Methamphetamine - the miracle drug

[Bootstoots]

If there is scholarly work being done with meth as a useful drug then great. Should it gain FDA approval (if it hasn't) it should be prescribed and taken as directed.

What we see in my state on the ground is near total brake down of communities affected by meth addiction. It's a mess.

It is actually possible to prescribe meth, although it is rarely done anymore. The brand name is Desoxyn, and it can be prescribed in 5-10 mg doses for ADHD and a couple of other indications.

The main issue with meth isn't so much that methamphetamine specifically is particularly dangerous. The problem is that illegal meth users consume extremely high doses, by dangerous methods (smoking, snorting, or injecting, instead of oral use). The underground manufacture of meth also often causes poisonings and explosions. But when meth is prescribed and taken like amphetamine, its effects are similar to Adderall.

 

[Vertinari118]

That depends on how you define dangerous. Meth does have very powerful effects on the human mind and body, particularly in higher doses, and, more importantly, has a huge effect on the reward system within the brain. This makes it one of the most addictive drugs out there.

Secondly, to the people who object to the illegality of any and all drugs, what addicted drug user does not inflict harm on society? Addicts hurt others, just as much as they hurt themselves, and thus possession and use of extremely powerful drugs, or perhaps merely the abuse of such drugs (following the general trend of alcohol regulation) fits in with your application of the harm principle in this case. You can also make a case for an impure paternalistic intervention, that is an intervention designed to make an individual better off by restricting the liberty of another group. In this case the meth-cooks are prevented from making meth in order to protect the meth users from themselves but also because producing and selling meth is inflicting harm onto others and thus wrong under the harm principle surely? Finally I'd like to point out even those historically regarded as arch-liberals, such as John Stuart Mill, do tend to advocate certain forms of paternalism, even pure paternalism where no appeal to the harm principle is possible, so why are you so utterly against it?

 

[MobBoss]

Then I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about giving Ritalin to 7-year-olds simply because they are still kids who don't pay attention.

I'm not a big believer in over-medicating children just cause they dont pay attention the way you think they should.

You don't seem to have any problem at all "trusting" obvious propaganda.

I trust you to continue spouting it.

There is a plethora of quite legitimate scholarly work on the subject. But I seriously doubt any of it has been read by your 'former meth cook" friend, nor those who perpetuate the obvious myths spread by those who still even want to criminalize a basically harmless substance like marijuana. They think they already have all the answers from watching propaganda on TV and reading it in the leaflets handed out to school children.

So now you are a reader of a plethora of legitimate scholarly work on meth being lied about?

And the laugh train continues to roll along.

What about the legitimate scholarly articles that do indicate meth is a very dangerous and addictive drug? Just propaganda by the man?

 

[Borachio]

Here we go again! Don't you two agree on anything at all?

Surely there must be something.

 

[Core Imposter]

Still shouldn't be illegal.

I can see that drugs should be illegal if you can establish that the use thereof is a clear and present danger to others. This is of course a slippery slope.

The answer of course is that the Federal government should have no power over it. Leave it up to the states, or better, to counties and municipalities. Then people will have liberty and can chose their laws with their feet.

 

[GoodGame]

The actual article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048335

Snippets from the Authors' discussion:

It has been documented that meth abuse not only elicits a wide range of effects on neurons, but also decreases host resistance to pathogen infections. A growing body of evidence indicates that meth is a risk factor for human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) infection and also for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection [8]–[10]. The greater susceptibility to viral infection is not solely restricted to the use of contaminated injection devices, or to the high-risk sexual behavior, but also related to the deleterious effects of meth on both innate and adaptive immunity. Although the molecular basis for the action on immune suppression remains to be elucidated, meth has been shown to inhibit innate immunity in the host cells, leading to the enhancement of HIV-1 infection in human macrophages and dendritic cells, and HCV replication in human hepatic cells [11]–[13]. However, no studies have examined whether meth itself can enhance influenza A virus replication, and thus elevates influenza A virus infection and exacerbates influenza illness in meth abusers.

Recently, the anti-malaria drug, chloroquine, was suggested to be used as an agent against influenza virus infections, largely based on its biochemical property [37], [38]. As an acidic organelle tropic weak base, chloroquine increases the pH of endosomal, lysosomal and trans-Golgi network vesicles leading to dysfunction of proteases and several enzymes involved in the post-translational modification process. The rise of pH in acidic vesicles inhibits influenza virus replication through reducing the efficiency of virus un-coating in endosomal compartments, and inhibiting the post-translational modification of viral envelope glycoproteins within the Golgi apparatus [39]. Meth and its metabolite, amphetamine, have been found to act as a lipophilic weak base, like chloroquine, to increase the pH of intracellular organelles in several cell types, including neurons, macrophages, and dendritic cells [26], [40], [41]. Thus, the alkalizing effect of meth on cellular acidic organelles might provide a possible explanation for the reduction of influenza A virus replication in lung epithelial cells exposed to meth, but further experimental evidence is definitely needed to support this speculation.

