War on drugs

Originally posted by deckard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,506507,00.html

Make heroin legal

In the first of a two-part series, Nick Davies argues that the disease and moral collapse associated with class A drugs is due to criminalisation, not the drugs themselves

This was a very interesting article I found some time ago on the Guardian newspaper in the UK, quite a conservative, republican if your American, publication. It made compeling reading and made me think very hard about the issue of legalising drugs.

link no work - they want money :(


I have heard of several studies claiming what you sday they claim - fact is that heroin does physical damage to the body and brain. If you wish I can dig out my old notes from Neuroanatomy and Neuropharmacology and explain the damages to you. Even the purest heroin will make you addicted and will force you to take more and more - to the point where you are past psychologically visible brain damage into muscle atropy and so on.
 
Link no work!!?? Sorry! Basically he was making the point that the black market caused by the prohibition of drugs caused a lot more suffering than the drugs themselves. Cutting pure herion with gravy powder, brick dust drain cleaner baby powder etc, causes more harm than the drug itself.

He also says, and I want to know if it is true, that the dose of herion required to be used for theraputic reasons and that required to kill is fairly large, where as I always thought that it was a dangerous drug that required sensitive handling and the differenence between these doses were small. The article does say that the drug is addictive, much like acohol or tobacco I suppose and that it was widley prescribed to ex-soldiers who became addicted to it after being given it in the wars.
 
Originally posted by deckard
Link no work!!?? Sorry! Basically he was making the point that the black market caused by the prohibition of drugs caused a lot more suffering than the drugs themselves. Cutting pure herion with gravy powder, brick dust drain cleaner baby powder etc, causes more harm than the drug itself.
I heartly agree with that!


He also says, and I want to know if it is true, that the dose of herion required to be used for theraputic reasons and that required to kill is fairly large, where as I always thought that it was a dangerous drug that required sensitive handling and the differenence between these doses were small. The article does say that the drug is addictive, much like acohol or tobacco I suppose and that it was widley prescribed to ex-soldiers who became addicted to it after being given it in the wars.

The problem is that your body will react to a CONSTANT dose with withdrawal symptoms - you will have to increase the dosage....

Still, there is cases where heroin has a medical use - but never for recreation!
 
So if we can accept that people will want to take herion would it be better to decriminalise it in some way? Tax it and use the money to educate people about its dangers, off addiction at least.
Would this cause a fall in people using it. Maybe. It would not be seen as dangerous if you could get it from a pharmicist, though how would you get hooked on it in the first place?

The money that drug barons pull in each year from herion, cocaine, has etc is staggering. It is enough to undermine the judiciary of countires such as Columbia and if the judges can't be bought then they are killed.

There is also the menace of the drug trafficing state and I am thinking of North Korea, where they are trying to sell herion for hard foriegn currency.
 
The relative toxicity of a substance might be expressed by the ratio between the effective dosage and the lethal dosage.

therapeuticindex2.jpg


For example:
For alcohol the ED50 (effective dosage that works for 50% of the users) might be half a beer. (0,25 litres)
The LD 50 (lethal dosage that kills 50% of the users) might be about 20 - 30 beers (15 litres) - at least if you would be drinking it at once.

This would give us a safety margin of about 1:40 - 1:60.

I really would like to know the numbers for other substances. Anyone can help out?
 
Originally posted by carlosMM
link no work - they want money :(
Now that's strange, I get it for free! :rolleyes:

It's pointless to post everything here, just a short passage:

Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage.

We cannot find any medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users .... 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." Peanut butter, cream and sugar, for example, are all far more likely to damage the health of their users.

I checked with google that this Dr. Brotman really exists. The most interesting link mentioning his name was:
www.sppsr.ucla.edu/faculty/kleiman/book/8231CH02.pdf

It contains perls like:

I can resist anything except temptation.
—Oscar Wilde

Personally I feel, that heroin is a very dangerous drug, as is alcohol. From the 2500+ drug deaths we have here, probably 2495 are caused by heroin or heroin in combination with alcohol, barbiturates, methadon etc...

Alcohol deaths are about 300.000 +
 
The war on drugs is a waste of the nation's resources, and it puts thousands of good citizens into jail.

Harmfull drugs are a health issue not a cirminal one. We should help those with drug problems not jail them.

Marijuana is a very soft drug compared to alcohaul it is hypocritical and stupid that we lock people up for smoking it.
 
