8 ms·

Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin

Politics isn't just about "business models". The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially Heroin and Methamphetamine, and underage consumption of many others should be severely regulated. There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society.

phaemon 13y ago
The argument is not: "These drugs are safe, therefore they should be legal." The argument is: "These drugs are unsafe, therefore they should be legal because making them illegal makes things even worse."
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  A black market around heroin and meth will be really small as soon as better and less harmful drugs are cheaper. Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    "it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction." You've stated the government's position exactly, and they can provide some helpful additions to your list of dangerous drugs.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Methamphetamine is useful for non-self-destructive activities, which is why it is legal by prescription. Medical methamphetamine is used to treat narcolepsy and ADHD. On top of that, pharmaceutical methamphetamine is much safer, even at recreational doses, than black market drugs because the production process is well regulated.
    - TheLegace 13y ago
      Well actually there is a world of difference between Methamphetamine and Amphetamine (Adderall). They are in the same family like MDMA but the addition of a methyl group makes Methamphetamine a neurotoxin. "Methamphetamine is a potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic degeneration."[1] So they although they share same traits, their hazardous effects are no where close to each other. This is why drugs are complicated and different. Blanketing all "drugs" as bad while drinking Coffee, Whisky and Aspirin is just hypocritcal and dangerous. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Pharmacology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Pharmacology
      - betterunix 13y ago
        I am aware of the difference between methamphetamine and amphetamine, but the reality is that methamphetamine is used medically and that in small doses the harm is below the measurement threshold. I do not doubt that harm is caused at recreational doses, but vastly more harm is caused by the adulterants in black market methamphetamine.
      - samatman 13y ago
        This is not actually true. Both amphetamine and methamphetamine are neurotoxic: methamphetamine is both more potent and less neurotoxic per 'dose'. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289608 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289608 Also, as an anecdote, I have received d-amphetamine by prescription and have taken Desoxyn about five times. They're not that different, Desoxyn is subjectively 'cleaner'. I stick to caffeine though, and roughly half a Modafinil every two weeks. Amphetamine is just not my friend. Your mileage may vary.
  - testbro 13y ago
    > Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction. Why not? Should I not be permitted to destroy myself if I so choose?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Because society needs you and who are you thinking you can take decisions for yourself not asking the government for permission? Get in line, you dangerous anarchist hippy, and be a good cog. And if you try to harm yourself again, we will put you in the cage with most violent and sociopathic people we could find and keep there until you understand we're doing this for your own good. That provided we don't kill you while trying to take from you dangerous chemicals that aren't good for you.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I'd s/therefore/but/ in the second case.
girvo 13y ago
> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society. You'd be surprised. I am an ex-heroin addict, and I will say that I certainly DON'T fit into the "doesn't cause harm" basket. I fucked things up well and truly. But for every addict, there are a surprising amount of "weekend warriors" who dabble here and there and never get drawn in (for a variety of reasons). Unfortunately, I was not one of them, even though at the time I thought I was. That is the danger.
chimeracoder 13y ago
> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society. Please read up on diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. There is copious literature on this. Laudanum was used safely for the better part of the late 19th century. The word "heroin" is actually a trademark of Bayer (yes, the same folks who also gave us "aspirin")[0]. It was sold successfully and without any large-scale devastating effects for several years; the reason it was eventually outlawed had nothing to do with any negative repercussions of the drug on a large scale. As for methamphetamine, according to the MTF and NSDUH studies, the majority of people who have used methamphetamine in the last 30 days do not meet DSM criteria for substance dependence[1]. That's not looking at everyone who's ever used methamphetamine; that's looking at people who have used it within the last month. Clearly it can be used "without affecting all of society"[2]. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that methamphetamine is Schedule II and can be obtained legally (albeit in rare cases) with a prescription (under the brand name Desoxyn). [0] Both trademarks are now generic; Bayer eventually lost these trademark protections. This is why your local drugstore is allowed to sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin" (with a lowercase "a"). [1] Most also wouldn't meet the DSM criteria for substance abuse either, except for a technicality in the criteria that references the legal status of the drug, which is naturally self-fulfilling. [2] Unless you are looking at the economic impacts (ie, Nicaragua 30 years ago, North Korea and Afghanistan today, in which case you have a point, but that only serves to emphasize the need to short-circuit these black markets with legal ones).