Apart from IFN-dependent antiviral responses, the cellular redox status has also been found to be important in regulating viral replication and infectivity [30], [31]. Several studies have shown that antioxidants can attenuate influenza virus replication in vitro and in vivo, and accumulating evidence has suggested that a more oxidized environment would favor influenza virus replication [32]–[35]. Although meth can cause destruction of dopaminergic terminals by inducing oxidative stress in the brain, chronic administration of meth has been shown to up-regulate antioxidant enzymes (such as superoxide dismutase) and augment the antioxidant activity in the plasma [36]. It remains to be investigated whether meth can induce an up-regulation of the antioxidant system to reduce the susceptibility to influenza infections in lung epithelial cells.

They obviously aren't suggesting meth is some kind of cure here, but that the mechanism of the effect should be screened for and perhaps a safe product can be made that works analogously.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Here we go again! Don't you two agree on anything at all?

Surely there must be something.

Rationalizing and defending the draconian drug laws which are a laughingstock of the modern world certainly isn't it. Nor is believing the incessant propaganda promulgated by the US and many state governments on this topic, while still adamantly refusing to even decriminalize a basically harmless substance like marijuana.

The light bulb has to want to change.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I can see that drugs should be illegal if you can establish that the use thereof is a clear and present danger to others. This is of course a slippery slope.

The answer of course is that the Federal government should have no power over it. Leave it up to the states, or better, to counties and municipalities. Then people will have liberty and can chose their laws with their feet.

I do indeed agree with you on decentralization.

As for the laws themselves however, I would always vote for legaliation in my state.

Drug use is not INHERENTLY a danger to another person so should not be intristically illegal. Its just a form of paternalism, even if the answer of whether or not people should use is indeed clear.

 

[Borachio]

Well, those draconian laws aren't working all that well, if accounts of zombies eating people's faces off is anything to go by. Never mind all those narco-gangs all over the place. Still meth use among the young is on the decline, I hear.

Like most things with some disagreement, there's generally something to be said for both sides, methinks.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The question you should be asking is why you aren't you and others questioning these sort of absurd opinions in these threads? If you did so, I wouldn't feel like I had to respond so frequently.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The question you should be asking is why you aren't you and others questioning these sort of absurd opinions in these threads.

Which ones?

 

[MobBoss]

Rationalizing and defending the draconian drug laws which are a laughingstock of the modern world certainly isn't it.

You allege this a lot. Tell me, how do you know this? Do you jet set all over the world asking people about how they feel about the USAs laws on meth for example?

Or is it just a habit for you to refer to your homeland as a 'laughingstock' on a whim in order for you to look 'edgy and cool'?

Nor is believing the incessant propaganda promulgated by the US and many state governments on this topic, while still adamantly refusing to even decriminalize a basically harmless substance like marijuana.

Many states have indeed de-criminalized it, and we just had two states legalize it. Not sure if 'adamantly' is applicible given that.

 

[Berzerker]

The actual article:

We report the first evidence that meth significantly reduces, rather than increases, virus propagation and the susceptibility to influenza infection in the human lung epithelial cell line, consistent with a decrease in viral protein synthesis.

Wow! Various cancers, heart attacks, etc etc are triggered by viruses entering thru the nasal passages - this stuff - this horrible horrible stuff blocks some of those viruses.

If this can be turned into an inhaler that "coats" the nasal passages millions can be saved.

They gave this stuff to soldiers in pill form (Mother's Little Helper), didn't they? I thought the German blitzkrieg was fueled by meth.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You allege this a lot. Tell me, how do you know this? Do you jet set all over the world asking people about how they feel about the USAs laws on meth for example?

Or is it just a habit for you to refer to your homeland as a 'laughingstock' on a whim in order for you to look 'edgy and cool'?

I'll give you this point. I don't think most people would reject government parentalism as fiercely as I would.

Many states have indeed de-criminalized it, and we just had two states legalize it. Not sure if 'adamantly' is applicible given that.

I wouldn't say "The states" are ademently refusing.

It is the bureaucrats in Washington DC that are ruining peaceful people's lives. They are failing to recognize state legalization and are instead continuing to act like draconian overlords against users.

Washington DC is the problem here. Not state laws.

 

[Hygro]

Is it only meth or do other amphetamines have this property? L-Ampthetamine? D-Amphetamine? Methylenedioxymethamphetamine?

 

[Berzerker]

I imagine pharmaceutical speed would have a similar effect, but I don t know if the stuff has to be snorted

the most dangerous application would be injecting it into the blood, the horror stories about meth addiction largely result from IV use

 

[Borachio]

They gave this stuff to soldiers in pill form (Mother's Little Helper), didn't they? I thought the German blitzkrieg was fueled by meth.

I thought mother's little helper was Valium/diazepam

And yes, meth was used quite extensively by the Germans.

The Allies preferred dexedrine, iirc.

 

[Berzerker]

you're right, Mother's Little Helper is a downer...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I....I agree with MobBoss. *ducks*

 

[GhostWriter16]

I....I agree with MobBoss. *ducks*

A lot of people agree with paternalism, even for adults