6 ms·

> Drugs are actually pretty safe I don't get it. Heroin for example is a serious threat for physic and mental health isn't? If you sell them legally, uneducate

by highCs 11y ago

> Drugs are actually pretty safe I don't get it. Heroin for example is a serious threat for physic and mental health isn't? If you sell them legally, uneducated and influenceable people would consume them, not realizing entirely their act no? It's real questions, I'm ignorant here.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
We don't know. There are many, many narratives. The point is that drug policy is not targeted towards harm reduction or safety, but towards the demonization of the drugs, which means there's possible improvement if we stop doing that.
- highCs 11y ago
  > the demonization of the drugs It keeps the number of drug addicts low and then makes the harm and safety problem less important at the same time?
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    How would we know it actually does that? Somewhere between 50-90% of high school seniors in the late '70s smoked pot at least once. The problem with demonization in general is that it requires willing suspension of disbelief, which is brittle. Please remember also that Nixon's original WOD happened because lots of young people were coming back from 'Nam strung out.
    - rco8786 11y ago
      > lots of young people were coming back from 'Nam strung out. It's quite possible that we saw a bunch of boys coming back "strung out" from the most psychologically damaging war in the country's history, not smoking pot.
      - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
        The concern was over the alarming percentage on heroin.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Prohibition might reduce the total number of people who have ever tried a drug, but I very highly doubt it reduces the number of people addicted to a drug. It could just as easily increase the number of addicts.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  This is the rub of the issue. I have a friend who works at a addiction treatment clinic (mostly heroin) whose experience has made her quite opposed to legalizing hard drugs, but she still has no love for existing public policy around drugs.
  - uxp 11y ago
    I don't think there is anyone in the world with some sane common sense that _wants_ to legalize drugs like meth and heroin that have high addiction rates, but there are hundreds of thousands that see the benefit of removing the stigma around the drugs, bringing manufacture of the substances into cleaner laboratories and regulated stores. I had a friend die some years back because he shot a large dose of fentanyl into his arm thinking it was typical low to mid-range heroin. Had he bought from a regulated dealer, the likelihood of the mixup would have been significantly less and his girlfriend would have been more likely to call for emergency services sooner instead of being afraid of punishment. Junkies are gonna be junkies, but they're still human beings and they deserve some respect for being a life. Instead of pointing fingers at how awful a person they are for the choices that lead them to addiction, might we, without having some magical something that takes the addiction away forever, help reduce the harm they are doing to themselves and society?
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > We don't know. There are many, many narratives. Ugh, who cares about "narratives"? We have science to tell us which narrative is correct and which isn't, and for the most commonly used recreational drugs, we do know.
walshemj 11y ago
Heroin is in many ways less dangerous than alcohol
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  What ways? I'm genuinely curious (I don't consider myself an expert on heroin by any means).
- highCs 11y ago
  When I was 16, I've been given a book which summarized the addiction power of many drugs. Here are those I remember: LSD: 1 star (if I remember correctly) Canabis: 1 star Cigarets: 2 stars (notice how people have a hard time to stop smoking) Alcohol: 3 stars Cocaine: 3 stars Heroin: 6 stars In my mind, if you try heroin once, you're addicted. Is that close to be correct? Because if it's correct, then the less people try it, the less there's addicts.
  - gnoway 11y ago
    So by that math, if I try Alcohol twice am I hooked? Or is the relationship logarithmic? I don't think trying heroin is a good idea, but assigning star values like this is not helpful. If anything, it highlights heroin as a goal drug.
    - hijiri 11y ago
      maybe instead of rated in stars the addiction levels should be rated in rusty syringes
  - jimktrains2 11y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the scale here; there is often not a number of usage to addition, it's often a matter of sustained and/or heavy usage. Yes, some drugs lower that threshold (and I thought cigarettes were much more addictive than alcohol), but it's not a x-time-and-done issue. Also, note the lack of caffeine on the chart, it being very common drug that is highly addictive