- jebblue 13y ago
  Read girvo's comments then see if you can come back here and defend dangerous drugs.
  - mjallday 13y ago
    If heroin was legal today would you go and try it? I wouldn't, and I suspect most people either would or would not regardless of the law. For those that would, having to go but it from some non legitimate source where they are potentially exposed to non-pure product and potential crime certainly isn't going to help their situation.
betterunix 13y ago
"I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially...Methamphetamine," Methamphetamine is legal by prescription. This is the war on drugs in its truest form: giving well-connected businesses (like big pharma) special advantages at everyone's expense.
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  As is THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. And they have the absolute fucking audacity to call it "Marinol".
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    They're also presently working on CBD (one of the other common chemicals in marijuana, generally the second most prevalent after THC) derivatives for medical usage.
  - Pitarou 13y ago
    That's beautiful.
DanBC 13y ago
Heroin is presently illegal. Possession of heroin with intent to supply carries a prison sentence. Possession of heroin for personal use is a criminal offence. Drug addicts take drugs. They're not deterred by the legal status of the drug. Heroin being illegal doesn't stop addicts taking heroin. By making a drug hard to get illegally all you do is make a drug addict commit more crime to get it, or take more risks. Heroin users inject contaminated drugs, using re-used (sometimes shared) needles, in dirty surroundings. This carries considerable risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis and HIV. It also carries significant risk of abscess or even amputation. Heroin users need money to buy heroin. This money can come from sex working. Sex work is an unregulated semi-legal activity. There are risks of rape and assault. There are risks of sexually transmitted infections. People dislike the advertising associated with sex work. Because sex work is unregulated there are other vulnerable groups dragged into it - trafficked women, homeless people, and children. Or the money comes from other crime - mugging, burglary, theft. And people spending all their cash on heroin will steal food. Heroin's illegality means that its supply is controlled by criminal gangs. There is violence associated with these gangs. Even the "nice" drugs - cannabis - have considerable problems from their illegal status. We can't do proper science because of the problems of getting and giving cannabis. Cannabis is sometimes grown by slaves trapped in grow-farms in houses. There are links between cannabis grow farms and housing benefit fraud in the UK. Heroin being illegal makes it harder for people to look for or get help. We can't taper addicts down using heroin, so we use methadone. It's tricky to talk about how addictive a substance is, but some people feel that methadone is more addictive than heroin. When heroin is too tightly controlled you just switch addicts to even worse drugs. See, for example, the Russian drug Krokodil. This is desomorphine, cooked from codeine-containing meds, but in dirty unclean situations. The high from desomorphine is intense but short-lived, so people cook and cook frequently. They're careless with the procedure. This means that they're using filthy needles to inject god-only knows what. An image search for "krokodil" returns many grisly horrific images. Addicts using krokodil live for about 3 years.
- girvo 13y ago
  Methadone is horrid. Buprenorphine was better for me, personally. I'm tapering off that at the moment. Also, Krokodil is... well, it's barely desomorphine. A RP/I reduction of codeine... that certainly doesn't produce what they want it to (except in tiny, tiny quantities perhaps, more as a side-chain reaction though). Also, just to point out, a lot of the Krokodil images were mislabeled from another drug (that I can't remember) -- it's horridly dangerous, it will kill you, but it doesn't eat the flesh of your bones like is commonly reported, unless you're shooting acetone. And trust me, you know if what you're shooting hasn't been cleaned properly -- that shit hurts like fuck, and definitely ruins any "high" you might get. *shudder
AJ007 13y ago
There is no way you can use military force against people who use or sell heroin or meth without causing destructive harm and affecting all of society.
smsm42 13y ago
Leaving aside issues not regarding adults (as underage consumption of many things is regulated now, there's nothing new here to be brought into the discussion), do you really think it's up to you to decide what is good and bad for everyone? Especially as you seem to be vastly misinformed on both personal and societal tolerances of both amphetamines and opiates. While both can be dangerously abused, so can be many common chemicals - like alcohol. There are ways beside prohibitionism to deal with it.
Gormo 13y ago
> The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Let's be clear here: a legal prohibition is nothing more than an ultimatum. It's a threat of punishment - "if you use heroin, and we catch you, we will lock you in a cage". If you're opposed to people using heroin because it's harmful, can you explain how making people serve prison sentences and have life-long criminal records in addition to being heroin addicts somehow reduces the amount of harm that they suffer? Because, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the solution you offer to the harm caused by heroin and meth is to do even more harm to people, on top of the harm caused by the drugs.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

phaemon 13y ago

The argument is not: "These drugs are safe, therefore they should be legal." The argument is: "These drugs are unsafe, therefore they should be legal because making them illegal makes things even worse."

