5 ms·

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or s

> Drug use is a health-related issue, whether it is a doctor prescribing medications, a patient taking meds off-label, a person self-medicating, an addict, or some kind experimentation > We have a caricatured view of the drug addict -- the unwashed, illiterate, toothless junkie hiding out in a crack house. Yes, addiction ends up that way for some, but by and large addicts are middle-class, educated, and live in houses with their friends or families Excellent points. If there were just two things I wish everyone in the world (or at least in the US) would understand, it's this: 1. The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective (Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example; Marijuana/Marinol is a partial example too). The prescription vs. "everything else" divide is almost arbitrary. If someone told you that they were prescribed diacetylmorphine for chronic pain, what would you say? What would you say if they took heroin for pain? 2. The stereotypes of 'drug addicts' and 'drug users' are grossly inaccurate. Yes, some people who use heroin/meth/coke/etc. fall into the respective stereotypes. But many don't - you just don't know it, because they're the ones who manage to maintain normal lives. Look up diactylmorphine (heroin) maintenance programs in Switzerland and the UK, and you'll see that many people who used to fit the stereotypes of the homeless sex-working heroin addict are able to maintain steady 'normal' jobs if they are given regular access to heroin of a consistent quality/potency and with no adulterants (this requirement is key!) In the UK, there was a 'Nice People Use Drugs' campaign, which was aimed at exactly that - demonstrating to people that the stereotypical drug users are just more visible; the invisible majority of people who use or have used drugs have no lasting/debiltating/noticeable problems (if any at all). Everybody knows people who use drugs of some sort; they just don't always know that those people use drugs. (And sometimes, they're not the ones you'd expect!)

themgt 15y ago
I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man
- lux 15y ago
  A critical point in exposing the blatant contradiction and corruption at the core of the "war on drugs" argument.
maratd 15y ago
> The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. That is not true. > In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective This is true. In a sane society, both would be true. But they are not. The "war on drugs" is not an innocent mistake. It is calculated and it is doing precisely what it was designed to do. Its purpose it to line the pockets of the politicians who support it. By prosecuting drug dealers and users, you bring the cost of using illegals drugs up. Significantly. In other words, you make illegal drugs less competitive vs legal drugs. This allows the pharmaceutical companies to maintain or increase prices for legal drugs. The additional funds the pharmaceutical companies get, they do not get to keep. They funnel that into the regulatory apparatus and more importantly, into the campaigns of the very politicians who support the system.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  Maybe. I think that you're at least partially right, but I also think it has a lot to do with the Christian values that affect our laws way more than they should (see also: abortion laws in USA.) >Its purpose it to line the pockets of the politicians who support it. I would say that it's more for the large pharmaceutical companies. Politicians are cheap these days, and the profits from the "war on drugs" are orders of magnitude larger than the money given to politicians to support it. The ATT/T-Mo merger "only" had $9 million in lobbying support -- an order of magnitude less than they stand/stood to lose if the deal fell through REF: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/09/attmay.have.tried.too.hard.to.get.t.mobile.deal/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/09/attmay.have.tr... .
  - knieveltech 15y ago
    I think both of you are on the right track but may be mistaken regarding who stands to profit the most from continued prohibition. Both local law enforcement and the for-profit companies behind our jails profit enormously from the US having the highest percentage of population incarcerated of any first world country. The majority of individuals currently doing time are in for drug-related crimes.
rue 15y ago
> Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example Small clarification: Adderall isn't methamphetamine, it's amphetamine. When discussing street drugs, for some value of safe, it is a considerably safer substance. (Real, lab-made methamphetamine, even abused, is naturally much less bad for you than the typical battery acid sold on the street, too.)
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  I should have been clearer - I was just trying to be concise to prove a point. And I'm making the assumption that we're comparing drugs of high quality in either category (because obviously drugs that are mixed with adulterants are going to have other problems). You seem to understand what's going on, but for anybody else who's curious: Adderall isn't methamphetamine. However, the methyl group doesn't change the way that the drug affects the brain; it just makes the drug cross the blood-brain barrier more easily. The increased bioavailability means that less of the drug (by weight) is needed to achieve the same result, but the drug isn't activating any different receptors or having a substantially different neurological effect in any other way or for any other reason. Subjectively, there may appear to be a difference for that reason (more efficient access to the brain), but the same pathways are being accessed - just to a greater degree. An analogous and more familiar (but not identical) example would be Vyvanse and Adderall. The actual metabolic process is different from the example above, but in essence, about 50% of Vyvanse is lost when converting from a form which has no effect on the brain to a form which does. Once it's converted, it's chemically equivalent to Adderall. That's part of why Adderall XR is prescribed in doses about half the weight of Vyvanse. [Nitpick: Yes, this isn't a perfect analogy; pharmacology is complicated! Vyvanse contains a single enantiomer of a single amphetamine; Adderall contains two enantiomers each of two amphetamines, but if you know that, you probably already know everything else I'm clarifying here anyway. The reason Vyvanse has reportedly lower side-effects is because it lacks the less effective l-enantiomer, not because the amphetamine is otherwise radically different.] Maybe I should have been a bit clearer, but my point was that Adderall (legally prescribed amphetamine), Desoxyn (legally prescribed methamphetamine), [street] methamphetamine, and [street] amphetamines ('speed') are pharmacokinetically different because of the way that they are taken, the mode of ingestion, and the set & setting, not because of the active ingredient itself. In general, people don't seem to understand that difference, and for that matter, neither do our laws. [Disclaimer: Everything I've said above is 'false' in the sense that it is an oversimplification, but this is HN, not a discussion board on pharmacology, so I'm sacrificing some precision in favor of accessibility/simplicity and (attempted) conciseness.]

