9 ms·

This is easy to get behind. Although I have doubts of ever seeing these products on store shelves in the US, one of the things that have kept my personal drug e

• eddieh 12y ago
  > I'm still against legalizing the worst of drugs like meth and heroin. It's funny you're against legalizing those two drugs. I take it you're not aware that both of the "worst" (whatever that is supposed to mean) drugs are actually legal in one form or another. Methamphetamine is available with a prescription and heroin/opioids are generally available with a prescription as well.
  • neikos 12y ago
    I am sure by 'worst' he meant the relation between active dose and lethal dose, which IIRC are not so far apart.
    • eddieh 12y ago
      If that is the measure of "worst" then alcohol, tylenol, nutmeg, and dextromethorphan containing cough medicine should be demonized too.
      • neikos 12y ago
        I'm all for Alcohol being less available, Paracetamol isn't my cup of tea either and discourage its use, a search for Nutmeg has brought nothing that seems to be supportive of it being overly dangerous, and a quick google for dextromethorphan also seeems to be inconclusive (wikipedia cites adverse effects in doses up to 75 the usual dose, so unless one can buy it in extra large capsules I don't think it is relevant). I have a hard time believing that you were serious about the latter two examples, given what I found.
        • eddieh 12y ago
          Well there is your problem. You don't actually know anything about the subject and a "quick google" is a poor substitute for actual knowledge. Nutmeg is a psychoactive substance at the right dose and at around 7-8 times that dose it can be lethal. That is more dangerous than alcohol. With dextromethorphan the ratio of a dose that gets you high to the dose that kills you is about the same as alcohol.
          • DanBC 12y ago
            > Nutmeg is a psychoactive substance at the right dose and at around 7-8 times that dose it can be lethal. How many people have died of a nutmeg overdose? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11343860 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11343860 seems to suggest that it's rare.
            • eddieh 12y ago
              Fair enough, but that is a very different measure of "worst".
        • DanBC 12y ago
          Death from cough syrup overdose is well known and cautioned against in the drug taking community. > Paracetamol isn't my cup of tea either and discourage its use Why? When taken at the correct dose it's a safe, effective, pain killer. People do need to be careful to avoid overdose, which means that packets should probably be a bit clearer when they include paracetamol / acetaminophen.
          • neikos 12y ago
            Yes and that's why I said discourage and not something like 'prefer it to be banned'. To me it's a 'take if you think you really can't function without but be careful' kind of case.
    • user_0001 12y ago
      I think he probably means "potential for addiction which can have serious implications to ones health"
    • adrusi 12y ago
      Overdose potential is largely irrelevant for low-addiction substances.
  • roel_v 12y ago
    "Meth" = crystal meth, which is not at all (in its practical properties, not chemically) like the methamphetamine that is available with a prescription (Ritalin and Adderal is what you're referring to). Crystal meth is a lot more addictive, as well as physically damaging, than amphetamines or methamphetamines taken orally. Likewise, it's disingenuous to compare heroin to morphine or oxycodone, even if they're chemically similar. Look, I'm on your side (the de-criminalisation side) but we need to use real arguments to win our case, not easily debunked or up for debate sophisms that our opponent easily can (and will) turn against us.
    • runarb 12y ago
      You dont have to compare heroin to morphine or oxycodone. As i understands it Heroin is being used clinically in some countries under the name "Diamorphine".
    • chimeracoder 12y ago
      Desoxyn is methamphetamine. Adderall is amphetamine, whereas Ritalin is methylphenidate, a completely different drug entirely. The difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine is largely in the effective dose needed by weight, because the extra methyl group lets the drug cross the blood-brain barrier more easily. It doesn't change the actual receptors it activates or the metabolic process of the drug, however. The real difference between Adderall and "street meth" has more to do with the means of ingestion (smoked vs oral) than the actual chemical compounds themselves.
      • roel_v 12y ago
        "Adderall is amphetamine, whereas Ritalin is methylphenidate, a completely different drug entirely." No. Methyplphenidate is as different from methamphetamine as methamphetamine is from amphetamine, which is to say that yes they're chemically different, but have similar effects that are different in the margins, like MDMA and 2CB, for example. "The real difference between Adderall and "street meth" has more to do with the means of ingestion (smoked vs oral) than the actual chemical compounds themselves." Which is exactly what I said.
