerous side effect. Think Vioxx. So, what drug company will manufacture ecstasy for recreational use when there are already known dangerous side effects (thus risk of major class action law suits)? I keep coming back to this legal liability issue - I think its a big deal.

Its one thing to say it should be legal; another thing to have a workable plan for legalization.

[Gurdur]

On the contrary, Gurdur.
The basic medical evidence is that diamorphine is benign.
Wrong again, and not too honest whatsoever at all. Apart from its side-effects, which are important, it's quite easy to overdose on the stuff. Moreover, I am really unimpressed with how you have evaded the point made about addicts' behavioural patterns, which is actually the most important point. What is your excuse there?

What really deeply unimpresses me though is what could be either basic misunderstanding or actual dishonesty on your part. I said:
Rubbish. Any knowledge of cross-epochal, cross-cultural history of drug addiction would teach you that.
Meaning of course what studies show across very different cultures and ín very different historical periods.

You turned what I wrote into:
Now that I understand that I am indeed an ignorant thicko, with no knowledge of history or culture, I can possibly do something about it.
So either you really badly misunderstood, or you're being dishonest and thought you could play clever. Your choice.

And of course you have been screaming "Propaganda!" throughout, while giving a very obviously biased view yourself.

The ideology/myth is that heroin is the most dangerous of all dangerous drugs.
*yawn*
It's dangerous enough, especially in the hands of addicts. Depending on what criteria you use, it may be top or middle of the list. Did you even bother to check what criteria the committee used in deciding their list? Or was it too much like hard work, and it was ever so much easier to yell "Propaganda!" instead?
There is no medical research from any source which will support the contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users.
But there IS a great deal of medical and psychological research on the harms of addiction and the associated common self-destructive behavioural patterns. For some reason you just don't seem to want to mention that. Why?

You've had plenty of opportunities throughout this thread to tackle those questions, and all you've done is evade the points. It won't do.

[Gurdur]

.....So, what drug company will manufacture ecstasy for recreational use when there are already known dangerous side effects (thus risk of major class action law suits)? I keep coming back to this legal liability issue - I think its a big deal.

A very interesting point, and one I never gave thought to beforehand. Thanks.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right and wrong.
You are correct to point out that heroin usage is by itself not so terribly harmful immediately. A heroin addict who takes real care can live for decades and decades while fueling his/her addiction.

However, most addicts are very prone to all sorts of self-destructive behaviour, and most are not exactly careful at all.

The physical side-effects of heroin (barring overdoses) are known, minor and manageable. Self-destructive behaviour is not a physiological effect of heroin.

Becoming a heroin addict in our culture today is self-destructive, and probably evidence of self-destructive tendencies, but this is an effect of criminalisation.


Most people who try heroin will not get addicted. The rule-of-thumb figure is that roughly 10% only of a population are at risk from opiate addiction; most of those 10% usually will never actually try opiates.

Occasional use (define? how about binge behaviour?) can still be quite addictive for anyone in that roughly 10%, or a youth in a vastly stressed and fragmented society with large substance abuse levels and violence.

To become physiologically addicted to heroin takes a month or so of use. I suspect the 10% figure you have heard relates to the number of people who, having used heroin, will subsequently go on to use it steadily for a month or so and get physiologically addicted.


I personally would not have used Trainspotting as an example at all. But you will find much of the same self-destructive behaviour among addicts where no such criminalization is present too. Trying to pin blame upon criminalization itself for all ills is very misguided.

I would like to see your evidence that you will find "much of the same self-destructive behaviour" among addicts where no such criminalization is present too, along with the relevant definition of "much".

[Gurdur]

The physical side-effects of heroin (barring overdoses) are known, minor and manageable. Self-destructive behaviour is not a physiological effect of heroin.
Evasion. Self-destructive behaviour is a concommittant of much addiction. Deal with it.
Becoming a heroin addict in our culture today is self-destructive, and probably evidence of self-destructive tendencies, but this is an effect of criminalisation.
Repeating yourself does not make it any truer. Any evidence at all for your assertions?

To become physiologically addicted to heroin takes a month or so of use. I suspect the 10% figure you have heard relates to the number of people who, having used heroin, will subsequently go on to use it steadily for a month or so and get physiologically addicted.
You obviously did not read what I wrote carefully at all. Go back and re-read it; you are badly muddled as to what the 10% refers to.

I would like to see your evidence that you will find "much of the same self-destructive behaviour" among addicts where no such criminalization is present too, along with the relevant definition of "much".
Sure.
As soon as I see the evidence for your own assertions. Get cracking onto it!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Evasion. Self-destructive behaviour is a concommittant of much addiction. Deal with it.

Repeating yourself does not make it any truer. Any evidence at all for your assertions?

You have been repeatedly shown heroin's complete list of physiological side-effects. "Self-destructive behaviour" is not among them. That's the evidence.

The ball is in your court if you want to show that we should add "self-destructive behaviour" to the list of known effects. I suspect what you will find if you try is that the link between "self-destructive behaviour" and heroin is due to criminalisation, not physiology.


You obviously did not read what I wrote carefully at all. Go back and re-read it; you are badly muddled as to what the 10% refers to.

Actually I think you are the one who got muddled, unless you really think that 90% of people will not develop a physiological addiction to heroin if they are given it in hospital for a solid month.


Sure.
As soon as I see the evidence for your own assertions. Get cracking onto it!

I'm going on memories of a seminar on this topic given by one of Australia's leading experts on drug addiction and social policy, at the University of Queensland.

What are you going on?

[JoeEllison]

The physical side-effects of heroin (barring overdoses) are known, minor and manageable.

The physical effect of heroin is the single most powerful addiction know to humanity. Besides that, no big deal...