Originally posted by andrewgprv
The war on drugs is a waste of the nation's resources, and it puts thousands of good citizens into jail.

Harmfull drugs are a health issue not a cirminal one. We should help those with drug problems not jail them.

Marijuana is a very soft drug compared to alcohaul it is hypocritical and stupid that we lock people up for smoking it.

I agree, looking up is dumb. But as I said above: harmless for many, but harmfull for too many to simply not care - and the damage is done to those a LOT faster than with Alocohol - or even tobacco (as much as I dislike that!!
 
Now that's strange, I get it for free!

It's pointless to post everything here, just a short passage:

Before I read this I was totally against decriminalising drugs. I know herion is dangerous and addictive but the article did make me think that we have not studied this from a cold, emotionless view point. I would like to see a proper study into the misuse drugs carried out looking into how safe they are or are not, who widespread, who much money drugs lords really make.

Only then can we make an informed opion on what to do about it.

By the way I used to read Iam M Banks books about the culture, SF stories, where people could manufacture their own natrual drugs in their bodies. What a great idea. genetically modify people to create their own highs with natrual drugs from their bodies. Crazy idea, good books though.
 
Originally posted by deckard
Now that's strange, I get it for free!

It's pointless to post everything here, just a short passage:

Before I read this I was totally against decriminalising drugs. I know herion is dangerous and addictive but the article did make me think that we have not studied this from a cold, emotionless view point. I would like to see a proper study into the misuse drugs carried out looking into how safe they are or are not, who widespread, who much money drugs lords really make.

Only then can we make an informed opion on what to do about it.

By the way I used to read Iam M Banks books about the culture, SF stories, where people could manufacture their own natrual drugs in their bodies. What a great idea. genetically modify people to create their own highs with natrual drugs from their bodies. Crazy idea, good books though.

why engeneer? The stuff is called endorphines - I get a high qutie often from them. OK, OK, I will have to DO something for that - like having sex! But still, kinda nice ;)
 
CarlosMM, you speak very definitively about how terrible pot is, but you ignored my question. Have you ever tried it?
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
CarlosMM, you speak very definitively about how terrible pot is, but you ignored my question. Have you ever tried it?

No! I am in the risk group for depression - I am NOT going to take the risk and use pot!

Alos, what does the personal experience have to do with the risks involved? I think m. is a nice thing for someone who does NOT run additional risks - let elderly people use it to alleviate pain!

But makig a connection between my personal experience and the dangers involved makes no sense. If there was any then someone who got hit by a truck but miracuously stayed unscratched could go out and claim that crossing autobahns blindfolded shouldn't be discussed by people who didn't try it first!

Hell, have you tried heroin? I hope not. Would you say it is wrong to if you said heroin is dangerous jsut because you haven't tried it?

I try to be reasonable and not demonize 'soft' drugs, but I have so often heard people 'softpaint' them as harmless when everybody knows that that is not true that I tend to paint them in a harsher light than perhaps necessary. We had a guy in class who struggled with psychological problems - suicide 'dream orders' and sever alcohol addiction despite only moderate consumation - strangely they all slowly wetn away when he laid off the joints...... Rare, mayb, but not rare enough to ignore!
 
Yeah bad case of sausage fingers. Doooh!:lol:
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
... my question. Have you ever tried it?
Oh please come on ... if the Pope has the right to talk about birth-control, then everybody has the right to talk about drugs...
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

btw, I did not ignore this intentionally, I was too busy kicking a creationit's theories elsewhere that I overlooked it! Sorry!
 
Carlos (and smalltalk), I asked if you ever smoked it because youre lumping pot together with heroin and saying that alchohol is much less harmful. Even though Im a pot smoker, I think its a good idea to encourage kids to stay away from it, along with all other drugs including alchohol. However, when you make statements that even a casual drug user will spot as inaccurate, you defeat your purpose and make it much harder to convince anyone to stop doing anything. Pot is NOT as harmful as heroin, and anyone whos smoked it two or three times knows it. If youre telling people things that they know are untrue, they'll stop listening to you.
 
Originally posted by carlosMM

I try to be reasonable and not demonize 'soft' drugs, but I have so often heard people 'softpaint' them as harmless when everybody knows that that is not true

people softpaint them into a more realistic image, rather then the killers the gov. makes them out to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom