10 ms·

This is the effect of drug prohibition in our modern age. You can attack the supply chain, but not the demand. Savvy entrepreneurs, internet marketing and a cor

by dtf 16y ago

This is the effect of drug prohibition in our modern age. You can attack the supply chain, but not the demand. Savvy entrepreneurs, internet marketing and a cornucopia of untested synthetic drugs will continue to satisfy the demands of a largely youthful consumer base. We've made the safest drugs illegal, only to open up a vast market in utter unknowns. Better the devil you know.

dkersten 16y ago
We've made the safest drugs illegal This is the problem.. They've also made alcohol, which is supposedly more dangerous than, for example, cannabis or MDMA, legal. Nicotine is also dangerous and legal.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  Is Nicotine itself actually dangerous or is it the predominant vector that is dangerous?
  - rabidsnail 16y ago
    Smoke doesn't cause heart disease.
    - pasbesoin 16y ago
      From memory, I believe one line of thinking is that vasoconstrictors (of which nicotine is one), in the course of chronic exposure / activity, promote rigidity aka hardening of blood vessels.
      - rabidsnail 16y ago
        I said smoke not smoking. I think you misunderstood.
        pasbesoin 16y ago
        I see now what you mean, although I think the brevity and nature of the comment made it easier to do so. Upvoting your comment (I did not downvote it, before).
  - burnedouthacker 16y ago
    Nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this remains to be proven. Also women who use nicotine gum and patches during the early stages of pregnancy face an increased risk of having babies with birth defects, according to a study of around 77,000 pregnant women in Denmark. The study found that women who use nicotine-replacement therapy in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy have a 60 percent greater risk of having babies with birth defects, compared to women who are non-smokers. Nicotine is a very powerful constrictor and decreases the flow of blood to the periphery of the body. It has been measured and found that there is a 29 percent blood-flow decrease to the thumb after smoking two cigarettes.
  - CitizenKane 16y ago
    Cigarette smoke has a number of carcinogens in it. While nicotine itself is not known to be a carcinogen [0] it does inhibit programmed cell death [1]. Thus, nicotine promotes carcinogenic activity in the lungs and in other bodily tissues. Interestingly, THC seems to have the exact opposite effect promoting programmed cell death rather than inhibiting it [2]. This may lead to a low risk of lung cancer when smoking marijuana as compared to a high risk of lung cancer when smoking cigarettes [3]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology [1] http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full [2] http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948#ABS http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948#ABS [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05...
    - patrickk 16y ago
      "This may lead to a low risk of lung cancer when smoking marijuana as compared to a high risk of lung cancer when smoking cigarettes" Many people roll tobacco and marijuana into joints. So this probably isn't true in many cases. It would be true if marijuana were to be smoked on it's own in a joint.
      - dkersten 16y ago
        Additionally, people tend to hold the marijuana smoke in a lot longer than they do tobacco, so (while I don't have any evidence), I imagine that also makes it more dangerous.
    - varjag 16y ago
      Potheads warning about the dangers of tobacco smoking always struck me as a bit disingenuous. At least tobacco doesn't turn you into asocial slug. (also, pot burning still produces tar)
  - scythe 16y ago
    Nicotine demethylates when heated into nornicotine. This reacts with saliva to form the carcinogenic N-nitrosonornicotine -- which is also found in any variety of cured tobacco. While not itself carcinogenic, it is incredibly hard to separate nicotine from cancer, unfortunately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Janda#Nornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Janda#Nornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Nitrosonornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Nitrosonornicotine