[Space_Ed]

I really would not say kudos to anyone pushing the usage of Ecstasy, it is a cocktail of sorts, and can harm you. I am not against pot per say, but anything that is full of random chemicals, well I would have to say ewwww. Number one, when you use ecstasy, you become kinda out of control, and promiscuous, which is not a good thing in this day and age, hello std's?? I just think it is wiser to err on the side of caution in this regard.

I personally would not want my daughters all hopped up on E...call me crazy.

Understandable comment. Alcohol is more likely to produce sexual behaviour than ecstasy and drinkers are less likely to care about stds than ecstasy users. MDMA is more of a love feeling but alcohol is more sex oriented. I don't have any statistics for you but this is the the way it is.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The physical effect of heroin is the single most powerful addiction know to humanity. Besides that, no big deal...

I believe the title of most powerful addiction actually goes to the eminently legal nicotine. Certainly it is the most addictive of the commonly used recreational drugs.

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity:

What evidence is there that heroine is the "single most powerful addiction know to humanity"? I wouldn't mind viewing such a study...

Also, I notice people coming up and saying, "That flies in the face of common sense!" The ideal of skepticism usually doesn't care about "common sense". There are many things that are "common sense" that are shown to be, in fact, not true.

I'd prefer to see some more fact-based studies than appeals to common sense... Otherwise I have no "side" here. I'm just watching the debate, and I have no knowledge one way or the other. I'm undertaking intellectual osmosis, if you will. :)

[Gurdur]

You have been repeatedly shown heroin's complete list of physiological side-effects. "Self-destructive behaviour" is not among them. That's the evidence.
You are simply being both dishonest and evasive. Addiction itself is one of the side-effects --- yet addiction can also be psychological as well as physiological, and only is a danger to 10 % (roughly) of any population anywhere, and not even all the time. Really, you don't seem to want to discuss addiction behaviour. Why is that? Intereferes with your little agenda?
The ball is in your court if you want to show that we should add "self-destructive behaviour" to the list of known effects.
Just tackle the point, will you?
I suspect what you will find if you try is that the link between "self-destructive behaviour" and heroin is due to criminalisation, not physiology.
Oh, you only "suspect", now, do you? :D Oh, how terribly funny, because you claimed it before, and now you're backtracking. Scared of having to back it all up? But of course you are.

Actually I think you are the one who got muddled, unless you really think that 90% of people will not develop a physiological addiction to heroin if they are given it in hospital for a solid month.
Again, you are being simply dishonest. For one thing, physiological addiction does not necessarily entail psychological addiction whatsoever. And it's the psychological side that has been under discussion.

For another thing, the confused garbage you wrote beforehand was:
I suspect the 10% figure you have heard relates to the number of people who, having used heroin, will subsequently go on to use it steadily for a month or so and get physiologically addicted.
Which was really stupid misreading on your part, wasn't it?

I'm going on memories of a seminar on this topic given by one of Australia's leading experts on drug addiction and social policy, at the University of Queensland.
OOoooooooo, you actually went to a seminar. Oh golly gee. Oh goodness. If I had a dollar for every seminar I've ever been to, I would be a millionaire.

And you can't even name a paper to back up citatitions and claims? Not even a name? Tsk.
What are you going on?
Personal clinical experience, long-term, of having been a psych nurse dealing with addicts and alcoholics; various research studies; observational psych studies, concommittant medical studies etc.

I do believe I easily out-trump you there. But you can always try namedropping next, or tell us of a seminar on rocket science or something that you happened to drop in on.

[Gurdur]

The physical effect of heroin is the single most powerful addiction know to humanity. Besides that, no big deal...

Not really. Heroin addiction (the physiological side) is actually no real big deal most of the time. For many addicts, coming "cold turkey" off heroin is no worse than a 3-day flu, which may feel grim at the time, but it really isn't a tragic thing.

For the group in the middle between the best-off users and the worst-off, some medication and observation is necessary or at least strongly indicated in the withdrawal period, but again not such a big deal.

For some very longterm very high-dosage addicts, withdrawal is extremely dangerous or even contra-indicated. But they are the minority. Many other drugs are more addictive, but it is actually very difficult to compare addictiveness meaningfully, since it's apples and oranges; nicotine has completely different pathways from heroin, alcohol is extremely poorly understand in its effects, etc..

However, on the actual psychological side, heroin is very grim for those who are so addicted; but the grimness of their addiction, which is actually a complex bundle of strongly entrenched behaviours, is matched by alcoholism, and in fact both get easily put in the shade by methamphetamine addiction. If you want something really nasty, methamphetamine addiction is incredibly bad for people, and easily goes over the 10% at risk from opiates/alcohol addiction. A dentist rule of thumb is that one year of meth addiction means no teeth left at all, which seems a very high price to pay for an addiction, wouldn't you say? Heroin is not so bad in comparison.

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity, is methamphetamine addiction as bad as dextroamphetamine addiction, or similar amphetamines? From what I've read, dextroamphetamines aren't that incredibly harmful, and are hard to overdose on.

[Gurdur]

Out of curiosity, is methamphetamine addiction as bad as dextroamphetamine addiction, or similar amphetamines? From what I've read, dextroamphetamines aren't that incredibly harmful, and are hard to overdose on.

I wouldn't personally know, since while I know from firsthand nursing experience about amphetamines and their abuse, and from studies about meth and its abuse, dextroamphetamine is not something I've really ever studied at all. But cursory looking around seems to indicate it's not too bad, though prone to all the problems of amphetamine abuse (temporary psychosis etc.). After all, it seems to be muchly used by the USAF for pilots on missions, so I guess they can't be too worried.