bayesianhorse 13y ago
A black market around heroin and meth will be really small as soon as better and less harmful drugs are cheaper. Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  "it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction." You've stated the government's position exactly, and they can provide some helpful additions to your list of dangerous drugs.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Methamphetamine is useful for non-self-destructive activities, which is why it is legal by prescription. Medical methamphetamine is used to treat narcolepsy and ADHD. On top of that, pharmaceutical methamphetamine is much safer, even at recreational doses, than black market drugs because the production process is well regulated.
  - TheLegace 13y ago
    Well actually there is a world of difference between Methamphetamine and Amphetamine (Adderall). They are in the same family like MDMA but the addition of a methyl group makes Methamphetamine a neurotoxin. "Methamphetamine is a potent neurotoxin, shown to cause dopaminergic degeneration."[1] So they although they share same traits, their hazardous effects are no where close to each other. This is why drugs are complicated and different. Blanketing all "drugs" as bad while drinking Coffee, Whisky and Aspirin is just hypocritcal and dangerous. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Pharmacology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Pharmacology
    - betterunix 13y ago
      I am aware of the difference between methamphetamine and amphetamine, but the reality is that methamphetamine is used medically and that in small doses the harm is below the measurement threshold. I do not doubt that harm is caused at recreational doses, but vastly more harm is caused by the adulterants in black market methamphetamine.
    - samatman 13y ago
      This is not actually true. Both amphetamine and methamphetamine are neurotoxic: methamphetamine is both more potent and less neurotoxic per 'dose'. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289608 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289608 Also, as an anecdote, I have received d-amphetamine by prescription and have taken Desoxyn about five times. They're not that different, Desoxyn is subjectively 'cleaner'. I stick to caffeine though, and roughly half a Modafinil every two weeks. Amphetamine is just not my friend. Your mileage may vary.
- testbro 13y ago
  > Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction. Why not? Should I not be permitted to destroy myself if I so choose?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Because society needs you and who are you thinking you can take decisions for yourself not asking the government for permission? Get in line, you dangerous anarchist hippy, and be a good cog. And if you try to harm yourself again, we will put you in the cage with most violent and sociopathic people we could find and keep there until you understand we're doing this for your own good. That provided we don't kill you while trying to take from you dangerous chemicals that aren't good for you.
dllthomas 13y ago
I'd s/therefore/but/ in the second case.

girvo 13y ago

> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society. You'd be surprised. I am an ex-heroin addict, and I will say that I certainly DON'T fit into the "doesn't cause harm" basket. I fucked things up well and truly. But for every addict, there are a surprising amount of "weekend warriors" who dabble here and there and never get drawn in (for a variety of reasons). Unfortunately, I was not one of them, even though at the time I thought I was. That is the danger.

chimeracoder 13y ago

> There is no way Heroin or Meth can be "used recreationally" without causing self-destructive harm and affecting all of society. Please read up on diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. There is copious literature on this. Laudanum was used safely for the better part of the late 19th century. The word "heroin" is actually a trademark of Bayer (yes, the same folks who also gave us "aspirin")[0]. It was sold successfully and without any large-scale devastating effects for several years; the reason it was eventually outlawed had nothing to do with any negative repercussions of the drug on a large scale. As for methamphetamine, according to the MTF and NSDUH studies, the majority of people who have used methamphetamine in the last 30 days do not meet DSM criteria for substance dependence[1]. That's not looking at everyone who's ever used methamphetamine; that's looking at people who have used it within the last month. Clearly it can be used "without affecting all of society"[2]. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that methamphetamine is Schedule II and can be obtained legally (albeit in rare cases) with a prescription (under the brand name Desoxyn). [0] Both trademarks are now generic; Bayer eventually lost these trademark protections. This is why your local drugstore is allowed to sell acetylsalicylic acid under the name "aspirin" (with a lowercase "a"). [1] Most also wouldn't meet the DSM criteria for substance abuse either, except for a technicality in the criteria that references the legal status of the drug, which is naturally self-fulfilling. [2] Unless you are looking at the economic impacts (ie, Nicaragua 30 years ago, North Korea and Afghanistan today, in which case you have a point, but that only serves to emphasize the need to short-circuit these black markets with legal ones).

jebblue 13y ago
Read girvo's comments then see if you can come back here and defend dangerous drugs.
- mjallday 13y ago
  If heroin was legal today would you go and try it? I wouldn't, and I suspect most people either would or would not regardless of the law. For those that would, having to go but it from some non legitimate source where they are potentially exposed to non-pure product and potential crime certainly isn't going to help their situation.

betterunix 13y ago

"I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Especially...Methamphetamine," Methamphetamine is legal by prescription. This is the war on drugs in its truest form: giving well-connected businesses (like big pharma) special advantages at everyone's expense.

drjesusphd 13y ago
As is THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. And they have the absolute fucking audacity to call it "Marinol".
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  They're also presently working on CBD (one of the other common chemicals in marijuana, generally the second most prevalent after THC) derivatives for medical usage.
- Pitarou 13y ago
  That's beautiful.

