4 ms·

A lot of the danger with heroin stems from it being illegal. There's no steady supply, and no way to tell how strong it is. Many of the heroin deaths are from a

A lot of the danger with heroin stems from it being illegal. There's no steady supply, and no way to tell how strong it is. Many of the heroin deaths are from addicts going cold turkey for a while, and/or getting something much stronger than they're used to, and overdosing.

carbocation 16y ago
Plenty of harm would still be done by heroin even if you could eliminate the issues of dosage, purity, and (legal) access. Would making those extrinsic changes that you suggested make being a heroin addict less dangerous? Yes. You'd prevent many of the stochastic events such as overdose, tainted product, and dealer-associated violence. Would those things make heroin less harmful? In many important ways, no. There are simply some hazards of being a heroin addict that are intrinsic, not extrinsic. I still don't think that a heroin addict, even in the protected situation you're describing, would likely be a top candidate for "Parent of the Year," for example. Is legal heroin better, on balance, than a rational needle-exchange program and a generous rehab program? I don't know, but I can guarantee that politically coupling that to marijuana legalization would simply kill marijuana legalization.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  So what, exactly, are these terrible effects? Wikipedia lists collapsed veins, pneumonia, suppressed liver function and infection as long term risks. Which seem pretty bad until you look at the long term risks of alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Talking about the direct health risks of heroin is like talking about the speed of a missile that is coming at you. Sure, a high-velocity object will kill you, but even if someone brought the thing in on a wheelbarrow, it's still packed with explosives and will do its job quite well. This is why I'm not talking about heroin's direct health risks and instead focusing on the bigger picture. Heroin's terrible effects are a consequence of physiology and behavior, not necessarily of cellular toxicity. The way that heroin makes people feel is so powerful that it outcompetes all other motivators. Therefore, heroin has the habit of dominating the lives of its users, enslaving them to itself and its pursuit. The addictive potential of alcohol is nothing like that of heroin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_Potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_...
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Yeah, so it's more addictive than alcohol. But if you can get a clean, dependable supply for relatively little money, the risks are not that bad. Certainly not enough to completely ban it or describe it with the hyperbole that you do.
      - carbocation 16y ago
        What makes you think that I'm being hyperbolic, rather than merely descriptive?
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Because you don't seem to have an accurate idea of what heroin is or does, and you're not basing any of your argument on fact, other than the "heroin is very addictive" part. In my opinion, the fact that it's so addictive makes it more of a candidate for legalisation or at least greater availability, not less. If you have a population of addicts who will do anything for a fix, and the only people who will supply it to them are hardened criminals who are also into prostitution, extortion, theft, etc. what do you think will happen?
        carbocation 16y ago
        I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore. What exactly are you basing your arguments on? And note that while you are arguing that we should legalize heroin, I'm not taking a position on that. I'm merely arguing (1) that legalization is not going to happen politically so you shouldn't weigh down the marijuana legislation with this, and (2) that heroin is intrinsically devastating even when you remove the drug dealers, etc. Point #1 is based on my hunch, but I doubt many would disagree, and point #2 is based on my experience. Do you have evidence or experience that contradicts mine, or are you just speaking hypothetically?
        anthonyb 16y ago
        > I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore. Nice. Maybe try leading with that next time, instead of "Heroin is a wheelbarrow full of rockets." or something, hey? :) I'm not arguing point #1 - I'm arguing that your point #2 is flawed. Your experience likely biases you in that direction, since you will have seen the absolute worst cases of addiction, instead of someone like a lawyer or executive who can afford to have a heroin habit without it bankrupting them, or who isn't addicted.

carbocation 16y ago

Plenty of harm would still be done by heroin even if you could eliminate the issues of dosage, purity, and (legal) access. Would making those extrinsic changes that you suggested make being a heroin addict less dangerous? Yes. You'd prevent many of the stochastic events such as overdose, tainted product, and dealer-associated violence. Would those things make heroin less harmful? In many important ways, no. There are simply some hazards of being a heroin addict that are intrinsic, not extrinsic. I still don't think that a heroin addict, even in the protected situation you're describing, would likely be a top candidate for "Parent of the Year," for example. Is legal heroin better, on balance, than a rational needle-exchange program and a generous rehab program? I don't know, but I can guarantee that politically coupling that to marijuana legalization would simply kill marijuana legalization.

anthonyb 16y ago
So what, exactly, are these terrible effects? Wikipedia lists collapsed veins, pneumonia, suppressed liver function and infection as long term risks. Which seem pretty bad until you look at the long term risks of alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol
- carbocation 16y ago
  Talking about the direct health risks of heroin is like talking about the speed of a missile that is coming at you. Sure, a high-velocity object will kill you, but even if someone brought the thing in on a wheelbarrow, it's still packed with explosives and will do its job quite well. This is why I'm not talking about heroin's direct health risks and instead focusing on the bigger picture. Heroin's terrible effects are a consequence of physiology and behavior, not necessarily of cellular toxicity. The way that heroin makes people feel is so powerful that it outcompetes all other motivators. Therefore, heroin has the habit of dominating the lives of its users, enslaving them to itself and its pursuit. The addictive potential of alcohol is nothing like that of heroin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_Potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_...
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Yeah, so it's more addictive than alcohol. But if you can get a clean, dependable supply for relatively little money, the risks are not that bad. Certainly not enough to completely ban it or describe it with the hyperbole that you do.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      What makes you think that I'm being hyperbolic, rather than merely descriptive?
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Because you don't seem to have an accurate idea of what heroin is or does, and you're not basing any of your argument on fact, other than the "heroin is very addictive" part. In my opinion, the fact that it's so addictive makes it more of a candidate for legalisation or at least greater availability, not less. If you have a population of addicts who will do anything for a fix, and the only people who will supply it to them are hardened criminals who are also into prostitution, extortion, theft, etc. what do you think will happen?
        carbocation 16y ago
        I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore. What exactly are you basing your arguments on? And note that while you are arguing that we should legalize heroin, I'm not taking a position on that. I'm merely arguing (1) that legalization is not going to happen politically so you shouldn't weigh down the marijuana legislation with this, and (2) that heroin is intrinsically devastating even when you remove the drug dealers, etc. Point #1 is based on my hunch, but I doubt many would disagree, and point #2 is based on my experience. Do you have evidence or experience that contradicts mine, or are you just speaking hypothetically?
        anthonyb 16y ago
        > I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore. Nice. Maybe try leading with that next time, instead of "Heroin is a wheelbarrow full of rockets." or something, hey? :) I'm not arguing point #1 - I'm arguing that your point #2 is flawed. Your experience likely biases you in that direction, since you will have seen the absolute worst cases of addiction, instead of someone like a lawyer or executive who can afford to have a heroin habit without it bankrupting them, or who isn't addicted.