[Lonewulf]

I wouldn't personally know, since while I know from firsthand nursing experience about amphetamines and their abuse, and from studies about meth and its abuse, dextroamphetamine is not something I've really ever studied at all. But cursory looking around seems to indicate it's not too bad, though prone to all the problems of amphetamine abuse (temporary psychosis etc.). After all, it seems to be muchly used by the USAF for pilots on missions, so I guess they can't be too worried.

According to my sources, other armed forces and even NASA has used it, or still uses it. I was under the impression that the Air Forces have stopped it's use, but I may be wrong. It seems like I am, going by Wikipedia, although it says "Citation Needed" for the bits I'm going by. :P

This is interesting, though:

The Physician's 1991 Drug Handbook reports: "Symptoms of overdose include restlessness, tremor, hyperreflexia, tachypnea, confusion, aggressiveness, hallucinations, and panic." Dilated pupils are common with high doses.

The fatal dose in humans is not precisely known, but in various species of rat generally ranges between 50 and 100 mg/kg, or a factor of 100 over what is required to produce noticeable psychological effects.[11][12] This suggests a wide therapeutic range[citation needed], in contrast to such drugs as morphine and heroin, where effective doses may be as much as 50% of a fatal dose[citation needed]"

Go figure that the bit that talks about Heroine is a "Citation Needed" section.

As for the USAF, last I read, they would take a "Go Pill" (dextroamphetamine) to get revved up, and then an "Off Pill" (tranquilizer of some sort, I think) to rev down and go to sleep. Works well with sporadic shifts.

[Gnu Ordure]

Gurdur,

It always seems to me that if during one of these discussions one party starts throwing out unfounded accusations of dishonesty and bias, as you've done to me, or resorts to the kind of condescending sarcasm and insult that you're now throwing at Kevin, it means that they're losing the argument.

Yes, I mentioned propaganda. I did not 'scream' it, or 'yell' it, though, and the subject had already been referred to by 3 or 4 posters previously. Your use of such rhetorical tricks doesn't help your case.

And suddenly turning on Kevin like that, what did he do ?

Oh, right, he agreed with some of my points...

And since you'd decided I'm dishonest, he must be too.



Anyway, you carry on, Gurdur, I don't mind. But I'm not going to reply in kind.


Well, maybe a lttle sarcasm, but that's as far as I go.

[Gurdur]

.... it means that they're losing the argument.
I think you need to add a tiny bit more substance before claiming victory. Just IMvHO, of course. Perhaps a small rebuttal or two of the points that I have made, if only for token form's sakes?
Yes, I mentioned propaganda...
There you go then. My point stands. As do all the other points made.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are simply being both dishonest and evasive. Addiction itself is one of the side-effects --- yet addiction can also be psychological as well as physiological, and only is a danger to 10 % (roughly) of any population anywhere, and not even all the time. Really, you don't seem to want to discuss addiction behaviour. Why is that? Intereferes with your little agenda?

No dishonesty, no evasion, no agenda. Just the fact that "self destructive behaviour" is not an effect of heroin use per se.


Just tackle the point, will you?

Oh, you only "suspect", now, do you? :D Oh, how terribly funny, because you claimed it before, and now you're backtracking. Scared of having to back it all up? But of course you are.

If you have to pick on individual words, which in this case were chosen in order to be polite, then your case cannot be too strong.


Again, you are being simply dishonest. For one thing, physiological addiction does not necessarily entail psychological addiction whatsoever. And it's the psychological side that has been under discussion.

That's not only a case of moving the goal posts, it's a case of claiming that the goalposts had been in the new spot all along. Let me guess, you will also decide that it's everyone's job but yours to provide evidence that psychological addiction does or does not cause self-destructive behaviour?


For another thing, the confused garbage you wrote beforehand was:

Which was really stupid misreading on your part, wasn't it?


Looks sound to me. Show us a cite that says otherwise and I will be happy to change my view.


OOoooooooo, you actually went to a seminar. Oh golly gee. Oh goodness. If I had a dollar for every seminar I've ever been to, I would be a millionaire.

And you can't even name a paper to back up citatitions and claims? Not even a name? Tsk.

Personal clinical experience, long-term, of having been a psych nurse dealing with addicts and alcoholics; various research studies; observational psych studies, concommittant medical studies etc.

I do believe I easily out-trump you there. But you can always try namedropping next, or tell us of a seminar on rocket science or something that you happened to drop in on.

Well then, simply link us to a few relevant members of the set of "various research studies; observational psych studies, concommittant medical studies etc" you are familar with and we can end this subthread. I'm perfectly happy to change my views if shown evidence.

However "a guy on the internet who claims he is a nurse and is rude to people" is not in and of themselves a reliable source when their views differ from evey factual source linked thus far.

[Gnu Ordure]

But there IS a great deal of medical and psychological research on the harms of addiction and the associated common self-destructive behavioural patterns. For some reason you just don't seem to want to mention that. Why?

Because I'm not talking about addiction generally, I'm talking about heroin in particular, and whether it is harmful when used correctly.

All the evidence suggests it is benign.

If a patient in hospital receives a two-day diamorphine course for pain-relief, they can do so at no risk whatsoever.

If a patient needs and consents to a six-month-long course, then they will become addicted. But they still won't be harmed.

And as you say, becoming unaddicted doesn't have to be a big deal.

[Mycroft]

Pure SWAG. First of all, they like making money. Secondly, their investors would be hesitant to underwrite a new and unknown risk and thirdly they would not wish to appear to be encouraging drug use by offering a cheap policy.

Insurance companies don't just make up numbers out of thin air. They have people called actuaries who are very good at math who spend their time figuring out how much the company needs to charge for any given kind of insurance and still be profitable.

But thats entirely beside the point. The real question is where are the well reasoned, documented and peer reviewed studies to support a lower insurance price? Where are the studies that prove Ex is relatively benign to individual health and to society in general?