DanBC 13y ago

Heroin is presently illegal. Possession of heroin with intent to supply carries a prison sentence. Possession of heroin for personal use is a criminal offence. Drug addicts take drugs. They're not deterred by the legal status of the drug. Heroin being illegal doesn't stop addicts taking heroin. By making a drug hard to get illegally all you do is make a drug addict commit more crime to get it, or take more risks. Heroin users inject contaminated drugs, using re-used (sometimes shared) needles, in dirty surroundings. This carries considerable risk of infection from diseases like hepatitis and HIV. It also carries significant risk of abscess or even amputation. Heroin users need money to buy heroin. This money can come from sex working. Sex work is an unregulated semi-legal activity. There are risks of rape and assault. There are risks of sexually transmitted infections. People dislike the advertising associated with sex work. Because sex work is unregulated there are other vulnerable groups dragged into it - trafficked women, homeless people, and children. Or the money comes from other crime - mugging, burglary, theft. And people spending all their cash on heroin will steal food. Heroin's illegality means that its supply is controlled by criminal gangs. There is violence associated with these gangs. Even the "nice" drugs - cannabis - have considerable problems from their illegal status. We can't do proper science because of the problems of getting and giving cannabis. Cannabis is sometimes grown by slaves trapped in grow-farms in houses. There are links between cannabis grow farms and housing benefit fraud in the UK. Heroin being illegal makes it harder for people to look for or get help. We can't taper addicts down using heroin, so we use methadone. It's tricky to talk about how addictive a substance is, but some people feel that methadone is more addictive than heroin. When heroin is too tightly controlled you just switch addicts to even worse drugs. See, for example, the Russian drug Krokodil. This is desomorphine, cooked from codeine-containing meds, but in dirty unclean situations. The high from desomorphine is intense but short-lived, so people cook and cook frequently. They're careless with the procedure. This means that they're using filthy needles to inject god-only knows what. An image search for "krokodil" returns many grisly horrific images. Addicts using krokodil live for about 3 years.

girvo 13y ago
Methadone is horrid. Buprenorphine was better for me, personally. I'm tapering off that at the moment. Also, Krokodil is... well, it's barely desomorphine. A RP/I reduction of codeine... that certainly doesn't produce what they want it to (except in tiny, tiny quantities perhaps, more as a side-chain reaction though). Also, just to point out, a lot of the Krokodil images were mislabeled from another drug (that I can't remember) -- it's horridly dangerous, it will kill you, but it doesn't eat the flesh of your bones like is commonly reported, unless you're shooting acetone. And trust me, you know if what you're shooting hasn't been cleaned properly -- that shit hurts like fuck, and definitely ruins any "high" you might get. *shudder

AJ007 13y ago

There is no way you can use military force against people who use or sell heroin or meth without causing destructive harm and affecting all of society.

smsm42 13y ago

Leaving aside issues not regarding adults (as underage consumption of many things is regulated now, there's nothing new here to be brought into the discussion), do you really think it's up to you to decide what is good and bad for everyone? Especially as you seem to be vastly misinformed on both personal and societal tolerances of both amphetamines and opiates. While both can be dangerously abused, so can be many common chemicals - like alcohol. There are ways beside prohibitionism to deal with it.

Gormo 13y ago

> The war on drugs is certainly bad. But I still believe there are drugs that should be prohibited. Let's be clear here: a legal prohibition is nothing more than an ultimatum. It's a threat of punishment - "if you use heroin, and we catch you, we will lock you in a cage". If you're opposed to people using heroin because it's harmful, can you explain how making people serve prison sentences and have life-long criminal records in addition to being heroin addicts somehow reduces the amount of harm that they suffer? Because, from where I'm sitting, it seems that the solution you offer to the harm caused by heroin and meth is to do even more harm to people, on top of the harm caused by the drugs.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]