  - 11y ago
EC1 11y ago
That's not the point. The point is we're already spending tons of money trying to prevent something that is clearly extremely accessible. May as well give them safe places to do it. We're dealing with the reality not the ideology. And that reality is we have a lot of addicts.
dools 11y ago
Heroin is chemically identical to diamorphine that you receive in hospital unless it's been adulterated. The most serious side effect is constipation. Heroin was available over the counter for decades and caused few serious problems (people were no more addicted to it than coffee). It was sold in much lower concentrations so risk of overdose was virtually non-existent.
- chc 11y ago
  The addiction can be a pretty serious side effect.
  - dools 11y ago
    Not if you have a steady, cheap supply of the product you're addicted to. I'm pretty seriously addicted to caffeine, but I don't have a problem with that because I can get high quality coffee very cheaply.
- api 11y ago
  I've known heroin users, and I also know chronic alcoholics. Heavy consumption of alcohol is at least as bad as a heroin habit and can be as hard or harder to quit. Both are fairly dangerous drugs. One is legal.
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    Can you consume heroin without getting addicted and without necessarily wanting to up your doses?
    - dools 11y ago
      Yes I was in hospital on diamorphine for 3 weeks (had a little button to deliver it to me). When I left hospital I had oxycontin and endone pain killers, both of which are opiates. I've not used them since.
  - dools 11y ago
    I've never used street heroin but I was a very heavy drinker up until 1.75 years ago. I cut down gradually after having my first child, til the point when I stopped for a year. I had my first drink again in February of 2015 and have had alcohol semi-regularly since then without issue. I discovered that the problem was I drank too fast. I had learned to use alcohol incorrectly, I think if my parents had shown me how to drink when I was 12 - 14 and gradually introduced me to the effects and how different rates of consumption and different forms of alcohol can effect you I would have been better equipped to have a healthy relationship with alcohol. As it was I learned from my friends (the blind leading the blind ... literally). Still, I'm really fucking glad alcohol is legal, because if I was drinking moonshine I would have been in serious trouble and probably wouldn't be alive now.
cheald 11y ago
Replace "heroin" with "oxycotin" or "valium". We already sanction the sale of drugs with potentially nasty addictive effects to the "uneducated and influenecable". And while prescription drug abuse is certainly a social problem, I'm going to suggest that the sum of the ills surrounding it don't begin to scratch the sum of the ills wrought by the drug war.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  As far as I know heroin is prescribable like those other drugs, and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be.
copsarebastards 11y ago
"Drugs are actually pretty safe" is a ridiculous statement, because it includes everything from caffeine/nicotine to MDPV/datura. > Heroin for example is a serious threat for physic and mental health isn't? Heroin is comparable in risk profile to morphine, and is significantly weaker than fentanyl, both of which are frequently prescribed for pain management. Most of the risk of use comes from addiction, which causes other risky behaviors, and contamination. Both of these risks are poorly-mitigated by criminalization of heroin: addicts rarely want to be addicted, but have difficulty seeking help due to criminalization and social stigma, and contamination would be preventable if heroin were manufactured in regulated facilities. Uneducated and influenceable people currently consume heroin, not realizing their act. The war on drugs has done nothing to prevent this, and in fact has made it harder for people to find real information on heroin. A regulated product could have messages printed on the packaging similar to the way that cigarettes currently do.
- fraserharris 11y ago
  Opiods (including morphine and oxycodone) are highly addictive. Highly educated and un-influenceable people get addicted to them through prescription use. Your post comes off as downplaying this very real risk.
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    I don't see where I said that heroin wasn't addictive: I said quite the opposite. If your objection is that I didn't use scaremongering phrases which have no scientific meaning, like "highly addictive", I did that intentionally. Scaremongering language does not improve the dialogue around heroin use and criminalization.
    - renox 11y ago
      Why do you assert that "highly addictive" isn't scientific? You could measure things like the average number of trials needed to get rid of an addiction as a measure of whether this product is highly addictive or not.