Uhm, the person who made the claim is the one who is supposed to find evidence to support it.

[RandFan]

Insurance companies don't just make up numbers out of thin air. They have people called actuaries who are very good at math who spend their time figuring out how much the company needs to charge for any given kind of insurance and still be profitable. As an insurance auditor I can attest to this. My company holds yearly conferences and we have the benefit of being educated about the actuarial profession. Boring, and I'm an auditor. But I respect the hell out of their abilities.

http://video.soa.org/ActuaryVideo320x240.wmv

[Space_Ed]

Grow your hair long, wear deadhead tiedye T-shirts and sarongs all the time, trip around the place all day huffing, speak only like, "Hey, dudes and duddesses, like what, huh, like?", and your children will probably grow up to be fanatically anti-drugs.

Genius

[Space_Ed]

So, what drug company will manufacture ecstasy for recreational use when there are already known dangerous side effects (thus risk of major class action law suits)?

This is going to turn a few heads......

Space Ecstasy ofcourse! hahaha ;)

[Space_Ed]

The physical effect of heroin is the single most powerful addiction know to humanity. Besides that, no big deal...

You don't deserve anything less than beligerent insults you f****** ****.

Go crawl back into that **** hole that you came from.

[Space_Ed]

I'm undertaking intellectual osmosis, if you will. :)

That's original lol.

[Space_Ed]

Kevin, Gurdur and Gnu, kiss and make up.

Stop being silly:catfight:

None of you have tried to back up your own claims by linking any outside sources at all. You have just been arguing with each other but not trying to provide proof. My next post should have lots of factual information about heroin.

Yes. Facts.

[Gurdur]

If you have to pick on individual words, which in this case were chosen in order to be polite, then your case cannot be too strong.
That's an example of rather silly special pleading. You might as well try claiming that because my hair is blond, my case cannot therefore be too strong.
....Let me guess, you will also decide that it's everyone's job but yours to provide evidence that psychological addiction does or does not cause self-destructive behaviour?
You guess wrong. Never mind. But I'm hardly going to believe your protestations of honesty if you keep on making stuff up, you know.

....Show us a cite that says otherwise and I will be happy to change my view. Well then, simply link us to ....
I'm mildly amused. Which part of what I wrote beforehand do you fail to grasp? Here, let me repeat it for you.
As soon as I see the evidence for your own assertions. Get cracking onto it!

Because I'm not talking about addiction generally, I'm talking about heroin in particular, and whether it is harmful when used correctly. All the evidence suggests it is benign.
This also mildy amuses me. It is impossible to meaningfully debate the legalization or criminalization of heroin without talking about addictive behaviour, which is the entire problem.

You may well not want to talk about it. But the real world will then continue to confound you.

And as you say, becoming unaddicted doesn't have to be a big deal.
Please don't put fake words into my mouth. It would be a lie were you to continue with that. I never said, "becoming unaddicted doesn't have to be a big deal". I suggest extremely strongly you stick to actual quotes rather than making stuff up.

I also very strongly suggest you honestly acknowledge the difference I have pointed out between psychological and physiological addiction. It is of course rather crucial to the entire debate as it happens in real life.

Should you refuse to do so, it would of course only mean your irrelevancy to the public debate.

[Space_Ed]

Let’s have a look at the beast himself:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_powder__i2005e1410_disp.jpg

A forgotten world:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_ad1.gif

A bit of propaganda:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_propaganda_novel1.jpg

Heroin’s (ugly) chemical structure:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_3d.jpg

Nice healthy looking chunks of ‘heroin tar’ (mmmm scrummy):

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_tar__i2006e0997_disp.jpg

Good quality heroin:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_powder__i2005e1516_disp.jpg

A nice clean hit:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin__i2005e1520_disp.jpg

A cost of criminalisation:

http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com/images/heroin-addict.jpg

“Rehab is really the only thing that will save someone from heroin addiction. There may be a rare few who can beat it on their own, but it is doubtful because the withdrawal symptoms are usually too tough for someone to get through alone without help. Insomnia, vomiting, diarrhea, joint and muscle pain, leg spasms, aching bones, cold sweat and goose bumps are some of the major withdrawal symptoms. The severity of the symptoms peaks at about two to three days and the worst of the ordeal is over after a week or two. However, long-term, habitual users can take months before the withdrawals symptoms shake loose. A drug rehab clinic may use pharmaceutical approaches such as Methadone, LAAM (levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol) or buprenorphine to quell withdrawal symptoms and help the heroin addict stay clean over the long haul.”- Benign?

The fate of more people under legalisation:

http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/13/moblog_1a644e6d61f3a.jpg

A sinful cost of prohibition, a user with AIDS :

http://www.chud.com/chudvd/reviews/images16/homeless2.jpg

How effective government prohibition is:

"Drugs are everywhere inside detention. Every day we get asked 'do you want some heroin, want some dope, want some marijuana?', and without my medication it was so hard to stay away from it all. Inside, most people end up taking drugs in some form, because we use them to escape our situation. It's hopeless. I watched [my cell-mate] shoot-up every day. I finally cracked and tried heroin and the next thing I knew I was addicted to it." From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1978192.htm
It was this happy chappy:

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r144481_503741.jpg

If she wasn’t a scaghead I’d **** her but she is and she looks disgusting:

http://easybakecoven.net/images/heroinchick.jpg

A good read:

http://www.pacpubserver.com/new/news/4-8-00/heroin.html

To me the above tale demonstrates many problems with criminalisation and that heroin truly is the most devastating major ‘fun’ drug around. It shows that average ‘professionals’ can use it and be ok and still maintain a job etc but that to other people i.e. Kent that the same chemical can totally destroy his life. It highlights the purity issues surrounding criminalisation. I do not think that Kent would have a job if heroin was legal. I doubt he would be in a particularly different situation if he could buy heroin in a shop. It clearly shows the monumental effort involved in ‘giving up the scag.’