    • 12y ago
  • spiritplumber 12y ago
    I used to be for full legalization, then had to deal with one of my employees being on meth. Being the big soppy that I am, I didn't fire her immediately and tried to help her get out of it. I figured that showing her some of the joys of life might do, but it didn't. I got her a new laptop, and she sold it to buy meth. At least she had the creance of formatting it, so eventually I got back the Steam credit. I got her an electronics kit, and she sold it to buy meth. I got her a small sailboat (only cost me $400 on craigslist, but I spent quite a few hours getting her seaworthy again) and she crashed it on the first outing after declaring that she had to come back to get a fix. Eventually I told her to leave when I discovered that she was stealing from the "go to rat shack and grab a bag of resistors" prepaid card. (Full disclosure: I don't do drugs because my brain chemistry is all over the place already, but am in favor of legalizing weed and shrooms - declaring an organism illegal only takes legitimity away from laws, and there are no hyperconcentration issues that way)
    • Zigurd 12y ago
      Did they refuse treatment?
      • spiritplumber 12y ago
        Yes.
    • pcthrowaway 12y ago
      What the heck does this have to do with legalization? Your employee's performance was presumably suffering because of their addiction, and in any event, theft from your employer is grounds for dismissal. Your employee was not any less addicted due to the criminalization of drugs.
      • spiritplumber 12y ago
        Meth is extremely addictive and should be hard to get a hold of, is all. If you have a better solution please share it. Getting stoned on weekends is fine, but I got to see the whole "faces of meth" before and after thing in person over a year, and it was not pretty.
• ramblerman 12y ago
  Legalize drugs in group A but keep group B illegal is subjective and counterproductive to the drug legalisation movement. You have to realize the big picture, which is that there will always be a fringe of society doing the worst drugs available. Accepting that and coming up with alternative solutions like just giving them their drugs in controlled environments can be far cheaper for society. It's the same as prostitution, it will always exist. Either underground or above ground.
  • adrusi 12y ago
    Drugs like analgesics are especially dangerous though. There will always be people who turn to analgesics to relieve the pain of everyday life. People will turn to heroin or oxycodone to escape from the sorrow following the loss of a loved one, and it will work --- at first. Then they develop an addiction, and a tolerance, until they get to a point where the drug no longer relieves the pain of everyday life, only the pain of not having the drug. In order for legalization to be effective, the legal drugs have to be equally potent, equally priced, and easily accessible. The fear of associating with a toxic culture, and of being arrested is part of what prevents more people suffering loss and other stress from turning to analgesics, I fear that the legalization of such drugs would result in more people addicted, albeit with a somewhat more manageable addiction. I think I still support full legalization, but it's much easier to legalize low addiction substances than the "bad drugs".
    • MichaelGG 12y ago
      What's wrong with being "addicted"? You talk as if there was zero benefit to the user of opiates after they reach a certain point. Apart from the stigmatization of addiction as an intrinsically bad thing, where's the harm? Outside of legal and financial issues, which society has self-inflicted? Where's the evidence that users derive no more value once addicted? Users can " stay well " with less euphoric opiates, yet choose not to. If all they're taking the drug for is to clear the pain of withdrawal, why not prefer simpler, longer-lasting opiates? People are treated with terrible shit like Haldol, lithium, and Zoloft, but we don't mock those users, calling the medication a toxic addiction and an escape. Even when those medications are very damaging to the body (lithium requiring regular checkups to make sure it hasn't actually accumulated to toxic levels). Those users don't get stigmatized beyond being mentally ill in the first place. In fact, the opposite is heard, with "he's off his meds again", or stories of responsible users that reliably take their medication.
• dave_sullivan 12y ago
  >> Keeping drugs under ground and in the shadows funds Mexican drug cartels and puts the lives of millions at risk >> I'm still against legalizing the worst drugs like meth and heroin... These statements are incompatible. The "worst" drugs are all sold in massive quantity by drug dealers. Psychedelics afaik have never been a big money maker. If you want to essentially defund businesses that settle disputes with chainsaws, vats of acid, and the taped torture deaths of your friends and family, you'll need to legalize the use and sale of all the drugs.
  • xalloc 12y ago
    I doubt Mexican drug cartels will suddenly become any nicer when confronted with competition from legal businesses. Whatever they are doing now, what's going to stop them from continuing to do it? Obviously not the police.
    • readerrr 12y ago
      Lack of demand.