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  Sugary water will catch wild yeasts from the air and spontaneously ferment into alcohol [1]. It's incredibly difficult to prevent its production. AFAIK, 5-MeO-DMT or "Meow Meow" don't magically appear just because you forgot to put a jug of apple cider in the fridge. [1]: http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Tej http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Tej Also, alcohol generally isn't that dangerous, unless people are driving and/or concentrating it via distillation.
  - dtf 16y ago
    Regarding the relative danger of alcohol, David Nutt has just published a new study in The Lancet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-h... "The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero. Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order." Although, I feel these scores are somewhat dependent on the relative prevalences of these substances. If we had as many meth addicts as alcoholics in the UK the picture could be somewhat different. Yet there's no denying that alcohol is a relatively evil drug.
    - ghshephard 16y ago
      Regarding Alcohol: "When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    Alcohol isn't dangerous? Compared to what? I'm a pretty conservative individual, and I've come close to dying at least three times in my life before I realized how lethal alcohol was. Luckily I had friends around me at the time - but I could easily have either overdosed or died choking on my own vomit. Many, Many others haven't been so lucky. And, have you seen what a lifetime abuser of alcohol looks like around 50 (if they, or their liver, survive that long). Seriously - anyone who argues for legalization of alcohol because it's "safer" than something like marijuana doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
- aaronblohowiak 16y ago
  MDMA is not safe for long-term use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chronic_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chronic_use
  - roel_v 16y ago
    (I'm not saying it is safe, but...) It's worth noting that all studies on the long-term effects of illegal drugs have to be done (by necessity) on people who generally, due to their lifestyle, are exposed to a myriad of products that are (potentially) harmful to their bodies, and for hardcore users, have other aspects of their lifestyle that expose them to risks (plainly put, drug users often use different kinds, drink, party and smoke a lot, and addicts are prone to being homeless and/or in prostitution, exposing them to various medical dangers). So it's very hard to isolate what effects are to be ascribed to the MDMA (or variants) and what to other factors.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    I know that article is talking specifically about MDMA, but I think the dangers of ecstasy are more due to the fact that in recent years it doesn't actually contain much MDMA and instead uses much less understood chemicals, which are probably more dangerous than MDMA would be.
    - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
      You're mistaken. The metabolites of seratonin, in excess, are neurotoxic. MDMA works a vesicular releaser, flooding the space between cells with the neurotransmitters that make you feel good. As the brain metabolizes the recently released flood, waste is produced. The brain can healthfully handle a certain level of waste, but beyond a certain level and you risk cellular death. However, this suggests that low doses of MDMA may not pose a significant risk. This is how it was explained to me during my "Drugs and Human Behavior" class 5 years ago at Drexel.
      - dkersten 16y ago
        Oh ok, thats interesting. Thanks for clarifying.
- fexl 16y ago
  Also, alcohol is both dangerous and good for you, depending on how you use it. A recent study showed that moderate drinkers outlive heavy drinkers, but heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers. As with all drugs, the key is dosage control, cost versus benefit, and personal responsibility. But that's not good enough for some people. They want to incarcerate those who produce or use anything that might be harmful when used irresponsibly. Either that or they want a piece of the action. It's quite possible to use ordinary food and vitamins irresponsibly, with great physical and psychological harm. So naturally some people want to play the "give me a cut or go to jail" game with those substances as well. It seems that these people won't be happy until every human activity is either prohibited or mandatory. Freedom is not an option with them. So now you have the insane situation of bureaucrats racing to ban new things, and "meta-chemists" racing to devise new things that haven't been banned yet. What a waste.
hristov 16y ago
Sorry to break it to you but the drugs you are taking are not safe.
- dkersten 16y ago
  Neither are a lot of prescription drugs.