Coming off scag (portrayal of reality NOT reality):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgeDh1WCyeM

[Space_Ed]

The totally totally wasted face of ecstasy lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8UsylZAJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStlGU478DU

The totally totally wasted face of alcohol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6vzMpf-GI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBJB-nunxgE

Which looks safer?

[Space_Ed]

And although this is no argument....

Which looks more pathetic?

[Lonewulf]

Let’s have a look at the beast himself:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_powder__i2005e1410_disp.jpg

A forgotten world:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_ad1.gif

A bit of propaganda:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_propaganda_novel1.jpg

Heroin’s (ugly) chemical structure:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_3d.jpg

Nice healthy looking chunks of ‘heroin tar’ (mmmm scrummy):

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_tar__i2006e0997_disp.jpg

Good quality heroin:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin_powder__i2005e1516_disp.jpg

A nice clean hit:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/images/archive/heroin__i2005e1520_disp.jpg

A cost of criminalisation:

http://www.drugalcohol-rehab.com/images/heroin-addict.jpg

“Rehab is really the only thing that will save someone from heroin addiction. There may be a rare few who can beat it on their own, but it is doubtful because the withdrawal symptoms are usually too tough for someone to get through alone without help. Insomnia, vomiting, diarrhea, joint and muscle pain, leg spasms, aching bones, cold sweat and goose bumps are some of the major withdrawal symptoms. The severity of the symptoms peaks at about two to three days and the worst of the ordeal is over after a week or two. However, long-term, habitual users can take months before the withdrawals symptoms shake loose. A drug rehab clinic may use pharmaceutical approaches such as Methadone, LAAM (levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol) or buprenorphine to quell withdrawal symptoms and help the heroin addict stay clean over the long haul.”- Benign?

The fate of more people under legalisation:

http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/13/moblog_1a644e6d61f3a.jpg

A sinful cost of prohibition, a user with AIDS :

http://www.chud.com/chudvd/reviews/images16/homeless2.jpg

How effective government prohibition is:

"Drugs are everywhere inside detention. Every day we get asked 'do you want some heroin, want some dope, want some marijuana?', and without my medication it was so hard to stay away from it all. Inside, most people end up taking drugs in some form, because we use them to escape our situation. It's hopeless. I watched [my cell-mate] shoot-up every day. I finally cracked and tried heroin and the next thing I knew I was addicted to it." From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1978192.htm
It was this happy chappy:

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r144481_503741.jpg

If she wasn’t a scaghead I’d **** her but she is and she looks disgusting:

http://easybakecoven.net/images/heroinchick.jpg

A good read:

http://www.pacpubserver.com/new/news/4-8-00/heroin.html

To me the above tale demonstrates many problems with criminalisation and that heroin truly is the most devastating major ‘fun’ drug around. It shows that average ‘professionals’ can use it and be ok and still maintain a job etc but that to other people i.e. Kent that the same chemical can totally destroy his life. It highlights the purity issues surrounding criminalisation. I do not think that Kent would have a job if heroin was legal. I doubt he would be in a particularly different situation if he could buy heroin in a shop. It clearly shows the monumental effort involved in ‘giving up the scag.’

Coming off scag (portrayal of reality NOT reality):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgeDh1WCyeM

Half of this post is just focusing on the "ick factor", choosing anecdotal "evidence" and "icky" stuff (like Heroine Tar) to make it sound bad. It also demonstrates propaganda seen in comic books. Not very convincing. Quite frankly, Heroine doesn't look too much different than the sugar I just put in my coffee. "Heroine Tar"... well, I can melt my sugar down and it might not look too advertising. Nicotine doesn't look much better as an isolated chemical, and alcohol doesn't look too bad (it's just liquid with a kick), but that doesn't make alcohol "good" and nicotine "bad" (Okay, nicotine is bad, but not based on looks, but based on how it reacts to the human body). How a drug looks is evidence of nothing. Also, "argument by comic books" isn't very convincing either... neither are paid-for advertisements. I mean, what next? Will you advertise the "This is your brain on drugs..." commercial as "evidence"?

The parts that you actually do make a point raise some other questions to me:

1) How many of these "bad effects" come from how heroine is constructed on the black market? From what I understand, heroine is cheaper and stronger than it ever was back when it was legal, and often times get mixed in with even worse chemicals.

2) How many of the "scagheads" portrayed were on things other than simply Heroine?

3) What if the heroine was doled out in legalized, regulated amounts (amounting to a prescription)?

Otherwise, a lot of this post seems like propaganda and "I thinks". Not really very convincing.

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's an example of rather silly special pleading. You might as well try claiming that because my hair is blond, my case cannot therefore be too strong.

Okay, I'll put it another way. If you are trying to keep a discussion civil, it is counterproductive to hunt for words you can misinterpret, then jump up and down and claim a victory when you find one. Challenged to provide evidence, you instead decided to take the implication that contrary evidence might exist as "backpedalling" and crow about it. Where does that get us?


You guess wrong. Never mind. But I'm hardly going to believe your protestations of honesty if you keep on making stuff up, you know.

I'm mildly amused. Which part of what I wrote beforehand do you fail to grasp? Here, let me repeat it for you.
As soon as I see the evidence for your own assertions. Get cracking onto it!


Here's how it works. Evidence which contradicts your claims has already been posted. You don't get to position yourself as an authority and foist the burden of proof on everybody else, until you have in turn brought up evidence which is at least equally compelling.


