4 ms·

Is meth high different from other drugs. And if other comparably safer drugs were available legally would it decrease the usage of meth. I do believe if drugs w

Is meth high different from other drugs. And if other comparably safer drugs were available legally would it decrease the usage of meth. I do believe if drugs were legalised it is a huge industry so billions would be spent of finding a safe way to get high.

tyingq 9y ago
It seems different because it has the addiction proclivities of heroin coupled with crazy cheap and ubiquitous availability. Any semi educated person can cook it locally. Plus it's devastating physically. The welts, scratching, paranoia, food avoidance, tooth eating qualities, etc, are pretty unique. It wrecks your body pretty fast. Serious meth addicts seem to age at a 10x+ factor compared to other addicts. Twentyish old people look 40+ after just a year or so after getting hooked. I'm pretty liberal, but I would fight against legalization of meth. It's really terrible. Meet a girl in her 20's that's been on it a year or two and you might see the issue. Not yet 30, but no teeth left, massive skin issues on their face/arms/upper torso from the welts/scratching, emaciated, and infertile. Also often HIV and/or Hep-C from trading sex for drugs. That shit is pure poison.
- TTPrograms 9y ago
  I think the effects you're describing are mostly all the result of developed behaviors / personal neglect from taking large does regularly. Taking high doses of, ex. Adderall for two years would likely have similar effects.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Maybe. I recall uppers/amphetamines (phenphen/etc) being popular in the 90's with college kids, bored/depressed housewives and high stress occupations. Bad effects for sure, but I don't recall toothless pockmarked emaciated zombies carrying serious STDs. I do feel differently about marijuana, ecstasy, benzodiazepines, mdma, etc. They don't seem much different from alcohol, which we openly condone, despite the obvious issues. At least none of them (mostly) destroy lives in the span of a few years. Opiates are somewhere in the middle for me. Legalization seems dangerous, but not as obviously stupid as for meth. It's in the same category as crack for me. No real casual/functioning users, really, just almost inevitable misery.
    - opportune 9y ago
      Actually MDMA is probably the most dangerous drug that people are trying to get legalized. If I had a teenager, I wouldn't be concerned at all if xanax or weed were legal. Plenty of people take these every day and get by just fine. I could totally see a stupid teenager taking MDMA 1-2 times a week for a good time, and then totally frying out their brain as a consequence. Look at what it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term That said, I would still support its legalization as long as it could only be administered in controlled environments.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        That's fair. I have no real personal exposure to MDMA users. I have, though, lots of personal exposure to crack cocaine, opiate, and meth users. There's very few functional addicts. All three are life ruining, if not life ending.
        opportune 9y ago
        I actually have met a few functional opiate addicts in my days, and I know very functional people that take meth on occasion, but which are not addicted to it. That said, I think it's more important to protect the 90% of people that can't use these drugs responsibly than for the remaining 10% of responsible users to be able to enjoy their favorite high.
      - King-Aaron 9y ago
        > Look at what it does: > As of 2015, the long-term effects of MDMA on human brain structure and function have not been fully determined. MDMA in itself isn't as bad as other drugs, as has been mentioned. It's the compounds that it's cut/mixed with that poses most of the immediate dangers. In fact, the therapeutic potential of MDMA is reason enough for it's rescheduling. http://www.maps.org/research/mdma http://www.maps.org/research/mdma
        opportune 9y ago
  - mc32 9y ago
    But wouldn't the physician prescribing them notice the neglect and take appropriate action? Whereas a meth addict only has the self to decide whether to make some get dome or not? In other words it's less likely you will see those effects on an Adderall users since they are under some medical supervision.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Great observation. I personally know opiate users that resort to meth when the opiates aren't available. The need for any kind of "high" overrules everything else. There's no check/balance at all. They are free to over indulge with all the obvious downsides. The suppliers only care about sales.
andrewstuart 9y ago
I agree - taking drugs is not to my taste, but if people want to get high then it should be legal for them to get clean and prescribed doses of LSD or Cocaine or Ecstasy. But since we've done such a great job of making those things illegal and impossible to get, our children end up on meth. I blame meth on government policy. People would never have reason to try meth in the first place if they could easily, legally and cheaply smoke pot or take one of the above mentioned drugs.
- mc32 9y ago
  I think the issue is moderation. People aren't all that good at moderation --which is why you don't get doctors encouraging people to have "a moderate amount of red wine" because people will make up their own minds what "moderate" means even if you say 4oz... that definition will be stretched. I knew [past tense] some coke addicts, not pretty. Alcohol is not "good" on the other hand its effects usually take a decade or more of heavy use to show up in most adults-whereas heavy use of other drugs ravage people quicker.