by dtf 16y ago

dkersten 16y ago

We've made the safest drugs illegal This is the problem.. They've also made alcohol, which is supposedly more dangerous than, for example, cannabis or MDMA, legal. Nicotine is also dangerous and legal.

DannoHung 16y ago
Is Nicotine itself actually dangerous or is it the predominant vector that is dangerous?
- rabidsnail 16y ago
  Smoke doesn't cause heart disease.
  - pasbesoin 16y ago
    From memory, I believe one line of thinking is that vasoconstrictors (of which nicotine is one), in the course of chronic exposure / activity, promote rigidity aka hardening of blood vessels.
    - rabidsnail 16y ago
      I said smoke not smoking. I think you misunderstood.
      - pasbesoin 16y ago
        I see now what you mean, although I think the brevity and nature of the comment made it easier to do so. Upvoting your comment (I did not downvote it, before).
- burnedouthacker 16y ago
  Nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this remains to be proven. Also women who use nicotine gum and patches during the early stages of pregnancy face an increased risk of having babies with birth defects, according to a study of around 77,000 pregnant women in Denmark. The study found that women who use nicotine-replacement therapy in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy have a 60 percent greater risk of having babies with birth defects, compared to women who are non-smokers. Nicotine is a very powerful constrictor and decreases the flow of blood to the periphery of the body. It has been measured and found that there is a 29 percent blood-flow decrease to the thumb after smoking two cigarettes.
- CitizenKane 16y ago
  Cigarette smoke has a number of carcinogens in it. While nicotine itself is not known to be a carcinogen [0] it does inhibit programmed cell death [1]. Thus, nicotine promotes carcinogenic activity in the lungs and in other bodily tissues. Interestingly, THC seems to have the exact opposite effect promoting programmed cell death rather than inhibiting it [2]. This may lead to a low risk of lung cancer when smoking marijuana as compared to a high risk of lung cancer when smoking cigarettes [3]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology [1] http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/1.full [2] http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948#ABS http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948#ABS [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05...
  - patrickk 16y ago
    "This may lead to a low risk of lung cancer when smoking marijuana as compared to a high risk of lung cancer when smoking cigarettes" Many people roll tobacco and marijuana into joints. So this probably isn't true in many cases. It would be true if marijuana were to be smoked on it's own in a joint.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Additionally, people tend to hold the marijuana smoke in a lot longer than they do tobacco, so (while I don't have any evidence), I imagine that also makes it more dangerous.
  - varjag 16y ago
    Potheads warning about the dangers of tobacco smoking always struck me as a bit disingenuous. At least tobacco doesn't turn you into asocial slug. (also, pot burning still produces tar)
- scythe 16y ago
  Nicotine demethylates when heated into nornicotine. This reacts with saliva to form the carcinogenic N-nitrosonornicotine -- which is also found in any variety of cured tobacco. While not itself carcinogenic, it is incredibly hard to separate nicotine from cancer, unfortunately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Janda#Nornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Janda#Nornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Nitrosonornicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Nitrosonornicotine
silentbicycle 16y ago
Sugary water will catch wild yeasts from the air and spontaneously ferment into alcohol [1]. It's incredibly difficult to prevent its production. AFAIK, 5-MeO-DMT or "Meow Meow" don't magically appear just because you forgot to put a jug of apple cider in the fridge. [1]: http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Tej http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Tej Also, alcohol generally isn't that dangerous, unless people are driving and/or concentrating it via distillation.
- dtf 16y ago
  Regarding the relative danger of alcohol, David Nutt has just published a new study in The Lancet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-h... "The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero. Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order." Although, I feel these scores are somewhat dependent on the relative prevalences of these substances. If we had as many meth addicts as alcoholics in the UK the picture could be somewhat different. Yet there's no denying that alcohol is a relatively evil drug.
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    Regarding Alcohol: "When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Alcohol isn't dangerous? Compared to what? I'm a pretty conservative individual, and I've come close to dying at least three times in my life before I realized how lethal alcohol was. Luckily I had friends around me at the time - but I could easily have either overdosed or died choking on my own vomit. Many, Many others haven't been so lucky. And, have you seen what a lifetime abuser of alcohol looks like around 50 (if they, or their liver, survive that long). Seriously - anyone who argues for legalization of alcohol because it's "safer" than something like marijuana doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
aaronblohowiak 16y ago
MDMA is not safe for long-term use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chronic_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Chronic_use
- roel_v 16y ago
  (I'm not saying it is safe, but...) It's worth noting that all studies on the long-term effects of illegal drugs have to be done (by necessity) on people who generally, due to their lifestyle, are exposed to a myriad of products that are (potentially) harmful to their bodies, and for hardcore users, have other aspects of their lifestyle that expose them to risks (plainly put, drug users often use different kinds, drink, party and smoke a lot, and addicts are prone to being homeless and/or in prostitution, exposing them to various medical dangers). So it's very hard to isolate what effects are to be ascribed to the MDMA (or variants) and what to other factors.
- dkersten 16y ago
  I know that article is talking specifically about MDMA, but I think the dangers of ecstasy are more due to the fact that in recent years it doesn't actually contain much MDMA and instead uses much less understood chemicals, which are probably more dangerous than MDMA would be.
  - aaronblohowiak 16y ago
    You're mistaken. The metabolites of seratonin, in excess, are neurotoxic. MDMA works a vesicular releaser, flooding the space between cells with the neurotransmitters that make you feel good. As the brain metabolizes the recently released flood, waste is produced. The brain can healthfully handle a certain level of waste, but beyond a certain level and you risk cellular death. However, this suggests that low doses of MDMA may not pose a significant risk. This is how it was explained to me during my "Drugs and Human Behavior" class 5 years ago at Drexel.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Oh ok, thats interesting. Thanks for clarifying.
fexl 16y ago
Also, alcohol is both dangerous and good for you, depending on how you use it. A recent study showed that moderate drinkers outlive heavy drinkers, but heavy drinkers outlive non-drinkers. As with all drugs, the key is dosage control, cost versus benefit, and personal responsibility. But that's not good enough for some people. They want to incarcerate those who produce or use anything that might be harmful when used irresponsibly. Either that or they want a piece of the action. It's quite possible to use ordinary food and vitamins irresponsibly, with great physical and psychological harm. So naturally some people want to play the "give me a cut or go to jail" game with those substances as well. It seems that these people won't be happy until every human activity is either prohibited or mandatory. Freedom is not an option with them. So now you have the insane situation of bureaucrats racing to ban new things, and "meta-chemists" racing to devise new things that haven't been banned yet. What a waste.

hristov 16y ago

Sorry to break it to you but the drugs you are taking are not safe.

dkersten 16y ago
Neither are a lot of prescription drugs.