This also mildy amuses me. It is impossible to meaningfully debate the legalization or criminalization of heroin without talking about addictive behaviour, which is the entire problem.

You may well not want to talk about it. But the real world will then continue to confound you.

We're trying to get to the point where a sensible debate about legalisation or criminalisation can begin. To do that, we need actual data on the effects of heroin per se and the effects of criminalisation.

You seem to be demanding that we shuffle "addictive behaviour" out of the list of effects of heroin criminalisation and into the list of effects of heroin per se. This contradicts the hard evidence so far posted, and you are being damned rude about it too.

Now you are welcome to pretend that your childish ultimatum ("You get data first! I said so!") gives you a priviliged position, so that we have to go get data and you do not. However the data backing up my and Gnu's position has already been posted.

The ball's in your court, nurse.

[Space_Ed]

By the way for the many people here who aren't familiar with ecstasy's common effects that face he pulls is not actually that unusual lol. I have never seen anyone quite that bad but that what your getting with lots of MDMA also notice his massivley dilated pupils. The thing he does with his jaw is 'gurning' which can lead to a sore mouth. People often chew their lip repeatedly and get sore lips. Id rather have that than concussion.

[Space_Ed]

Half of this post is just focusing on the "ick factor", choosing anecdotal "evidence" and "icky" stuff (like Heroine Tar) to make it sound bad. It also demonstrates propaganda seen in comic books. Not very convincing. Quite frankly, Heroine doesn't look too much different than the sugar I just put in my coffee. "Heroine Tar"... well, I can melt my sugar down and it might not look too advertising. Nicotine doesn't look much better as an isolated chemical, and alcohol doesn't look too bad (it's just liquid with a kick), but that doesn't make alcohol "good" and nicotine "bad" (Okay, nicotine is bad, but not based on looks, but based on how it reacts to the human body). How a drug looks is evidence of nothing. Also, "argument by comic books" isn't very convincing either... neither are paid-for advertisements. I mean, what next? Will you advertise the "This is your brain on drugs..." commercial as "evidence"?

The parts that you actually do make a point raise some other questions to me:

1) How many of these "bad effects" come from how heroine is constructed on the black market? From what I understand, heroine is cheaper and stronger than it ever was back when it was legal, and often times get mixed in with even worse chemicals.

2) How many of the "scagheads" portrayed were on things other than simply Heroine?

3) What if the heroine was doled out in legalized, regulated amounts (amounting to a prescription)?

Otherwise, a lot of this post seems like propaganda and "I thinks". Not really very convincing.

Oi you muppet I am not making an argument either way.

[Space_Ed]

I was trying to show the issue we are talking about in the way it is seen in the real world but if I was trying to make an argument for or against legalisation I would have contradicted myself lots of times and then I would be a muppet.

[Space_Ed]

1) How many of these "bad effects" come from how heroine is constructed on the black market? From what I understand, heroine is cheaper and stronger than it ever was back when it was legal, and often times get mixed

By the way it is spelled 'heroin' not 'heroine' a 'heroine' is a female hero from a story ;)

[Space_Ed]

no response......

[Lonewulf]

Oi you muppet I am not making an argument either way.

Oh, my apologies. Your posts have a tendency to confuse me.

Also, could you try not to make so many...? It's a bit of a pain to sift through.

I was trying to show the issue we are talking about in the way it is seen in the real world
Okay, then you succeeded. :)

but if I was trying to make an argument for or against legalisation I would have contradicted myself lots of times and then I would be a muppet.
True enough.

By the way it is spelled 'heroin' not 'heroine' a 'heroine' is a female hero from a story.
I know what "heroine" is. As far as I understand, "Heroin" has similar origins as the word "heroine", symbolizing the power that the user feels while high. Either way, you got what I meant, or else you wouldn't be trying to correct me.

no response......
Be patient.

[Space_Ed]

This contradicts the hard evidence so far posted, and you are being damned rude about it too.

Yeah I think he is a bit rude. "Manners make the man."

He also implied that because I am young that my ideas automatically carry less credibility. Mozart was a child when he started composing but people still listen to him.

[Gurdur]

...Evidence which contradicts your claims has already been posted.
Were you to whine less and be more concrete, this would all go much faster.

Not one single statement of mine has so far been contradicted by any evidence; it's quite simply that I keep on bringing up the psychological addiction side, and neither you nor Gnu Ordure want to talk about that -- completely unsurprisingly, since it rather spoils the case you want to make. You like to pretend that somehow the evidence on heroin somehow magically "disproves" the psychological addiction side. It doesn't, something which is rather clear to everyone else, since they're not trying to push the ideologically forced agenda you and Gnu Ordure are.

But hey. Enough about me. Let's get onto the real world. In the real world, debate around the legalization or criminalizatio centres all around the psychological addiction problem, and all its associated problems. This is exactly what you don't want to talk about, which makes you rather boring and stunningly irrelevant to the real world, doesn't it?

Now you are welcome to pretend that your childish ultimatum
I kinda like the psych war attempts there of yours, but I remain rather unmoved. So do you have any evidence at all for the assertions you made and which I questioned? Or are you childishly going to play dumb and try forcing reciting of the questioned assertions of yours?

The ball's in your court, nurse.
No problems, sonny, the ball's now back with you.

[Gurdur]

Yeah I think he is a bit rude. "Manners make the man."

He also implied that because I am young that my ideas automatically carry less credibility. Mozart was a child when he started composing but people still listen to him.

*cough*
Compose like Mozart, and I will most certainly listen to you.

[Space_Ed]

*cough*
Compose like Mozart, and I will most certainly listen to you.
Why? Mozart is s**t.

[Gurdur]

Why? Mozart is s**t.

Heh. I'll give you full points for humour there. But Mozart was actually extremely good.