by highCs 11y ago

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

We don't know. There are many, many narratives. The point is that drug policy is not targeted towards harm reduction or safety, but towards the demonization of the drugs, which means there's possible improvement if we stop doing that.

highCs 11y ago
> the demonization of the drugs It keeps the number of drug addicts low and then makes the harm and safety problem less important at the same time?
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  How would we know it actually does that? Somewhere between 50-90% of high school seniors in the late '70s smoked pot at least once. The problem with demonization in general is that it requires willing suspension of disbelief, which is brittle. Please remember also that Nixon's original WOD happened because lots of young people were coming back from 'Nam strung out.
  - rco8786 11y ago
    > lots of young people were coming back from 'Nam strung out. It's quite possible that we saw a bunch of boys coming back "strung out" from the most psychologically damaging war in the country's history, not smoking pot.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      The concern was over the alarming percentage on heroin.
- baddox 11y ago
  Prohibition might reduce the total number of people who have ever tried a drug, but I very highly doubt it reduces the number of people addicted to a drug. It could just as easily increase the number of addicts.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
This is the rub of the issue. I have a friend who works at a addiction treatment clinic (mostly heroin) whose experience has made her quite opposed to legalizing hard drugs, but she still has no love for existing public policy around drugs.
- uxp 11y ago
  I don't think there is anyone in the world with some sane common sense that _wants_ to legalize drugs like meth and heroin that have high addiction rates, but there are hundreds of thousands that see the benefit of removing the stigma around the drugs, bringing manufacture of the substances into cleaner laboratories and regulated stores. I had a friend die some years back because he shot a large dose of fentanyl into his arm thinking it was typical low to mid-range heroin. Had he bought from a regulated dealer, the likelihood of the mixup would have been significantly less and his girlfriend would have been more likely to call for emergency services sooner instead of being afraid of punishment. Junkies are gonna be junkies, but they're still human beings and they deserve some respect for being a life. Instead of pointing fingers at how awful a person they are for the choices that lead them to addiction, might we, without having some magical something that takes the addiction away forever, help reduce the harm they are doing to themselves and society?
copsarebastards 11y ago
> We don't know. There are many, many narratives. Ugh, who cares about "narratives"? We have science to tell us which narrative is correct and which isn't, and for the most commonly used recreational drugs, we do know.

walshemj 11y ago

Heroin is in many ways less dangerous than alcohol

johncolanduoni 11y ago
What ways? I'm genuinely curious (I don't consider myself an expert on heroin by any means).
highCs 11y ago
When I was 16, I've been given a book which summarized the addiction power of many drugs. Here are those I remember: LSD: 1 star (if I remember correctly) Canabis: 1 star Cigarets: 2 stars (notice how people have a hard time to stop smoking) Alcohol: 3 stars Cocaine: 3 stars Heroin: 6 stars In my mind, if you try heroin once, you're addicted. Is that close to be correct? Because if it's correct, then the less people try it, the less there's addicts.
- gnoway 11y ago
  So by that math, if I try Alcohol twice am I hooked? Or is the relationship logarithmic? I don't think trying heroin is a good idea, but assigning star values like this is not helpful. If anything, it highlights heroin as a goal drug.
  - hijiri 11y ago
    maybe instead of rated in stars the addiction levels should be rated in rusty syringes
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the scale here; there is often not a number of usage to addition, it's often a matter of sustained and/or heavy usage. Yes, some drugs lower that threshold (and I thought cigarettes were much more addictive than alcohol), but it's not a x-time-and-done issue. Also, note the lack of caffeine on the chart, it being very common drug that is highly addictive
- 11y ago

