3 ms·

The problem is that the statistics (that I've read anyway) make no distinction between people who die from the use of drugs that are available on prescription,

by dools 11y ago

The problem is that the statistics (that I've read anyway) make no distinction between people who die from the use of drugs that are available on prescription, versus those that die from overdose of drugs they have been specifically prescribed. When someone is prescribed drugs they will not be prescribed 2 drugs that cause harm when taken together (such as sleep meds and pain meds) but when people have their prescription cut off and turn to the black market they're doing it in a completely unsupervised environment. What we need is to start prescribing opiates for recreational use and eliminate the black market. Opiates cause no harm (the worst side effect is constipation) so there is no reason that we should be trying to stop people from using them recreationally other than knee jerk moral panic and conservatism.

robbiep 11y ago
> When someone is prescribed drugs they will not be prescribed 2 drugs that cause harm when taken together (such as sleep meds and pain meds) but when people have their prescription cut off and turn to the black market they're doing it in a completely unsupervised environment. In an ideal world, yes. But realistically patients will often be prescribed both. > What we need is to start prescribing opiates for recreational use and eliminate the black market. I strongly disagree with this concept. Opiates for recreational use is basically legalising heroin. The addictive potential is simply too great. I don't know what you are basing this argument on but my first-hand experience working with patients with opiate addictions, as well as a close friend and colleague who started using (pharmacological grade) opiates and rapidly had his life spiral into a shambles. The fact is that these debates have been had in the past. They are the basis of the harm minimisation strategies already in place by governments all over the world - Methadone, Suboxone and Buprenorphine programs, which bind opiate receptors with a long half-life meaning that users are not constantly bouncing from a crazy high to the physical sensation of pain which results from withdrawal of opioid agonism in the context of dependence. > Opiates cause no harm (the worst side effect is constipation) so there is no reason that we should be trying to stop people from using them recreationally other than knee jerk moral panic and conservatism. Again, I strongly disagree. Opiates cannot be used recreationally by the masses in a way which is consistent with normal societal functioning. This would be a disaster of epic proportions.
- dools 11y ago
  Historically opiates were available for public consumption and caused far less harm than they do now. Experiments since the widespread campaign of prohibition with prescribing unadulterated heroin for recreational use has shown it to be effective. Chasing the Scream documents the history of illict drug prohibition since the Volstead act very well.
- aianus 11y ago
  The masses have no interest in being junkies. I wouldn't take oxy or heroin if you gave it to me legally for free. But preventing junkies from getting high safely just makes sure they'll get high unsafely, not that they'll quit.
  - robbiep 11y ago
    There are lots of ways to make sure junkies get high safely without legalising recreational opiates. For instance, heroin injecting rooms are government or health-service funded clinics which provide a safe place to shoot, needle exchange, medical supervision should patients have reactions or overdoses, and the ability to seek out further harm minimisation through enabling access to treatment programs, should the addict wish. The united states scores poorly on access to these services anyway, the rest of the world does substantially better, including my home (Australia) again, the answer to harm minimisation is not legal recreational opiates
    - starling 11y ago
      > the answer to harm minimisation is not legal recreational opiates Right but be careful: "the answer... is not legal recreational opiates" does not necessarily imply that the answer is illegal recreational opiates. If that's what you are suggesting: I am unconvinced. Has a war on drugs ever actually worked for us? Is it clear that legal opiates would mean more overdoses? Even if they would, has someone done a cost-benefit analysis of a) enforcing the illegality of the drug and b) efforts to reduce the negative effects of the drug through education about the risks of using and how to use responsibly. I'd be curious to see the results. Edit: According to http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics (pardon the biased domain but it was the first search result with the answer), only 5% of the money the US spends on drugs is allocated toward prevention and 37% goes to treatment. The remaining 58% goes to enforcing the illegality of drugs. Clearly the enforcement is not very effective because as you mentioned elsewhere 16k people are dying a year from heroin. So the question is: would that money be better spent otherwise?

by dools 11y ago

robbiep 11y ago

> When someone is prescribed drugs they will not be prescribed 2 drugs that cause harm when taken together (such as sleep meds and pain meds) but when people have their prescription cut off and turn to the black market they're doing it in a completely unsupervised environment. In an ideal world, yes. But realistically patients will often be prescribed both. > What we need is to start prescribing opiates for recreational use and eliminate the black market. I strongly disagree with this concept. Opiates for recreational use is basically legalising heroin. The addictive potential is simply too great. I don't know what you are basing this argument on but my first-hand experience working with patients with opiate addictions, as well as a close friend and colleague who started using (pharmacological grade) opiates and rapidly had his life spiral into a shambles. The fact is that these debates have been had in the past. They are the basis of the harm minimisation strategies already in place by governments all over the world - Methadone, Suboxone and Buprenorphine programs, which bind opiate receptors with a long half-life meaning that users are not constantly bouncing from a crazy high to the physical sensation of pain which results from withdrawal of opioid agonism in the context of dependence. > Opiates cause no harm (the worst side effect is constipation) so there is no reason that we should be trying to stop people from using them recreationally other than knee jerk moral panic and conservatism. Again, I strongly disagree. Opiates cannot be used recreationally by the masses in a way which is consistent with normal societal functioning. This would be a disaster of epic proportions.

dools 11y ago
Historically opiates were available for public consumption and caused far less harm than they do now. Experiments since the widespread campaign of prohibition with prescribing unadulterated heroin for recreational use has shown it to be effective. Chasing the Scream documents the history of illict drug prohibition since the Volstead act very well.
aianus 11y ago
The masses have no interest in being junkies. I wouldn't take oxy or heroin if you gave it to me legally for free. But preventing junkies from getting high safely just makes sure they'll get high unsafely, not that they'll quit.
- robbiep 11y ago
  There are lots of ways to make sure junkies get high safely without legalising recreational opiates. For instance, heroin injecting rooms are government or health-service funded clinics which provide a safe place to shoot, needle exchange, medical supervision should patients have reactions or overdoses, and the ability to seek out further harm minimisation through enabling access to treatment programs, should the addict wish. The united states scores poorly on access to these services anyway, the rest of the world does substantially better, including my home (Australia) again, the answer to harm minimisation is not legal recreational opiates
  - starling 11y ago
    > the answer to harm minimisation is not legal recreational opiates Right but be careful: "the answer... is not legal recreational opiates" does not necessarily imply that the answer is illegal recreational opiates. If that's what you are suggesting: I am unconvinced. Has a war on drugs ever actually worked for us? Is it clear that legal opiates would mean more overdoses? Even if they would, has someone done a cost-benefit analysis of a) enforcing the illegality of the drug and b) efforts to reduce the negative effects of the drug through education about the risks of using and how to use responsibly. I'd be curious to see the results. Edit: According to http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics (pardon the biased domain but it was the first search result with the answer), only 5% of the money the US spends on drugs is allocated toward prevention and 37% goes to treatment. The remaining 58% goes to enforcing the illegality of drugs. Clearly the enforcement is not very effective because as you mentioned elsewhere 16k people are dying a year from heroin. So the question is: would that money be better spent otherwise?