[madurobob]

Insurance companies don't just make up numbers out of thin air. They have people called actuaries who are very good at math who spend their time figuring out how much the company needs to charge for any given kind of insurance and still be profitable.
Um, yeah - exactly my point. My number was pure SWAG, but based on the assumption that actuaries would assume a fairly high risk given the lack of evidence that ecstasy is "safe". I did not mean that the actuaries would simply pull a number out of their nether regions.

Uhm, the person who made the claim is the one who is supposed to find evidence to support it.
That was what I was trying to point out to the OP. He claimed it was safe and should be legal. being the fool I am, rather than simply saying "prove it" I built a scenario that would require proof not just from a personal health standpoint, but from an overall impact to society standpoint.

Thats not happened yet... so now we're talking about heroin.... ?

[Matthew Best]

It is impossible to meaningfully debate the legalization or criminalization of heroin without talking about addictive behaviour, which is the entire problem.

I'm not quite sure what this sentence means (is talking the problem, or addictive behaviour?), but if it's the latter, then what is "addictive behaviour" exactly?

[Gurdur]

I'm not quite sure what this sentence means
Possibly the worst criticism I have yet faced so far.
(is talking the problem, or addictive behaviour?), but if it's the latter, then what is "addictive behaviour" exactly?

Addictive behaviour was simply a shorthand phrase for referring to the entire bundle of behaviours so often seen in opiate addiction, ranging from medically defined "indolence" (the failure of addicts to get treatment for easily cured problems, let alone anything else), HIV, Hep C and STD transmission, down to say littering certain gathering places with used syringes, a rather big problem in cities that have experimented with partial de facto decriminalization. There are quite a lot of these stereotypical behaviours, and they are what make heroin addiction such a problem overall.

The point before was that Gnu Odure and wossisname willfully disregard that, and replace it with their happily talking about how if you are really careful and you don't do it too much and you are very, very together anyway, then heroin won't bugger you up, since you'll leave the stuff alone anyway after a couple of tries.

Which kinda begs the question, no?

[Gnu Ordure]

Gurdur said:
Heroin addiction (the physiological side) is actually no real big deal most of the time.For many addicts, coming "cold turkey" off heroin is no worse than a 3-day flu, which may feel grim at the time, but it really isn't a tragic thing.
Which I summarized as :
And as you say, becoming unaddicted doesn't have to be a big deal.
And Gurdur said (my bolding):
Please don't put fake words into my mouth. It would be a lie were you to continue with that. I never said, "becoming unaddicted doesn't have to be a big deal". I suggest extremely strongly you stick to actual quotes rather than making stuff up.


Notice Gurdur, how you carefully use quotation marks there to indicate that you are quoting me ?

Notice how I don't use them in my post ?

I wasn't quoting you, it was reported speech - from memory, and reasonably accurate as a summary, as we can see.

You like to pretend that somehow the evidence on heroin somehow magically "disproves" the psychological addiction side.


OK, your turn: where I have I (or Kevin) pretended that ?

And by the way Gurdur, you do realize that putting "disproves" in quotation marks as you just did there, does rather make it look like you're saying that Kevin or I used that word ?

And you do realize that neither of us have used that word in this thread ?

So it does rather look like you're putting words into our mouths, doesn't it ?

Even if you didn't mean to.

I "suggest extremely strongly" you avoid the use of quotation marks unless actually quoting some-one.

[Gurdur]

I wasn't quoting you, it was reported speech - from memory, and reasonably accurate as a summary, as we can see.
Try again.
The distinction between psychological and physiological dependency is a vital distinction in any case, and most especially here.

Your re-phrasing of what I had actually said left out a rather vital bit, didn't it? The whole bit about psychological vs. physiological. You're being rather transparently disingeneous. So how about you simply deal with the point, finally?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Addictive behaviour was simply a shorthand phrase for referring to the entire bundle of behaviours so often seen in opiate addiction, ranging from medically defined "indolence" (the failure of addicts to get treatment for easily cured problems, let alone anything else), HIV, Hep C and STD transmission, down to say littering certain gathering places with used syringes, a rather big problem in cities that have experimented with partial de facto decriminalization. There are quite a lot of these stereotypical behaviours, and they are what make heroin addiction such a problem overall.

The point before was that Gnu Odure and wossisname willfully disregard that, and replace it with their happily talking about how if you are really careful and you don't do it too much and you are very, very together anyway, then heroin won't bugger you up, since you'll leave the stuff alone anyway after a couple of tries.

Which kinda begs the question, no?

This is progress. At least you have now defined in some detail exactly what you are talking about, instead of waving your hands in the general direction of "addictive behaviours".

Now we have to consider the point that when used as a painkiller is hospitals, heroin does not cause people to start taking every other drug in sight, sharing their needles with the people in the next bed and chucking used needles into the hallway. So the behaviour you are describing is not a necessary consequence of the molecule in question hitting the human bloodstream, it's a contingent consequence dependent on the subject and the social context.

Similarly alcohol has had terrible effects on indigenous Australian communities, but does not have the same effects on affluent non-indigenous communities (although the effects there are bad enough too). The problem is created by the social circumstances, not the alcohol molecule itself.

I think the mistake you are making is that you are avoiding distinguishing between the effects of street heroin and street heroin culture on vulnerable and self-destructive people and the effects of heroin per se, then pointing at squawking at everyone who is bright enough to make that distinction.

The chemical is not the problem. Under the right circumstances the chemical is eminently manageable and useful. The social circumstances we create around the chemical create the problem, and if we fix those social circumstances we fix the problem.

[Lonewulf]

Unfortunately, fixing the social circumstances is tougher than it sounds.

Then again, judging by the general effectiveness of the "War on Drugs", getting rid of drugs don't seem any easier.

[Gnu Ordure]

I said :
The basic medical evidence is that diamorphine is benign.
Gurdur said :
Wrong again, and not too honest whatsoever at all. Apart from its side-effects, which are important...

Yes, the nausea and the constipation, very important...
.... it's quite easy to overdose on the stuff.

No, it isn't. Heroin has an unusually large gap between the therapeutic dose and the lethal dose.

Here's an experienced cancer specialist, from a newspaper report :

Listen, for example, to Dr Teresa Tate, who has prescribed heroin and morphine for 25 years, first as a cancer doctor and now as medical adviser to Marie Curie Cancer Care. We asked her to compare heroin with paracetamol, legally available without prescription. She told us: "I think that most doctors would tell you that paracetamol is actually quite a dangerous drug when used in overdose; it has a fixed upper limit for its total dose in 24 hours and if you exceed that, perhaps doubling it, you can certainly put yourself at great risk of liver failure and of death, whereas with diamorphine, should you double the dose that you normally were taking, I think the consequence would be to be sleepy for a while and quite possibly not much more than that and certainly no permanent damage as a result." Contrary to the loudly expressed view of so many politicians, this specialist of 25 years' experience told us that when heroin is properly used by doctors, it is "a very safe drug".

So why are there so many heroin overdoses ? From wiki :

Heroin overdoses can occur due to an unexpected increase in the dose or purity or due to diminished opiate tolerance. However, most fatalities reported as overdoses are probably caused by interactions with other depressant drugs like alcohol or benzodiazepines.[23]





If someone is addicted to cocaine or amphetamine or alcohol, simply consuming enough to maintain the addiction will increase the risk of harm.

Not so with heroin, because heroin is benign. (As long as they have an accurate, safe supply).

As someone said :

A heroin addict who takes real care can live for decades and decades while fueling his/her addiction.


You're making my point for me there, Gurdur.

Heroin addicts can maintain health.

The fact that they are physiologically addicted (and to a greater or lesser extent, psychologically dependent) is not harmful in itself.

The strength of the addiction and dependence merely determines the difficulty of achieving abstinence.

Whereas harm is determined by the toxicity of the substance.

Which in heroin's case, is minor.


Have I answered your point ?




Please answer my question which you ignored.

You said :

You like to pretend that somehow the evidence on heroin somehow magically "disproves" the psychological addiction side.
So I asked :
OK, your turn: where I have I (or Kevin) pretended that ?


Well ?

[Gnu Ordure]

Thats not happened yet... so now we're talking about heroin.... ?


Hey, madurobob, don't let us stop you.

The JREF is a broad church.

Some folks like to come and chat about hard drugs and deviant sexual behaviour.

Some folks like to come and chat about the statistical basis of actuarial decisions.

Occasionally two worlds collide.

What's not to like ?

[Space_Ed]

im pissed whey im at uni whey! how is everyone? if i was on pills this would be so much better and i wouldnt have had a go at my flat mate, spilt someone elses food on the floor, ran off from the people who will probzbly destroy me tomoro for messing up their carpet and acted like an emotional moron. stupid bloody alcohol. sticjking with the law sucks. if i was on E i could write well too. i hate the law makers and society is a poiece of ****. i love *********** girls.

peace.

[Space_Ed]

right

we need love
we dont need hate
we need nice
we dont need nasty
we need not telling ur mate to *********** die because if he looks at me like that again ill *********** kill him and rip his ****** spleen out
we need not vandalising propety
we need not insulting taxi drivers in languages they wont understand
we need not saying tu est un enculer et tu m'enerve
we need not saying du gist mir auf die nerfen
we need open minds
we dont need pig headed pigs being rude wankers
we dont need scumbags becoming coppers
we dont need idiots calling themselves space ed ranting in a pissed stupor to the whole worl because hes a drunk idiot and wishes society wasnt such a ****
we need to kill all the jews
(not really)
we need to ban space ed for this foolishness and to blow his house up for losing all faith in humanity
we need to laugh at ourselves
we need to shag zahra
we need to stop reading this drunk mumbling crap

[Space_Ed]

if ur lucky u might get an ecstasy love message but 4 now you can all *********** burn in hell u *********** dirty **** heads. ill gut you like a fish then **** on your grave. dig up your body then make your grieving mother eat it.

[Space_Ed]

btw tonight was excellent :D

[Space_Ed]

.......oh dear.

Hence I try not to drink. It is standard here you see. By the way a lot of things in that rant aren't true. The extreme things anyway.

[Lonewulf]

Space_Ed, what's the deal? You're kinda creeping me out here.

[Space_Ed]

Yes that was the intention. It was funny to me at the time because you don't know me so you can't know what to take seriously. I think I was letting my drunk thoughts come out onto the wall so if im on MDMA you can see the difference in how it affects my brain.

[madurobob]

Hey, madurobob, don't let us stop you.

The JREF is a broad church.

Some folks like to come and chat about hard drugs and deviant sexual behaviour.

Some folks like to come and chat about the statistical basis of actuarial decisions.

Occasionally two worlds collide.

What's not to like ?
Sexually deviant intoxicated actuaries?

I wasn't complaining, just pointing out that my "business side of things" argument seemed to have run its course.

As for heroin, most of the research I've seen linked in this thread and on pubmed suggest it is relatively benign physiologically. There are questions about renal damage, cardiovascular damage, etc..., but most of the research concludes by stating that it is unclear if heroin is the cause or the other things in the cocktail that is street heroin. It is, however, highly addictive and overdose often means death. Thats the scary part for me.

So, in the places where heroin has been somewhat legalized, who makes the heroin and who distributes? Is this purely a government run operation or is it private sector with government oversight?