      • xalloc 12y ago
        If a few owners of a legal pot shops end up in a vats of acid, demand might return quickly. I'm not stating that this will happen, I'm just sceptical of the idea that criminal organizations will just quit and go home just because we legalize the sale of drug X.
        • mattmaroon 12y ago
          Did you ever see the Sopranos episode where they tried to shake down a Starbucks? The legal pot shop owners will eventually be CVS, Walgreens, etc. There's nobody to dip in acid.
          • xalloc 12y ago
            > The legal pot shop owners will eventually be CVS, Walgreens, etc. I find your assuredness amazing. The truth of the matter is that nobody has the slightest idea how the legalization of cannabis is going to play out. The coming few years are going to be very interesting. Your prediction is that pot shops will end up on High Street. My prediction is that pot shops well end up in poor neighbourhoods.
• snarfy 12y ago
  It's a slippery slope to pick one drug as OK and another as not. Putting substances into your own body should not be illegal, regardless of the substance. We would do a lot better if we focused on education, addiction, and rehab than focusing on prohibition.
  • stereosteve 12y ago
    As things stand today, drugs need to be whitelisted one at a time, and this campaign focuses on two drugs that are safe and could have real benefits for many people. Incremental changes are the only ones with any chance for success. I myself used to see it as a "slippery slope", but many laws and rules exist as gradients. Using "slippery slope" is reductive - it forces everything to black and white.
    • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      If one of your goals is to cripple the thriving black market and all of its accompanying ills (mainly violence) then you can't continue with prohibition because it allows the black market to continue to thrive by generating scarcity. Drug prohibition has been poisonous to social harmony, civil rights, and the rule of law since its inception. It was never a good idea; and it is time to admit that and move forward.
    • escape_goat 12y ago
      I am relaying what I have learned as an experienced layperson, but I think you must say that these drugs are "relatively safe". Putting chemicals with noticeable medical effects into your body is something that is rarely 'safe' in an absolute sense. Many drugs can be used safely, but there are very few drugs that cannot be used dangerously. There are even medicines that cannot be used safely that are nonetheless used in situations where they offer better odds than the alternative. All drugs are either excreted renally (by the kidney) or metabolized (and possibly excreted) by the liver. Both of these can cause damage to the organ involved if the cumulative load of chemicals that need processing exceeds safe limits; the former is especially serious. In some cases with the latter, there can be cascading consequences due to the toxic nature of the metabolic products (as is dramatically illustrated by the metabolization of methanol). This is why recreational drug use poses a quandary for regulation. If one is placed in the position of being responsible for determining that a substance is "safe enough" for unregulated use, it is very hard to determine a standard for making that decision. Ethanol, for instance, is clearly not "safe enough" for unregulated use. It is toxic, addictive, socially destructive, and causes thousands of deaths a year. Articulating a standard whereby one should, on one's authority, permit that people should be able to get themselves killed using some chemical one has never heard of: this is a difficult task. A regulatory structure that leans too heavily on authority --- rather than precedent, tests of merit, and community consensus decisions, for instance --- is destined to produce extremely conservative results. I think that what these people are doing is great, and it is possibly a huge boon to large areas of psychiatric, neurochemical, and psychological research. It is clear at this point that some traditionally 'recreational' psychotropic drugs can have therapeutic effects in some situations. This will allow researchers to develop concrete evidence about specific protocols. However, I am not sure that this is a first case for stepwise liberalization of drug policies: these are drugs that are medically interesting because of their specific effects, rather than due to the misrecognition of their actual harm. In my opinion, North American society is still at a point where we are just beginning to discuss marijuana seriously in term of harm, and the meaning of noticeable psychedelic & sensual effects are being mooted. There is already a cultural framework available for understanding and accepting recreational drug use, but it needs a lot of poking, prodding, and testing before it will be adapted by society at large. In order for drug policy liberalization to occur, there would need to be significant structural changes in policy, regulatory bodies, societal doctrines of use, and the social systems that deal with the social consequences of drug use, self-medication for dysphoric personal experiences, and non-self-supporting individuals. For the record, have used and did enjoy psilocybin: based purely on the subjective experience, would use again, but it would be medically unadvisable for me at this time.
• dethstar 12y ago
  El Chapo said he wouldnt be what he was without the help of Mr Obama. I dont have a source to cite right now but i remember that on the news