tyingq 9y ago

It seems different because it has the addiction proclivities of heroin coupled with crazy cheap and ubiquitous availability. Any semi educated person can cook it locally. Plus it's devastating physically. The welts, scratching, paranoia, food avoidance, tooth eating qualities, etc, are pretty unique. It wrecks your body pretty fast. Serious meth addicts seem to age at a 10x+ factor compared to other addicts. Twentyish old people look 40+ after just a year or so after getting hooked. I'm pretty liberal, but I would fight against legalization of meth. It's really terrible. Meet a girl in her 20's that's been on it a year or two and you might see the issue. Not yet 30, but no teeth left, massive skin issues on their face/arms/upper torso from the welts/scratching, emaciated, and infertile. Also often HIV and/or Hep-C from trading sex for drugs. That shit is pure poison.

TTPrograms 9y ago
I think the effects you're describing are mostly all the result of developed behaviors / personal neglect from taking large does regularly. Taking high doses of, ex. Adderall for two years would likely have similar effects.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Maybe. I recall uppers/amphetamines (phenphen/etc) being popular in the 90's with college kids, bored/depressed housewives and high stress occupations. Bad effects for sure, but I don't recall toothless pockmarked emaciated zombies carrying serious STDs. I do feel differently about marijuana, ecstasy, benzodiazepines, mdma, etc. They don't seem much different from alcohol, which we openly condone, despite the obvious issues. At least none of them (mostly) destroy lives in the span of a few years. Opiates are somewhere in the middle for me. Legalization seems dangerous, but not as obviously stupid as for meth. It's in the same category as crack for me. No real casual/functioning users, really, just almost inevitable misery.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Actually MDMA is probably the most dangerous drug that people are trying to get legalized. If I had a teenager, I wouldn't be concerned at all if xanax or weed were legal. Plenty of people take these every day and get by just fine. I could totally see a stupid teenager taking MDMA 1-2 times a week for a good time, and then totally frying out their brain as a consequence. Look at what it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Long-term That said, I would still support its legalization as long as it could only be administered in controlled environments.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      That's fair. I have no real personal exposure to MDMA users. I have, though, lots of personal exposure to crack cocaine, opiate, and meth users. There's very few functional addicts. All three are life ruining, if not life ending.
      - opportune 9y ago
        I actually have met a few functional opiate addicts in my days, and I know very functional people that take meth on occasion, but which are not addicted to it. That said, I think it's more important to protect the 90% of people that can't use these drugs responsibly than for the remaining 10% of responsible users to be able to enjoy their favorite high.
    - King-Aaron 9y ago
      > Look at what it does: > As of 2015, the long-term effects of MDMA on human brain structure and function have not been fully determined. MDMA in itself isn't as bad as other drugs, as has been mentioned. It's the compounds that it's cut/mixed with that poses most of the immediate dangers. In fact, the therapeutic potential of MDMA is reason enough for it's rescheduling. http://www.maps.org/research/mdma http://www.maps.org/research/mdma
      - opportune 9y ago
- mc32 9y ago
  But wouldn't the physician prescribing them notice the neglect and take appropriate action? Whereas a meth addict only has the self to decide whether to make some get dome or not? In other words it's less likely you will see those effects on an Adderall users since they are under some medical supervision.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Great observation. I personally know opiate users that resort to meth when the opiates aren't available. The need for any kind of "high" overrules everything else. There's no check/balance at all. They are free to over indulge with all the obvious downsides. The suppliers only care about sales.

andrewstuart 9y ago

I agree - taking drugs is not to my taste, but if people want to get high then it should be legal for them to get clean and prescribed doses of LSD or Cocaine or Ecstasy. But since we've done such a great job of making those things illegal and impossible to get, our children end up on meth. I blame meth on government policy. People would never have reason to try meth in the first place if they could easily, legally and cheaply smoke pot or take one of the above mentioned drugs.

mc32 9y ago
I think the issue is moderation. People aren't all that good at moderation --which is why you don't get doctors encouraging people to have "a moderate amount of red wine" because people will make up their own minds what "moderate" means even if you say 4oz... that definition will be stretched. I knew [past tense] some coke addicts, not pretty. Alcohol is not "good" on the other hand its effects usually take a decade or more of heavy use to show up in most adults-whereas heavy use of other drugs ravage people quicker.