themgt 15y ago

I'd add as a third point, that among people who've used a relatively broad range of legal and illegal substances, alcohol and tobacco are widely considered two of the most disgusting, damaging, abuse-prone substances known to man

lux 15y ago
A critical point in exposing the blatant contradiction and corruption at the core of the "war on drugs" argument.

maratd 15y ago

> The drugs that you are prescribed and the drugs people consume recreationally are not fundamentally different. That is not true. > In fact, in many cases, they're essentially interchangeable from a chemical perspective This is true. In a sane society, both would be true. But they are not. The "war on drugs" is not an innocent mistake. It is calculated and it is doing precisely what it was designed to do. Its purpose it to line the pockets of the politicians who support it. By prosecuting drug dealers and users, you bring the cost of using illegals drugs up. Significantly. In other words, you make illegal drugs less competitive vs legal drugs. This allows the pharmaceutical companies to maintain or increase prices for legal drugs. The additional funds the pharmaceutical companies get, they do not get to keep. They funnel that into the regulatory apparatus and more importantly, into the campaigns of the very politicians who support the system.

seanp2k2 15y ago
Maybe. I think that you're at least partially right, but I also think it has a lot to do with the Christian values that affect our laws way more than they should (see also: abortion laws in USA.) >Its purpose it to line the pockets of the politicians who support it. I would say that it's more for the large pharmaceutical companies. Politicians are cheap these days, and the profits from the "war on drugs" are orders of magnitude larger than the money given to politicians to support it. The ATT/T-Mo merger "only" had $9 million in lobbying support -- an order of magnitude less than they stand/stood to lose if the deal fell through REF: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/09/attmay.have.tried.too.hard.to.get.t.mobile.deal/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/12/09/attmay.have.tr... .
- knieveltech 15y ago
  I think both of you are on the right track but may be mistaken regarding who stands to profit the most from continued prohibition. Both local law enforcement and the for-profit companies behind our jails profit enormously from the US having the highest percentage of population incarcerated of any first world country. The majority of individuals currently doing time are in for drug-related crimes.

rue 15y ago

> Adderall/Desoxyn/Methamphetamine/"Speed" are a great example Small clarification: Adderall isn't methamphetamine, it's amphetamine. When discussing street drugs, for some value of safe, it is a considerably safer substance. (Real, lab-made methamphetamine, even abused, is naturally much less bad for you than the typical battery acid sold on the street, too.)

chimeracoder 15y ago
I should have been clearer - I was just trying to be concise to prove a point. And I'm making the assumption that we're comparing drugs of high quality in either category (because obviously drugs that are mixed with adulterants are going to have other problems). You seem to understand what's going on, but for anybody else who's curious: Adderall isn't methamphetamine. However, the methyl group doesn't change the way that the drug affects the brain; it just makes the drug cross the blood-brain barrier more easily. The increased bioavailability means that less of the drug (by weight) is needed to achieve the same result, but the drug isn't activating any different receptors or having a substantially different neurological effect in any other way or for any other reason. Subjectively, there may appear to be a difference for that reason (more efficient access to the brain), but the same pathways are being accessed - just to a greater degree. An analogous and more familiar (but not identical) example would be Vyvanse and Adderall. The actual metabolic process is different from the example above, but in essence, about 50% of Vyvanse is lost when converting from a form which has no effect on the brain to a form which does. Once it's converted, it's chemically equivalent to Adderall. That's part of why Adderall XR is prescribed in doses about half the weight of Vyvanse. [Nitpick: Yes, this isn't a perfect analogy; pharmacology is complicated! Vyvanse contains a single enantiomer of a single amphetamine; Adderall contains two enantiomers each of two amphetamines, but if you know that, you probably already know everything else I'm clarifying here anyway. The reason Vyvanse has reportedly lower side-effects is because it lacks the less effective l-enantiomer, not because the amphetamine is otherwise radically different.] Maybe I should have been a bit clearer, but my point was that Adderall (legally prescribed amphetamine), Desoxyn (legally prescribed methamphetamine), [street] methamphetamine, and [street] amphetamines ('speed') are pharmacokinetically different because of the way that they are taken, the mode of ingestion, and the set & setting, not because of the active ingredient itself. In general, people don't seem to understand that difference, and for that matter, neither do our laws. [Disclaimer: Everything I've said above is 'false' in the sense that it is an oversimplification, but this is HN, not a discussion board on pharmacology, so I'm sacrificing some precision in favor of accessibility/simplicity and (attempted) conciseness.]