EC1 11y ago

That's not the point. The point is we're already spending tons of money trying to prevent something that is clearly extremely accessible. May as well give them safe places to do it. We're dealing with the reality not the ideology. And that reality is we have a lot of addicts.

dools 11y ago

Heroin is chemically identical to diamorphine that you receive in hospital unless it's been adulterated. The most serious side effect is constipation. Heroin was available over the counter for decades and caused few serious problems (people were no more addicted to it than coffee). It was sold in much lower concentrations so risk of overdose was virtually non-existent.

chc 11y ago
The addiction can be a pretty serious side effect.
- dools 11y ago
  Not if you have a steady, cheap supply of the product you're addicted to. I'm pretty seriously addicted to caffeine, but I don't have a problem with that because I can get high quality coffee very cheaply.
api 11y ago
I've known heroin users, and I also know chronic alcoholics. Heavy consumption of alcohol is at least as bad as a heroin habit and can be as hard or harder to quit. Both are fairly dangerous drugs. One is legal.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  Can you consume heroin without getting addicted and without necessarily wanting to up your doses?
  - dools 11y ago
    Yes I was in hospital on diamorphine for 3 weeks (had a little button to deliver it to me). When I left hospital I had oxycontin and endone pain killers, both of which are opiates. I've not used them since.
- dools 11y ago
  I've never used street heroin but I was a very heavy drinker up until 1.75 years ago. I cut down gradually after having my first child, til the point when I stopped for a year. I had my first drink again in February of 2015 and have had alcohol semi-regularly since then without issue. I discovered that the problem was I drank too fast. I had learned to use alcohol incorrectly, I think if my parents had shown me how to drink when I was 12 - 14 and gradually introduced me to the effects and how different rates of consumption and different forms of alcohol can effect you I would have been better equipped to have a healthy relationship with alcohol. As it was I learned from my friends (the blind leading the blind ... literally). Still, I'm really fucking glad alcohol is legal, because if I was drinking moonshine I would have been in serious trouble and probably wouldn't be alive now.

cheald 11y ago

Replace "heroin" with "oxycotin" or "valium". We already sanction the sale of drugs with potentially nasty addictive effects to the "uneducated and influenecable". And while prescription drug abuse is certainly a social problem, I'm going to suggest that the sum of the ills surrounding it don't begin to scratch the sum of the ills wrought by the drug war.

Houshalter 11y ago
As far as I know heroin is prescribable like those other drugs, and no one is arguing that it shouldn't be.

copsarebastards 11y ago

"Drugs are actually pretty safe" is a ridiculous statement, because it includes everything from caffeine/nicotine to MDPV/datura. > Heroin for example is a serious threat for physic and mental health isn't? Heroin is comparable in risk profile to morphine, and is significantly weaker than fentanyl, both of which are frequently prescribed for pain management. Most of the risk of use comes from addiction, which causes other risky behaviors, and contamination. Both of these risks are poorly-mitigated by criminalization of heroin: addicts rarely want to be addicted, but have difficulty seeking help due to criminalization and social stigma, and contamination would be preventable if heroin were manufactured in regulated facilities. Uneducated and influenceable people currently consume heroin, not realizing their act. The war on drugs has done nothing to prevent this, and in fact has made it harder for people to find real information on heroin. A regulated product could have messages printed on the packaging similar to the way that cigarettes currently do.

fraserharris 11y ago
Opiods (including morphine and oxycodone) are highly addictive. Highly educated and un-influenceable people get addicted to them through prescription use. Your post comes off as downplaying this very real risk.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  I don't see where I said that heroin wasn't addictive: I said quite the opposite. If your objection is that I didn't use scaremongering phrases which have no scientific meaning, like "highly addictive", I did that intentionally. Scaremongering language does not improve the dialogue around heroin use and criminalization.
  - renox 11y ago
    Why do you assert that "highly addictive" isn't scientific? You could measure things like the average number of trials needed to get rid of an addiction as a measure of whether this product is highly addictive or not.